Tuesday, January 10, 2006

The assassination of David Rosenbaum

David Rosenbaum, a reporter and editor for the New York Times, died as a result of a head injury allegedly received when he was mugged in his upper-scale neighborhood in Washington. Problems with this:

  1. Knocking someone out and then robbing them is an extremely odd method of mugging. Unconscious victims can't give you their valuables, the mugger wastes an assault on someone who may not even have anything worth taking, the assault makes a big spectacle out of the mugging and is likely to attract people looking to help, the assault means the police are much more motivated to solve the crime, and, if you are caught, the assault means you will be likely to receive a much longer sentence. You risk turning a relatively minor matter into a murder. Muggers generally approach you from the front, show a weapon or claim to have one, and demand that valuables be turned over. It's a tried-and-true approach with a history of success.

  2. Authorities are looking for two suspicious men, seen leaving the area in a car. They have a partial plate on the car. Hit men use cars and travel in pairs. Muggers don't.

  3. There is controversy over the matter as the ambulance arrived very late. Why did it arrive late? The initial responding unit reported it as being less of a priority. Why? They thought he was drunk. Why did they think he was drunk and not the victim of a mugging? Rosenbaum was still obviously wearing his watch and wedding ring. The muggers had time to root around in his pockets for a wallet they couldn't even be sure he had, but left the obvious valuables.


David Rosenbaum was a high-level NYT journalist, not the kind of guy from whom you'd expect to get much real truth (he was no Gary Webb), but had recently (a month ago) retired from the newsroom of an organization that has a lot to hide. Was he hinting that he might reveal some of the secrets behind the odd relationship of the Times to the Bush Administration (holding stories of extreme national importance back for a year, and engaging in discussion of what news is 'fit to print'), or behind the campaign of lies told by the Times to help the Bush Administration trick the American people into the attack on Iraq?

0 comments: