News of the World phone-hacking whistleblower found dead

Green Back

"Death of Sean Hoare – who was first named journalist to allege Andy Coulson knew of hacking – not being treated as suspicious

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/18/news-of-the-world-sean-hoare

Hertfordshire police would not confirm his identity, but the force said in a statement: "At 10.40am today [Monday 18 July] police were called to Langley Road, Watford, following the concerns for the welfare of a man who lives at an address on the street. Upon police and ambulance arrival at a property, the body of a man was found. The man was pronounced dead at the scene shortly after."

Doctor David Kelly anyone?

This scandal stunk already but has gone off the scale. Is the NWO so brazen?

stuar

Spot on mate, unexplained death, 2 top met men gone today also.

David Kelly part 2.

Green Back

Interesting titbit from an Irish perspective on this 'scandal':

"The Met has also confirmed that the former editor of the Irish edition of the NOTW, Alex Marunchak, also worked for the force on a freelance basis.

They said he worked as a Ukrainian interpreter once in 1997 and six times in 1999 as well as on two translation assignments.

They said that they "recognise that this may cause concern" and that the police's language service is investigating."

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Phone-Hacking-Scandal-John-Yates-Resigns-As-Met-Police-Assistant-Commissioner-Watchdog-Investigate/Article/201107316032564?lpos=UK_News_Second_UK_News_Article_Teaser_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_16032564_Phone-Hacking_Scandal%3A_John_Yates_Resigns_As_Met_Police_Assistant_Commissioner%2C_Watchdog_Investigate

Would you put anything pass the Met? Cetainly wouldnt trust them to investigate themselves :cool:

The whole British establishment is up to their neck in this one.
Wonder what's round the corner, it's be one shock after another.

Jonny7

Whether this is suicide or not, the general public is v interested in this case, so this will be extremely high profile.
Edit: the more I read the dodgier this looks
Decent live updates on the telegraph - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/phone-hacking/8617707/News-of-the-World-phone-hacking-live.html

Basically NWO would not print a story until they had "proof", and this became their modus operandi in many cases - to hack phones to obtain the information for their stories.

So effectively, they've been outing the truth - using illegal methods.

Scandalous? yes, Life-threatening? hardly
(reaction seems to be more serious with this death)

Interesting anyway. Newscorps competitors will def be milking this for a long time. Murdoch has a lot of enemies inc. those in UK Gov (Vince Cable, etc)

Mahatma coat

Very interesting indeed

See how they planted the seed by Firing him for 'Drink & Drug' offences smear.

I'd be interested to see how this one is passed off as a suicide, its as if they take it for granted that no one will give a Sh1t anymore

humanji

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Very interesting indeed

See how they planted the seed by Firing him for 'Drink & Drug' offences smear.

I'd be interested to see how this one is passed off as a suicide, its as if they take it for granted that no one will give a Sh1t anymore

Well in fairness, he fully admitted to having drink and drug problems, so it's not exactly a stretch to think that he could have been fired because of it.

It's remarkable timing for him to die though. I'm not going to automatically assume it's anything but accidental until more info comes out, but I could well imagine some might want him out of the way before more court cases come rolling along.

That said though, will his death make much of a difference? Wasn't he the first public person to speak out, but not the actual first? I was under the impression that there were quite a number of informants.

Mahatma coat

ah yeah but the Lad was a Showbiz journo. its hardly likely that he developed a drink or drug problem overnight, twas just a convienient brush to tar him with

humanji

I don't know, sounds like he was just trying to fit in with the showbiz life.

digme

humanji wrote: »

I'm not going to automatically assume it's anything but accidental until more info comes out, but I could well imagine some might want him out of the way before more court cases come rolling along.

What do you need a video of the murder?

Boo Radley

digme wrote: »

What do you need a video of the murder?

Well that's taking the piss a bit isn't it? I think something more than speculation is what humanji might be looking for.

Emiko

humanji wrote: »

Well in fairness, he fully admitted to having drink and drug problems, so it's not exactly a stretch to think that he could have been fired because of it.

It's remarkable timing for him to die though. I'm not going to automatically assume it's anything but accidental until more info comes out, but I could well imagine some might want him out of the way before more court cases come rolling along.

That said though, will his death make much of a difference? Wasn't he the first public person to speak out, but not the actual first? I was under the impression that there were quite a number of informants.

I read something last week about him saying he had more info to release.

I'll try and find it.

...this article.

steelcityblues

If you go to his Wiki page, it provides a link to the David Kelly page.

laughter189

does anyone know the cause of death ?

steelcityblues

laughter189 wrote: »

does anyone know the cause of death ?

NWO!

Emiko

laughter189 wrote: »

does anyone know the cause of death ?

He probably died of a sudden heart attack induced by accidental cocaine overdose induced by a plastic bag full of cocaine accidentally held over his face.



(i saw this on reddit, and probably shouldn't have laughed, but i did)

1966

You couldn't make this up.
Everyday it gets more intriguing.

fryup

How long will it be before Tony Blair is mentioned in all of this, himself and Alister Campbell used the media for their own gains big time.

digme

Boo Radley wrote: »

Well that's taking the piss a bit isn't it? I think something more than speculation is what humanji might be looking for.

The piss take is him thinking it wasn't anything but murder.
That's just asinine.

Penn

digme wrote: »

The piss take is him thinking it wasn't anything but murder.
That's just asinine.

It's asinine to require more information or evidence than just motive before jumping to conclusions? We know virtually nothing about this death yet. We have nothing to base a full conclusion or even full speculation on yet with regards the cause of death.

I agree, the motive is there, and there are some very powerful people involved in this. But I'd rather wait for more evidence or facts to come out before crying murder.

digme

Barrington wrote: »

It's asinine to require more information or evidence than just motive before jumping to conclusions? We know virtually nothing about this death yet. We have nothing to base a full conclusion or even full speculation on yet with regards the cause of death.

I agree, the motive is there, and there are some very powerful people involved in this. But I'd rather wait for more evidence or facts to come out before crying murder.

Some people spend too much time in classrooms.

Sparticle

digme wrote: »

Some people spend too much time in classrooms.

Some people spend too much time watching conspiracy thrillers.

It's a bit ridiculous to call it murder before all the facts are in.
Murder is rare. Deaths are not.

humanji

digme wrote: »

Some people spend too much time in classrooms.

As said above, we know nothing about it. And you've decided it was murder? On what grounds? What motive? How was it done? Who did it?

A man is dead. That's what we know. Unless you're privy to more information which none of us are and wish to share it, then I think I'll take my time in deciding what I believe happened.

humanji

Emiko wrote: »

I read something last week about him saying he had more info to release.

I'll try and find it.

...this article.

I didn't read that as him saying he had more info, but rather that a lot more will come to light as it's investigated. Which I have to agree. Just read this morning about Rebekah Brooks husband trying to get rid of a bag with a computer and files in it.

(I'm assuming you're referring to this line: "There's more to come. This is not going to go away." )

Di0genes

humanji wrote: »

I didn't read that as him saying he had more info, but rather that a lot more will come to light as it's investigated. Which I have to agree. Just read this morning about Rebekah Brooks husband trying to get rid of a bag with a computer and files in it.

(I'm assuming you're referring to this line: "There's more to come. This is not going to go away." )

According to the Guardian's Nick Davis (who is the journalist who broke the story), Sean Hoare

He made no secret of his massive ingestion of drugs. He told me how he used to start the day with "a rock star's breakfast" – a line of cocaine and a Jack Daniels – usually in the company of a journalist who now occupies a senior position at the Sun. He reckoned he was using three grammes of cocaine a day, spending about £1,000 a week. Plus endless alcohol. Looking back, he could see it had done him enormous damage. But at the time, as he recalled, most of his colleagues were doing it, too.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/18/sean-hoare-news-of-the-world?intcmp=239


Yeah I'm really struggling to see the cause of death here.

Sean had already spoken to the police and media, had been fired from his job, why on earth would anyone kill him?

Di0genes

Green Back wrote: »

Doctor David Kelly anyone?

This scandal stunk already but has gone off the scale. Is the NWO so brazen?

It resembles Doctor David Kelly in two ways

A) Both Kelly and Hoare had already gone on the record and spoken about their problems with both the Dossier, and the News of the World respectfully. Therefore there would be little to gain from murdering either of them as the canary had already sung so to speak.

he died to the day 8 years after David Kelly (18 July 2003)

I don't know why on earth that would be significant but some CTers place great truck in this nonsense as if the NWO were being run by people with Aspergers


Sorry talke corrected me it's actually the 17th of July that David Kelly died, so the scuppers that theory.

Boo Radley

digme wrote: »

The piss take is him thinking it wasn't anything but murder.
That's just asinine.

This is one of the most incredible things I've read on boards. I'm more than happy to engage anyone here in debating a theory but this is dogmatic assertion making.

Beggars belief.

profitius

Its obviously a murder. Theres a very slim possibility of it being an accidental death.

steelcityblues

The photo that was chosen of Mr. Hoare on today's Times cover was interesting - him smoking a cigarette. How many times do you see a dead person have such an unflattering photo of themselves get used in the papers and on TV?

A subtle way to convince the reader that it was a result of his former lifestyle 'catching up with him.'

Dr. Bad Touch

Di0genes wrote: »

he died to the day 8 years after David Kelly (18 July 2003)

Blatant nwo conspiracy then so, EVIL REPTILIANS!

Di0genes

steelcityblues wrote: »

The photo that was chosen of Mr. Hoare on today's Times cover was interesting - him smoking a cigarette. How many times do you see a dead person have such an unflattering photo of themselves get used in the papers and on TV?

A subtle way to convince the reader that it was a result of his former lifestyle 'catching up with him.'

Or perhaps he had such a habitual nicotine habit it was difficult to spot a photo with him not sporting a fag.

Once again

He made no secret of his massive ingestion of drugs. He told me how he used to start the day with "a rock star's breakfast" – a line of cocaine and a Jack Daniels – usually in the company of a journalist who now occupies a senior position at the Sun. He reckoned he was using three grammes of cocaine a day, spending about £1,000 a week. Plus endless alcohol. Looking back, he could see it had done him enormous damage. But at the time, as he recalled, most of his colleagues were doing it, too.

The quote again from Nick Davis the lead journalist into the investigation into the phone hacking scandal

steelcityblues

Di0genes wrote: »

Or perhaps he had such a habitual nicotine habit it was difficult to spot a photo with him not sporting a fag.

Don't remember many photos of Gerry Ryan doing a line being published, in the wake of his death. :rolleyes:

Di0genes

steelcityblues wrote: »

Don't remember many photos of Gerry Ryan doing a line being published, in the wake of his death. :rolleyes:

There's no photos of Sean "doing a line" either.

Of course Gerry Ryan being a celebrity there would be plenty of publicity and RTE press office photos to use.

Sean being a "mere" journalist means that journalist friends probably used a photo they had handy.

Honestly this is such bizarre angle to take, it's like getting angry that there's a photo of a bleary eyed Keith Richards holding a fag and saying

"him smoking a cigarette. How many times do you see a dead person have such an unflattering photo of themselves get used in the papers and on TV?

A subtle way to convince the reader that it was a result of his former lifestyle 'catching up with him

It's Keith Richards, any photo of him not holding a drink and fag has been photoshopped*


Sean Hoare lived a unhealthy lifestyle. There's not need to suggest it, his friends are stating that publicly.

Christ any man who regularly starts his day with Jack Daniels and Coke**, isn't going to be on the cover of men's health.




*this is joke, not a demand.

** Not Coke Cola

steelcityblues

Why didn't the Times use a more normal one like the below one then? Didn't stop some other outlets from doing so. I think you might be underestimating photo manipulation.

http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/MK-BN637_HOARE_DV_20110718175833.jpg

Di0genes

steelcityblues wrote: »

Why didn't the Times use a more normal one like the below one then? Didn't stop some other outlets from doing so. I think you might be underestimating photo manipulation.

http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/MK-BN637_HOARE_DV_20110718175833.jpg

And I think you're over estimating the paranoia behind sub editing.

The guy snorted drugs for breakfast. You really think of photo of him not smoking would improve our perception of him as a healthy person?

steelcityblues

Di0genes wrote: »

And I think you're over estimating the paranoia behind sub editing.

The guy snorted drugs for breakfast. You really think of photo of him not smoking would improve our perception of him as a healthy person?

Remember the imposed image of Neil Kinnock inside the light bulb, just before the 1992 election?

The average reader does not think too deeply, after all.

Di0genes

steelcityblues wrote: »

Remember the imposed image of Neil Kinnock inside the light bulb, just before the 1992 election?

That's an editorialised photograph.

Sean Hoare lived a highly unhealthy lifestyle. A photo of him smoking or not smoking isn't going to change that.

The average reader does not think too deeply, after all.

I'm not sure if you either give the average reader not enough credit, or yourself too much credit or both.

humanji

To be honest, I kind of like the photo the Times had. It gives the impression of him being an old-fashioned, hard-nosed reporter. All he's missing is a press fedora. And it looks like a staged photo, as opposed to one taken on the sly, and that would also give the impression that it's a photo of himself he wouldn't have had a problem with.

Oh, and here's the photo. I had a bit of bother trying to find it, so I thought it might save people some time if I posted it here:



But, all that said, The Times is owned by Murdock, so even if his death is not suspicious, I can well imagine the Times wouldn't be too keen in showing him in a good light.

profitius

Di0genes wrote: »

I'm not sure if you either give the average reader not enough credit, or yourself too much credit or both.

The average reader does not understand how subliminal messages work or even what they are.

Sparticle

profitius wrote: »

The average reader does not understand how subliminal messages work or even what they are.

I think you're underestimating the "average reader". Subliminal messages and their "manipulation" of the subconscious are cultural memes and have long been clichés in TV shows, books and movies.

Don't insult the public.

ed2hands

Joe Public is manipulated by the media. It's not insulting Joe to state that.

Sparticle

ed2hands wrote: »

Joe Public is manipulated by the media. It's not insulting Joe to state that.

The concept of joe public in this context is incredibly demeaning. It's existence implies the division of society into two tiers. One higher and more aware and one that can't be trusted to make it's own decisions, Sheeple if you will.

I think you'll find the majority of the public don't give two fcuks about media hype let alone the death of an insignificant drug abuser and can spot an attempt manipulation a mile away.

steelcityblues

Sparticle wrote: »

I think you're underestimating the "average reader". Subliminal messages and their "manipulation" of the subconscious are cultural memes and have long been clichés in TV shows, books and movies.

Don't insult the public.

The Murdoch rags would not have been so successful for years, if the masses saw true the BS.

ed2hands

Sparticle wrote: »

The concept of joe public in this context is incredibly demeaning. It's existence implies the division of society into two tiers. One higher and more aware and one that can't be trusted to make it's own decisions, Sheeple if you will.

Would disagree. What i meant is that we are ALL Joe Public. And awareness is paramount to understanding it. You got the wrong end of the stick.

Sparticle wrote: »

I think you'll find the majority of the public don't give two fcuks about media hype let alone the death of an insignificant drug abuser and can spot an attempt manipulation a mile away.

Don't know what to say about that. Every one of us has been manipulated by mass media in one way or another.

Sparticle

steelcityblues wrote: »

The Murdoch rags would not have been so successful for years, if the masses saw true the BS.

The masses you say! Seems like an artificial division used to make the speaker feel good about themselves.

I wager the "masses" are not as gullible as you think. The only people I see quoting the murdoch tabloids as fact are conspiracy theorists latching onto some BS report about GM or global warming.

ed2hands wrote: »

Would disagree. What i meant is that we are ALL Joe Public. And awareness is paramount to understanding it. You got the wrong end of the stick.

Ah I see. I will however say that IMO most people are aware of media hype, bias and manipulation from some media outets.

ed2hands wrote: »

Don't know what to say about that. Every one of us has been manipulated by mass media in one way or another.

I wouldn't argue against that but the point I was trying to make is that a lot of the time perceived media manipulation (E.G Why don't people care about such and such?) is just an apathetic public or inherently biased culture and that almost all people can spot attempts at manipulation(Advertisement exposure).

steelcityblues

Sparticle wrote: »

The masses you say! Seems like an artificial division used to make the speaker feel good about themselves.

I wager the "masses" are not as gullible as you think. The only people I see quoting the murdoch tabloids as fact are conspiracy theorists latching onto some BS report about GM or global warming.

Sorry, but I have lost count of the number of people who say to me: 'I only buy this for the Sport', when they damn well read the whole of the paper.

Conspiracy theorists in a conspiracy forum - never. :rolleyes:

As the poster above says, everyone has been manipulated to a degree - just hard for a lot of people to admit this to themselves.

CiaranMT

humanji wrote: »

To be honest, I kind of like the photo the Times had. It gives the impression of him being an old-fashioned, hard-nosed reporter. All he's missing is a press fedora. And it looks like a staged photo, as opposed to one taken on the sly, and that would also give the impression that it's a photo of himself he wouldn't have had a problem with.

Oh, and here's the photo. I had a bit of bother trying to find it, so I thought it might save people some time if I posted it here:

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/multimedia/archive/00181/Sean_Hoare_90465481_181365d.jpg

But, all that said, The Times is owned by Murdock, so even if his death is not suspicious, I can well imagine the Times wouldn't be too keen in showing him in a good light.

It's certainly more flattering than the picture the IT (I think?) had, and as for the red-tops...

Emiko

Barrington wrote: »

It's asinine to require more information or evidence than just motive before jumping to conclusions?

Yet that's exactly what the police were able to do.

humanji wrote: »

(I'm assuming you're referring to this line: "There's more to come. This is not going to go away." )

The part were it said he revealed info last week, and said there was more to come.

There's an ambiguity to it, that might have me worried if I had an empire to protect.

Not to mention a key prosecution witness is now dead, for the one or two claimed not to be able to see a a motive.

It's not as if anyone was ever killed to protect an empire, ever. Those who claim not to be able to recognise that, do their so-called sceptical credentials no good.

humanji

Emiko wrote: »

The part were it said he revealed info last week, and said there was more to come.

There's an ambiguity to it, that might have me worried if I had an empire to protect.

But there isn't much ambiguity to it. He said there's more to come and more is coming. The US is already investigating Murdock's media outlets now. If Hoare had more information then why would he hold on to it? Doesn't make much sense if he's already trying to bring down the empire, unless he was hoping to blackmail someone with it. But considering the media scrutiny he'd be under, he'd be found out pretty quick.

Not to mention a key prosecution witness is now dead, for the one or two claimed not to be able to see a a motive.

But it's only one out of many witnesses, many of whom seem to have more information that Hoare, and have already given it.

It's not as if anyone was ever killed to protect an empire, ever. Those who claim not to be able to recognise that, do their so-called sceptical credentials no good.

It's not out of the question that it could be a murder. I simply don't see the point in claiming that it is, without a shadow of a doubt, a murder based only on the fact that bad people have done bad things in the past.

Di0genes

Emiko wrote: »

Not to mention a key prosecution witness is now dead, for the one or two claimed not to be able to see a a motive.

He's not a key witness. He was a showbiz reporter. The story has moved onto political intrigue, police bribery, the hacking of murder victims phones.

He spoke out about the Scandal at the start but his evidence is not really important to where the story has developed.

It's not as if anyone was ever killed to protect an empire, ever. Those who claim not to be able to recognise that, do their so-called sceptical credentials no good.

The sceptical credentials are there. The journalists who broke the story who exposed the scandal are unsurprised he's dead given his incredibly unhealthy and dangerous lifestyle.

Monty Burnz

steelcityblues wrote: »

The photo that was chosen of Mr. Hoare on today's Times cover was interesting - him smoking a cigarette. How many times do you see a dead person have such an unflattering photo of themselves get used in the papers and on TV?

A subtle way to convince the reader that it was a result of his former lifestyle 'catching up with him.'

Or maybe - because of his lifestyle - there are many photos of him smoking or drinking? And his lifestyle did catch up with him? There's an element of cart-before-horse the other way around, and it only makes sense if you take for granted the conclusion you are arguing for.

Monty Burnz

profitius wrote: »

The average reader does not understand how subliminal messages work or even what they are.

I'd say they do. It's not exactly secret stuff. And surely this would be more subconscious rather than subliminal?