Talk:Murder of Seth Rich/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Reliable Sources for Seth Rich as DNC Email Wikileaker

Actually the probability of Seth Rich as the Wikileaker, is not proof that Seth Rich was murdered by the DNC, which I deem unlikely. But there is good evidence that Seth Rich was the probable Wikileaker, for at least some of which there are reliable sources -- not that there is absolute proof, but enough to merit erasing the slur word "conspiracy theory" on this POV.

1) SR had motive as a supporter of Bernie Sanders (both of same ethno-religous background) in that the DNC was exposed as favoring Hillary in the primaries.

2) SR was involved with computers himself and could have had access to the DNC computers, which could contain so simple an email password as PASSWORD.

3) Ed Butowsky was officially helping the Rich family in the investigation. Butowsky reports that he told the Riches that it was Seth Rich and his computer expert brother Aaron who had done the leaking, and that the Riches acknowledged the truth of that.

4) William Binney, a man with US intelligence experience gave a technical argument that the DNC data was taken by physical access to the computer and not by internet hack.

5) Assange himself pointed to Seth Rich as their source, a pointing which Mueller acknowledged. Assange also denied Russia as the source.

6) Seymour Hersh, respected journalist made a report.

7) Unrespected Kim Dotcom made some hints.

So far as I know, there has been no serious examination by any authorities of the possibility that it was Seth Rich who leaked and not Russia who hacked. The computer(s) were denied to the FBI and given to a privately DNC hired firm CrowdStrike, upon whose claims much of the Russia theory has been based -- no federal agency got a hold of the DNC computer(s). (PeacePeace (talk) 03:25, 26 April 2019 (UTC))

We are only supposed to use what the consensus of reliable sources say and avoid WP:OR. Many "theories" have very little due WP:WEIGHT. Let's try to avoid WP:SYNTH. DN (talk) 03:29, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

More than a dozen US intelligence agencies concluded that it was the Russians. Repeating conspiracy points that are debunked by reliable sources cited in the article doesn't make them worthwhile for consideration as additions to the article. Seth Rich had been dead for several days before the Russians sent wikileaks the emails and being a young white male does not make him a Bernie supporter. Opcnup (talk) 23:40, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

No proof of "false claims"

The article is intentionally biased and not comprehensive and with unsurprising blather. However, that, like the article itself, is an opinion. My edit recommendation is on this particular phrase used under "Conspiracy Theories". As such:

"Right-wing conspiracy theories began circulating in the days following Rich's death,[66][67][68] including false claims that his murder was connected to the DNC email leak of 2016,[3]"

The horrible and unsupportable claim here is the use of the word "false". It's way to obvious and to easy to debunk. The article itself acknowledged that there is no proof as to who or why he was killed. So how is it possible to already know that the claims are "false" unless you, the author of the article, was the one who committed the murder? Sorry. That kind of intelligence is beneath you and the public. People make claims all the time. In the sentence itself, you said they were theories. Claims are by nature, theories. What makes the theory "false" is proof. You can't prove it's false unless you have proof of why it was committed and who committed it. The fact that the word "false" was inserted is proof of one thing though. It's proof that the article is biased.

Now, I think I know what your reply may be. You might refer back to an earlier quote involving alleged email sent to WikiLeaks days after his death. That is quite irrelevant when compared to your comprehensive conclusion, that the 'false' claims that "his murder was connected to the DNC email leak of 2016". Why irrelevant? Because you make too big a claim yourself. Whether he was or was not the leaker doesn't mean his death wasn't connected to the email leak. He may have been the leaker, or he may not have been, but a couple other possibilities are that someone may have considered him the leaker, or he may have known the leaker. Or some other angle. Not that those theories are true either. The point is that you don't know and can't prove it and therefore the use of the word "false" is false and illogical and not presently provable.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:189:c47f:9010:d4ab:ea55:806a:6194 (talk) 04:46, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

First off, it doesn't matter what you or I think. What do reliable sources say? They say the claims are false. Second, there is zero evidence for any connection between the DNC hack and Rich's death and a lot of evidence against it. That means it's false by any useful definition of the word. Otherwise no rumors or claims could ever be considered "false"--for instance, your baseless speculation. FatGandhi (talk) 13:41, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Two sources that the claims are false, Factcheck.org and Politfact, use the terms unsubstantiated and baseless, but do not use the term false. Only Snopes uses the term false. TFD (talk) 15:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Politfact rated the claim "Pants on fire" which is actually one step below "false" on their rating scale. Factcheck calls it a "conspiracy theory," which means that it is false. Maybe the sources could be updated. Here's the New York Times from last month: "In statements beginning that summer, Mr. Assange and WikiLeaks 'implied falsely' that Mr. Rich had been the source of the emails, the special counsel’s report said." I don't think we need metaphysical certainty to say that the claim that Seth Rich was murdered because of the DNC leaks is false.FatGandhi (talk) 15:18, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

The 'implied falsely' in the NYT artile is actually a direct quote from the Mueller Report. All I am saying is that Wikipedia articles should report information in the same way as reliable sources. When we misrepresent sources, it detracts from the credibility of the narrative that you think the article should support. TFD (talk) 17:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

There is a difference between saying there is no known evidence of a connection and saying that we know there is no connection. We should be careful to maintain that distinction. There is also a difference between saying that someone else said something and saying it ourselves. It is hypothetically possible for a fringe conspiracy theory to be correct. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:27, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

All reliable sources have treated it as an absurdity, therefore it is false, whether or not anyone is ever convicted of the murder. By definition there's no such thing as a fringe theory that should be taken seriously, and conversations like this one should be beneath Wikipedia's dignity. Geogene (talk) 03:55, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

You still have not explained why we should not use the phrasing in reliable sources. Compare with the Meuller Report article, which says "the investigation did not establish that the campaign "coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities."" Well obviously if no evidence was found, then the claim is false, but sources do not phrase it that way. TFD (talk) 16:42, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Think about it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance#Absence_of_evidence I do so wish that people who don't know logic were not allowed to edit WP. Slyfox4908 (talk) 05:09, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

And I wish brand-new editors would take the time -- it doesn't take long -- to acquaint themselves with Wikipedia's standards of evidence and inclusion instead of parachuting in and going by what think sounds good to themselves. --Calton | Talk 05:22, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

New Reports

Seth was the source of the leaks according to investigators. Its time we remove false conspiracy theories now. Heldjohn (talk) 22:54, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Cite reliable sources, please. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:26, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

"according to investigators". Investigators? Where are they from? Who do they work for? What are their qualifications? Where has this been reported? What is the source or what are the sources?

And "remove false conspiracy theories"? Well, the following sources - Reuters News Service, CNN, Infowars, and the Washington Times - all state that claims about Seth Rich's supposed involvement in the leaks are false.

• Reuters news service in its report about a 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan's decision
• CNN
• Jerome Corsi's retraction on Infowars
• Washington Times' retraction.

So. The article's present information is truthful, factual, and verifiable. Seth Rich was not the source of the leaks. Are there any reliable sources for the claims/assertions about these supposed "New Reports"? No? Didn't think so. Shearonink (talk) 23:32, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Julian Assange nodding

The small little tidbit of info pertaining to Assange "nodding" needs to be removed. It's very clear that Assange was nodding to the interviewer, but due to a lag (consistent in the rest of the video), it appears that he nodded to the claim presented. The source itself is unbound and clearly open to interpretation (I know, this applies to me too). It should be worded to something else, such as "When asked directly whether Rich was a source, Assange said "we don't comment on who our sources are".Letmejustcorrectthatforyou (talk) 09:21, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

add Rohrabacher ?

In a phone interview with Yahoo News, Rohrabacher said his goal during the meeting was to find proof for a widely debunked conspiracy theory: that WikiLeaks’ real source for the DNC emails was not Russian intelligence agents, as U.S. officials have since concluded, but former DNC staffer Seth Rich, who was murdered on the streets of Washington in July 2016 in what police believe was a botched robbery.

per Rohrabacher confirms he offered Trump pardon to Assange for proof Russia didn't hack DNC email by Michael Isikoff Yahoo News February 20, 2020 X1\ (talk) 22:39, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 2 June 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) buidhe 20:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

---

Murder of Seth Rich → Death of Seth Rich – As of May 2020, no one has been convicted of murder Jax 0677 (talk) 18:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I think I like "Killing of Seth Rich" better? But I agree that murder is a legal term and it hasn't been adjudicated. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Per Wikipedia:COMMONNAME and Wikipedia:NOTCENSORED. Plus, where is the BLP violation? There is no suspect for his murder.Casprings (talk) 19:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Also matches the name in Murder of Tupac Shakur and Murder of XXXTentacion. I would note both articles have possible suspects.Casprings (talk) 20:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose As of May 2020, no one has been convicted of murder. So? --Calton | Talk 19:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Calton. Geogene (talk) 21:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Casprings and WP:RS. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. As there is no identified suspect, there are no BLP concerns, so I think the current title is permissible. But if a suspect is ever identified and charged, the title should definitely be changed. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Murder of Seth Rich → Death of Seth Rich since the form "Death of..." lacks specificity and is used for all manner of general historical events, such as Death of Ludwig van Beethoven or celebrity deaths, such as Death of Jimi Hendrix. I would, however, support Murder of Seth Rich → Shooting of Seth Rich if consensus were to skew towards acceptance of such a main header form. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 02:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The absense of a named suspect does not preclude the Wiki from saying he was murdered. Did he fire a gun into his own back? ValarianB (talk) 13:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support Killing of Seth Rich. Clearly unlawfully killed, but without a conviction we cannot say whether it was murder or not. How about manslaughter? -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per the opposes above, especially WP:COMMONNAME. Shearonink (talk) 16:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Even if a person is convicted of manslaughter in the death of another, one still phrases it as "they were murdered" when discussing the victim. It isn't "they were manslaughtered". ValarianB (talk) 16:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

One certainly does not refer to someone killed by manslaughter as "murdered" unless one is ignorant of the law; one simply refers to them as "killed". Murder is a specific legal term. Unlawful killing does not equate to murder. On Wikipedia we usually use "killing of Foo" unless someone has actually been convicted of murder. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Can you cite a policy for that? Geogene (talk) 18:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

No policy, but certainly consensus. See Talk:Murder of Tessa Majors#Requested move 2 June 2020, for instance. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

The relevant policy is WP:COMMONNAME, and the consensus last time was to keep it here. Geogene (talk) 22:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I've also had a look at the discussion linked to above. That situation is different than this one, because identifiable people have been charged with that crime, and the requested move is based solely on the fear that calling that crime a murder would be a BLP violation on the people accused. That is wrong, but it doesn't even apply in this case, because no suspects have been identified. Geogene (talk) 23:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

One certainly does not refer to someone killed by manslaughter as "murdered" unless one is ignorant of the law One certainly does, unless one is ignorant of the English language. Also, this article has nothing to do with he conditions at Tessa Majors, you can't apply a one-size-fits-all solution to this. 16:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)ValarianB (talk)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Seth Rich family subpoena for Julian Assange about DNC leak

"A U.S. federal judge has asked the U.K. to assist in facilitating the testimony of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange in a civil suit against Fox News brought by the parents of slain Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich." Where is it? 2A00:1370:812C:79E7:CD86:CF6A:828A:2620 (talk) 17:48, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Extensive new article

Rolling Stone just published an indepth feature on the Seth Rich case, if anyone wants to compare it to the article to see if there is any new information to be incorporated from it. Schazjmd (talk) 23:18, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

December 9 2020 TheGatewayPundit News about Seth Rich's computer's hard drive.

<BLP-violating garbage removed>

The Gateway Pundit is a garbage site I wouldn't trust to tell me if the Sun rose this morning -- and Wikipedia editors overwhelmingly agree, as it's been marked as unusable. So no, their latest conspiracy theory isn't going into the article, period/full stop. --Calton | Talk 12:47, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I didn't use that material to edit the article. Rather, I used that material to demonstrate how Wikipedia has been taken over by biased thugs who want to conceal news from the public. 71.36.99.61 (talk) 19:08, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

"Backpedaled" is not Encyclopedic

"After Wheeler asserted links between Rich and Wikileaks in a Fox affiliate interview on May 15, 2017—an assertion he later backpedaled from"

To be included in an encyclopedia, I think the word needs to be made of firmer stuff, like "retracted". Or additional information needs to be included, to give the Reader a clearer idea of exactly what the change was, i.e. from "x" to "y". There's so much room for interpretation that this word is virtually meaningless. Instead of being 3 deep-state agents, there were only 2 deep-state agents could be an example of "backpedaling" that still retains the idea that the person believes "deep state" agents were involved. Or it might have been a complete refutation of the theory, i.e. "Well I thought it was x, y and z, but now that I've had time to reconsider it, I don't believe any of that was the case." When describing a conspiracy theory, the standard for language needs to be "tighter" and not more loose, in my opinion. As I see it, options include a) change the word to something more substantive, b) add details to describe the exact nature of the "backpedaling", or c) remove the statement entirely as it is extraneous and not encyclopedic.2605:6000:6FC0:25:70F7:DBF:A3F2:E86D (talk) 04:03, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Judge Orders Twitter To Unmask FBI Impersonator Who Set Off Seth Rich Conspiracy

I'm not sure where this belongs, but it should be covered:

• Judge Orders Twitter To Unmask FBI Impersonator Who Set Off Seth Rich Conspiracy
• Twitter Must Unmask User Tied to Seth Rich Murder Conspiracy

Valjean (talk) 02:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

"Right wing conspiracy theory"

I won't edit the article without consensus, but it seems clear that the conspiracy theories are predominately from the right – Anne drew 18:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

References

@MJV479 @Geogene – Anne drew 18:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@Geogene The conspiracy theories being right wing is of the least concern, what is fact is that the source does not make this claim, simple as that! The term "right wing" or any similar terms is not mentioned once in the source! Stop making false claims! We can all see they're not true just by reading the article! The fact this even has to be discussed is ridiculous, you shouldn't let POV pushers have their way! MJV479 (talk) 22:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Finally I see you put a source that actually makes this claim, isn't it easier to just do that than to say an untruth thinking people will believe you? MJV479 (talk) 22:51, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

That source was there in the body of the article, and had been there all along. Not everything in the Lead has to be sourced, as long as the same information is sourced in the body. Geogene (talk) 22:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Now theres the question, is the source you chose, (Vox) a credible, unbiased, and reliable source? MJV479 (talk) 19:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

MJV479, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard is the forum for asking this question and WP:RSP provides a summary of past discussions of popular sources. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:12, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

@Liz That burden is on the provider of the source, not on me. MJV479 (talk) 13:48, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with Vox, and now that I'm looking into it, I've found multiple sources that describe these conspiracy theories as being "far right". Maybe the article wording should be stronger. Geogene (talk) 18:50, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Ed Butowsky parentheses

@MJV479 and Calton: Discuss this edit here please.

MJV479, FWIW, Calton did not break 1RR but you did. Please be more cautious. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:36, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2021

under the Lawsuit against Fox News section there was a misspelling of "Spicer" (as in Sean Spicer) Please change "and his meeting with Splicer" to "and his meeting with Spicer" 118.208.211.150 (talk) 13:19, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done Bennv3771 (talk) 14:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

RfC at Julian Assange article

There is an RfC at the Julian Assange article relating to whether to include his criminal history in the infobox. SPECIFICO talk 18:00, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Please see this discussion of Assange's involvement

At Assange bio talk.[1]. The disputed article edit is here. SPECIFICO talk 21:12, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

FBI

A post from Dec. 9, 2020 by Attorney Ty Clevenger begins with this sentence: "After three years of claiming that it could not find any records about murdered Democratic National Committee employee Seth Rich, the FBI admitted today that it has thousands of pages of information about him, further admitting that it has custody of his laptop." (https://lawflog.com/?p=2410) This should be evaluated. The article in its current form lends support to ideas about a forgery of FBI files. In this case, however, the files appear to be very real. Niemandsbucht (talk) 14:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

We cannot add this information until it receives coverage in reliable sources, i.e., mainstream media per reliable sources policy. The source btw doesn't say that the FBI has thousands of pages about Seth Rich, but that he is mentioned in a number of documents that contain thousands of pages. It's not surprising that Rich would be mentioned in passing since among other things Trump asked the FBI to look into the case. It's interesting that the FBI has Rich's laptop, but there is no information about when and why they obtained it. It could be part of the review Trump asked them to undertake. We have to wait for this information to become available and covered in mainstream media. Wikipedia isn't cutting edge journalism, but merely reflects what mainstream journalists and academics write. If they ignore information, it doesn't get put into Wikipedia articles. TFD (talk) 16:14, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

The FBI attorney's email also makes it clear that those thousands of pages are not from Seth Rich's private laptop, and that the FBI hasn't retrieved any files in a viewable format from it. The email also doesn't say how long the FBI has been in possession of it. It was returned to the family by MPDC, as far as I remember. The FBI may have obtained it from the family when they were sued by Clevenger's client under FOIA. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:23, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

"A post from Dec. 9, 2020 by Attorney Ty Clevenger" has no relevance to Wikipedia. "This should be evaluated." -- not by Wikipedia editors; that's disallowed original research or synthesis. "In this case, however, the files appear to be very real." -- no, really, they don't. -- Jibal (talk) 04:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

To add to article

To add to this article: on July 9, 2021 the FBI released 137 pages of documents (which are extremely heavily redacted) about the murder of Seth Rich, at the following link:

https://vault.fbi.gov/seth-rich/seth-rich-part-01-of-01/view

173.88.246.138 (talk) 06:05, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

RfC you may wish to review

There is an RfC related to Seth Rich and the Russian hacking at the Julian Assange talk page. Participation invited. SPECIFICO talk 18:18, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 26 March 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved With 11 opposes and no supports in just under three days, this page will obviously NOT be moved per WP:SNOW... (non-admin closure) --Quiz shows 18:26, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

---

Murder of Seth Rich → Killing of Seth Rich – Per WP:DEATHS. There have been no murder convictions on this case, so it's inappropriate to label it a murder. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:32, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose WP:DEATHS says if there is a common name we should use it. In this case it is murder. WP:DEATHS in any case is not a policy or guideline and has not been vetted by the community. There's very little doubt that it was a murder, that is, that the assailant had criminal intent, and none has been expressed in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 03:00, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per TFD and WP:COMMONNAME, same as last time we discussed this, in 2020. And the same as when it was discussed before that, in 2017. And trout Iamreallygoodatcheckers. Geogene (talk) 05:23, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose The preponderance of reliable sources describe this as a murder, either in the headline, or in the body of the story. When "murdered" is not used, its close synonym "slain" is frequently used instead. Cullen328 (talk) 05:33, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose "Kill" is a neutral word, whereas "murder" indicates criminal intent. This was clearly a murder, in contrast to another place where we say "kill": Killing of Ma'Khia Bryant, where a police officer shot her to prevent her from stabbing another girl she was attacking with a knife. This was ruled a justifiable homicide and the officer was not charged. This was also not a racially-motivated killing but a tragic event. -- Valjean (talk) 18:12, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. If there were any known suspects, then I would support the move, as the title does presume guilt in the absence of any conviction for murder. However, in this case, since there is no known suspect and since this is most commonly described as a murder, the current title is fine. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:34, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Agree with The Four Deuces. WP:DEATHS is an explanatory supplement and not WP:Policy or a guideline. The WP:Policy of COMMONNAME indicates that if there is a common name, then that common name is what takes precedence. A Google search for "Killing of Seth Rich" gives 2500 results, "Murder of Seth Rich" gives 14,000 - "murder" in this case does seem to be more common. Shearonink (talk) 04:29, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose even as a supporter of WP:DEATHS myself. WP:DEATHS doesn't apply if the incident is universally considered a murder by sources long before the conviction could be attained. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 05:06, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:DEATHS is ridiculous. And murder has nothing to do with convictions or trials. Dimadick (talk) 08:15, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Call a spade a spade. This was a criminal act, recognized universally as a murder. This ridiculous dance of first titling obvious criminal homicides as "Killing" and then, finally, if a suspect is found and a jury returns a verdict, only then proposing a rename to "Murder" is one of the more tediously pedantic practices on Wikipedia. Just follow COMMONNAME already! -- Veggies (talk) 20:11, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
• Weak oppose per Rreagan007's reasoning. If there were any suspects, then BLP considerations should indeed take precedence over COMMONNAME and the name changed to avoid implications. However, as long as there is no living person who could be impacted by the current title, COMMONNAME should prevail. Regards SoWhy 08:24, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Ridiculous. He didn't shoot himself n the back 2 times. The absence of an identified perpetrator does not invalidate the nature of the death, which is a murder. ValarianB (talk) 13:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Attempted Robbery

Hi, one detail I'm curious about that the article is unfortunately very vague about is, how the police did determine that Mr. Rich's death was probably a robbery that went wrong? I mean, if the authorities never caught the perpetrator who killed Mr. Rich, or at least identified the person, who committed the act, how were they able to make a determination with regard to the question why that person, whom they never identified and know nothing about, killed him? From a layman's perspective that claim looks at first glance like speculation or conjecture. So, did the police ever explain, why they are highly sure that the reason, why he was killed (or the circumstances under which he was killed), was a robbery gone wrong? I don't doubt that it was (in case anyone wants to accuse me of anything unsavoury), I'd just be curious to learn the basis of facts or the rationale on which they based the issuing of the rather definitive sounding claim "i was very likely a robbery gone wrong". Was it that the angle and distance from which he was shot was typical of a robbery that went differently than planned and very untypical of a targetted killing, or something like that? As I said, I would be eager to learn, how the criminological experts reached their conclusion without knowing anything about the person who comitted the act. If anyone knows newspaper articles etc. that cover that aspect and can integrate that IMHO salient information I'd appreciate it.2001:9E8:263B:4900:34F6:518A:802E:9CB4 (talk) 19:17, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I suggest you search the article for "robbery". Use Control-F. Then read the sources. Unless you have reliable sources that say otherwise, that's the best we've found. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:25, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Very good point. Good job staying neutral so they didn’t remove

your comment for “misinformation” or something else. 2600:1700:4BE0:4A30:70BB:2727:148C:9C37 (talk) 06:01, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

The police statements are quoted in Factcheck.org, which is used as a source in the article.[2] That's all the information currently available to answer your question. TFD (talk) 14:13, 2 July 2023 (UTC)