This is one of those situations which may well just be impossible to unravel in a satisfactory way.
In fact, if you're clever and in intelligence, a good way to cover your tracks and generally be nefarious is to provide a reason for your desired outcome to happen. In other words, do what you can to encourage the unhinged tendencies of your target so that they might actually do it themselves or at least it will seem more plausible that they did.
It's depressing to think that I'd have to have perfect mental health and the appearance of perfect mental health to arise suspicion otherwise my suicide would be written off. This is, of course, literally impossible.
Even assuming I did, almost anything bad that happened to me prior to the murder (losing a loved one, going to prison, being unable to go home, being arrested, stories of how you mistreated your cat) could be used to push for the idea of it being a suicide on mental health grounds. If Snowden were offed tomorrow, for example, there would be a veritable chorus of believed people declaring him mentally unwell whether or not there was any clinical evidence for it.
Any additional "craziness" from my past (& most people have some) adds fuel to the fire. Any evidence that you considered suicide in the past then you're practically a write off.
The fact that even foreshadowing it by saying "I would never commit suicide" would be used as evidence that I'm crazy (because "normal" people don't do that) is truly depressing. I thought this would work but it appears it's too easily dismissed as somethihg only a kook would do because Occam's razor.
Assuming the other evidence can be dealt with quietly (videotape, autopsy, etc), state sanctioned murder of dissidents and whistleblowers this way seems fairly easy. Moreover, if you're a whistleblower or dissident with real mental health issues or god forbid have attempted it before a staged suicide is a very logical way of dealing with you. The public is primed to write it off without a second thought.
If he did, I'm sure his wife will know and will confirm this soon.
Yeah, but the thing is the state usually doesn't need to whack them.
Like here: Why would the US have had McAfee killed; what would be gained from it that couldn't just as well be gained from letting him rot in jail, be it in Spain or the US?
And please don't try the old "to silence him / suppress the Secret Truths he knew!". A) The null hypothesis is that there are no such "Secret Truths"; and B) if anything, this "suspicious" death lends more weight, not less, to his deluded ravings. (As witnessed by much of this comment thread.)
Are we still talking about McAfee here? I am coveted.
Unless they are, e.g., also head of state and government, but that’s not an issue with McAfee, though its not unheard of.
Hinged people aren't remembered for running between countries with various felony charges across borders because they think taxes are illegal in their home country while simultaneously campaigning for office there. It's not even a matter of if you believe he did or didn't do all of these, that he seemed to constantly find himself in these situations around the world is telling.
> Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem, refers to several types of arguments, some but not all of which are fallacious. Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a diversion to some irrelevant but often highly charged issue.
Seems to match the understanding I gave in my comment not anything new - "Based on the background facts from the article alone "unhinged lunatic" isn't an irrelevant insult on character which ignores the subject matter rather a relevant point of refutation that the guy was truly unhinged and that should legitimately play a strong role in considering his claims".
But since we're this far with it already might as well add some additional facts to get past why we shouldn't consider his claims at face value since we're both here:
- "McAfee wrote on Twitter that he predicted that the price of one bitcoin would jump to $500,000 within three years, and that "If not, I will eat my own dick on national television." In July 2019, he continued to defend a prediction of $1 million by the end of 2020. In January 2020, however, he stated on Twitter that his previous predictions were simply "A ruse to onboard new users", and that bitcoin had limited potential because it was "an ancient technology"." the guy constantly lied about things he peddled, or at the very least was an inconsistent storyteller.
- He wrote of himself in Belize "My fragile connection with the world of polite society has, without a doubt, been severed,” he wrote. “My attire would rank me among the worst-dressed Tijuana panhandlers. My hygiene is no better. Yesterday, for the first time, I urinated in public, in broad daylight."
- On 11 August 2020, McAfee fabricated a hoax that he was arrested in Norway during the COVID-19 pandemic, after refusing to replace a lace thong with a more effective face mask. McAfee later posted a picture of himself to Twitter with a bruised eye, claiming that it occurred during this arrest.[81] However, the photo of the alleged arrest shows an officer with the German word for "police" on their uniform, so it could not have been an arrest in Norway. The Augsburg Police later confirmed McAfee unsuccessfully attempted to enter Germany on that day, but was not arrested.
- He was known for consuming copious amounts of hard drugs and peddled bath salts for many years. Even a normally well held together person will be erratic, paranoid, and unreliable in that situation.
This makes the false assumption that the system is correct and railing against it is crazy.
> Seems to match the understanding I gave in my comment not anything new
This implies "unhinged" and "lunatic" are used in ways that describe specific and precise conditions rather than as insults, which is, frankly, horseshit.
As for the rest of your comments, they are unrelated, irrelevant, and don't characterize him in a way that is much different from the average American, even if true.
He was about to be extradited, the US Government was well on their way to making an example of him. There was no incentive to murder him.
As far as the US is concerned, you've quoted policy. I'm pretty sure that jails and prisons in the US are supposed to provide medical care, mental health care, food enough for decent health (without having maggots): There are plenty of examples of it not happening. "I didn't know they were suicidal" or "We've been short staffed, and I couldn't check on him" are easy excuses.
I mean, he did get a tattoo saying if he was found dead while in custody he had been murdered. But do go on...
AFAICS it's evidence either that he was trying to make himself seem a martyr, or that he was just generally unhinged. Both, of course, at the time he got it -- now, around the time of his death, it isn't evidence of anything at all; now it's just a bunch of fading old paint on his arm that has nothing to do with what is happening now.
But that's all it is "evidence" of. Claiming it's relevant in any way or "evidence" of anything else is like reading tealeaves, seeing deep significance in the colour of the getaway car at some bungled heist: "It was green, as in the Green Party the accused is a supporter of! So this was an act of poitically-motivated domestic terrorism! I rest my case!" -- "The defence?" -- "Your honour, my client bought that green 1992 Plymouth Omni at Honest Joe's Great Car Bargains six years ago. It was green at the time, had been ever since it was built, and my client assures me he bought it not because of the colour but because it was the cheapest car on the lot. And the reason he joined in on a plan to commit armed robbery was not political, but because he still drives that 1992 Plymouth Omni that was the cheapest car on the lot six years ago."
I consider it an "alternative possiblity" that Epstein hung himself.
Feels much, much more plausible that Epstein was silenced than that McAfee would have been. At least AFAICR I haven't seen any even remotely credible reason why anyone would have needed McAfee silenced.
I don't think Mcafee really thought things through enough to come to this conclusion.
In fact, if you have people who will believe you (either becuase of who you are or who your target is), and a beef against someone, and see a confluence of circumstances likely to lead to a place where suicide is your only way out, why wouldn’t you set them up to take the blame if it got to that point (especially if you blamed them for the situation driving in that direction, so you might feel that it was a lie in only peripheral details, but not grand narrative.)
He started doing that not long after (or maybe concurrently with) announcing he was on the run from the USG in relation to the specific charges that he was ordered to be extradited to immediately before actually committing suicide.
Is that what happened here or are people believing what they want to believe rather than striving to perceive a fact-based reality?
Correct, and the events that user described is exactly what happened to Jeffery Epstein, and yet somehow we have no public information about who is responsible, and the official story is suicide.
But is it? What kind of foul play - is it prison management hiding the fact they had somebody kill himself on their watch (which is professional incompetence), or the other one?
Why? The fact that he had a paranoid fantasy of being murdered by the US government doesn't make it so. I don't have to take extra care with the ramblings of conspiracy theorists with a long history of outright bullshit.
Like the one where he promised to eat his own penis?
If McAfee said the moon is made of cheese, I’d call that less credible than McAfee saying he’s going to get suicided.
He was a clearly unhinged individual.
I mean, that's kinda what happens when you don't pay your taxes and run from the government. He would've gotten a trial if he didn't commit suicide.
> did he deserve to die
No, I don't think anyone deserves to die. But, the most likely case here is he did kill himself, in which case, it's kinda on him.
technically, everyone dies... the question should be, did he deserve to be killed, if he was (not saying he was) or did he deserve to think that was his only way out?
Hm, "deserve to think"... We're all totally responsible for our own thoughts, aren't we? I mean, who else could be; how could anyone else be?[1]
If McAfee had addled his brain with drugs so as to suffer paranoid-delusional fantasies; or even without drugs, if he had pondered weird conspiracy theories to the extent that he self-induced a persecution complex... Who's to blame for that but he himself; how could one claim that he didn't "deserve" it?
___
[1 -- EDIT]: Besides "long-term brainwash" scenarios, that is. James Bond in a North Korean prison cell, a cowed and battered spouse / child(ren), members of an oppressive cult, shit like that. McAfee was none of those.
But he went down to South America, started making drugs, and got accused of rape and murder. The legal system should assume innocence before trial, though in my personal opinion he was an evil man.
I don't have much of an opinion about McAfee, but it bugs me a bit when people who know less than I do have stronger opinions.
I'm not the person you replied to, but, do you mean they got the continent wrong because Belize is in Central America, and thus technically North America? Seems like an unnecessary nitpick.
If you thought he mistook Spain to be in South America, then, maybe the guidelines here would be of help. From my own experience, it is better to not assume people know less than you.
Then again, maybe you are referring to something else, in which case it would be nice to know what.
I've spent a fair bit of time in Central America, and the people I met there generally took great umbrage at being referred to as "South America".
You'll do yourself a favor to not insult people over technical details. The arrogant attitude does not give a good impression. If you wanted to make it known you knew something they didn't, you could have achieved much more with "Belize and Central-America for that matter is considered to be part of North America, and very explicitly not part of South America". There was no need to make a point of someone knowing less, or disparaging their argument that had little to do with this.
In any case, do not mistake my interaction here as some sort of personal investment. I do not care much. Take the advice from a stranger as you will.
My desire: People with strong opinions should temper them. Or at least temper them in public. That's all.
Total fucking non sequitur!
(Even trying it on paints you in an ever worse light. At least in my book, you'd have come out of this a lot better if you'd taken GP's advice and backed off gracefully one or two comments earlier.)
Some guys are suicided, others simply decide to change their gender in jail. If you don't see how this works, then I have nothing more to say to you
Is there a coherent answer to this in the case of suicide?
I feel like we enter a liar's paradox since the entity who decides whether you deserve to die is yourself.
He was imprisoned awaiting extradition for tax evasion charges, so guilt wasn't really determined yet. He did flee the US to avoid these charges and has since racked up a considerable trail of charges from foreign governments.
We'll probably never see direct evidence of his death. But suicide is plausible, given his history, I'd certainly believe he'd contemplate suicide when faced with a life in prison.
When you're sitting in a tiny concrete box and looking at the very distinct possibility of spending the rest of your life in such a box, either metaphorically or, in McAfee's case, literally, the thought process is quite different. Yes, McAfee has had run-ins with the law before, but maybe he figured he wasn't going to get out of this situation so easily, and he didn't have that many more good years left in front of him, concrete box or no.
Thus, I'm willing to accept this as a suicide unless and until compelling evidence otherwise surfaces.
Maybe it helps to remember having said it oneself? I mean, if you are so badly off that you contemplate suicide, then everyone else saying "there's always something to live for" may be easier to write off; like, "what do they know of my life?". But if you've used to say so yourself, then sure, you may now think "so obviously I was wrong then"... But still, you're you, so you do know a thing or three about your life, so you may perhaps still hang back and consider "but wait, maybe I'm wrong now, and not back then?".
Maybe. At least feels like it should have a better chance than other saying it. So, hey, let's all remember to repeat this to ourselves now and then, mmkay?
If our secret ninja assassins wanted to take him out because he Knew Too Much or whatever, they could do that any old time. Why do it on the day his extradition was approved instead of some random day 6 months ago or something.
On the other hand, it seems much more reasonable that a man whose extradition to the US to face Federal Criminal charges was just approved might suddenly decide to kill himself rather than deal with that.
Unless of course the Secret Ninja Assassins knew that and decided to kill him today to make it look less suspicious. But then we're really getting into the weeds of conspiracy, where any crazy thing we could dream up might have happened.
“Camp Delta at Gitmo is used...” is more accurate here than “Gitmo is specifically not on US soil...”; Johnson v. Eisentrager (1950) was not a motivating factor in securing the lease at Guatanamo Bay (in 1903) but was a factor in siting the temporary (Camp X-Ray) and later permanent (Camp Delta) detention facilities for War on Terror detainees there.
That said, he was 75, so I guess even a few years could potentially be a life sentence.
Usually, without aggravating circumstances, federal sentences would run concurrently, though thr multiplicity might push them up within the range permitted. So, lots of nonviolent up to 5 years per count crimes with no particular extreme factors likely adds up to...about 5 years.
Which at his age might still be a sizable fraction of his life, and he wouldn't be the first person to act based on an unrealistic estimate based on what is theoretically possible rather than likely.
Also, what benefit is there to the US to kill him? They already won. Being able to kill people you have custody of is a weak message compared to "nowhere is safe from us".
He killed himself to damage the reputation of the US government.
He couldn't escape from imprisonment, and he couldn't do much to harm the government. But he could do this.
It was the most he could do, so (I think) it's what he did.
Really, honestly, seriously. Have you even tried to consider it could be that way around? Occam's razor suggests -- no, it screams! -- that he killed himself:
* People get desperate and kill themselves in some situations. McAfee was in a typical such situation.
* Having killed himself -- or not, as some would have it -- at the moment McAfee is big news. People (such as yourself) are (literally) screeching bloody murder. If there is anything to find, investigative journalists now have lots of incentive to look for it. If he'd just been extradited, probably no one would have cared; there might have been a few short articles noting the fact, and that would be that. Wouldn't it be stupid, then, to kill him since that would only attract all this attention (that you and I are lavishing on it)? How plausible is it that any actor that has the resources to have someone "whacked" is that stupid?
* Lots of people (you possibly among them?) have suggested that he was killed because "they wanted him silenced". I have asked a few what, exactly he is supposed to have had on anyone that would warrant "silencing" him. So far nobody has had any suggestions. Do you?
So, yeah, it does indeed look like some are doing their best to avoid facing the truth: You all who see a conspiracy here.
More to your point -- replacing one weakly substantiated theory with another -- there are still degrees of plausibility among unsubstantiated theories.
He's also indicated much more recently that any "suicide" wouldn't be such.
what's the optimal cooldown to post affirmations of life so that you believe they're true?
Instead of trying to look for evidence in someone's tweets, how about we look at the facts on the ground. Such as: was he on suicide watch? Is this jail reliable? Is there a history of conspiracy and/or corruption in this jailhouse?
I am content in here. I have friends.
The food is good. All is well.
Know that if I hang myself, a la Epstein, it will be no fault of mine.
https://twitter.com/officialmcafee/status/131680121508322509...
https://twitter.com/officialmcafee/status/138634987054662041...
> I have been imprisoned in Catalonia nearly 7 months. I speak no Catalan and little Spanish so human contact is limited. There are no entertainments - no escape from loneliness, from emptiness, from myself.
> This has been the most trying period of my life.
Turns out prison sucks after a while.
As for the food, he changed his tune on that, too:
https://twitter.com/officialmcafee/status/139145553961222553...
> Most prison food in Spain is indistinguishable from rat shit in motor oil. The single exception is potato pie, which is only served on Saturdays.
> Unfortunately today is Sunday.
Sounds like it sucks at the beginning, too.
I have no idea if McAfee had such knowledge, but "I don't know any reason why someone would kill him" doesn't mean much.
Whatever McAfee would "reveal" would just be his word. Which isn't great. Unless he knows how to obtain evidence of things, what he "knows" is just rambling.
Movies have instilled in us this notion that simply knowing something is good enough. It's not. Let's pretend for a second that McAfee knew that certain public figures were, without a doubt, 100%, Satanic pedophile lizard people or whatever the flavor of the month panic is.
If his only proof of this is that he saw Person X devour a live baby while molesting children in the basement of a pizza parlor, it's kind of meaningless. It's not much better than just saying you know it because you believe it really strongly.
The information he would have to know would be specific to uncover something in a way that people could actually act on that information.
Otherwise, it's like what Bill Murray whispered in my ear after he painted my house last night, "No one will ever believe you".
Yes, and even if not, testimony alone is evidence, even if it doesn't lead to other evidence.
It may or may not be evidence that a trier of fact views as credible or sufficient on its own to meet the applicable standard of proof, but it is evidence.
Because founding and running an anti-virus company for a while gets you invited to all the big shots' murder rampages...?
Was he ever even a largish campaign contributor, or anything that might have got him hobnobbing with (people that later turned into) The Powers That Be? I've never heard anything such about him; have you?
Yes, I can. He was no Epstein; he didn't extortionably frolick around on his yacht with underage girls and politicians, billionaires, and celebrities of science, media, and entertainment. The only commonality McAfee's sad "frolicking" had with Epstein's was that it was on his yacht. But it was with his ex-hooker wife, crew and servants, and Idunno what more-or-less temporary "friends" and other hangers-around he may have picked up. Sure, some of the latter may have been second- or third-rate celebrities in their Latin American or Southern European home countries. Do you think that's the kind of people who have the clout to have someone "whacked" (or even the reputation to need "I snorted bathsalts with John McAfee on his yacht" suppressed)?
I mean, sure, I'm perfectly prepared to believe that he might have had some "whackable" knowledge, after all... As soon as anyone presents even a shred of evidence for that. But as far as we know, he didn't have any inside knowledge that needed to be "silenced". That's the null hypothesis; it's claims to the contrary that need evidence in their favour so as not to be dismissed out of hand.
I have no trouble believing that people wanted him dead in general. He was credibly accused of both murder and sexual assault[1]. I am sure he was annoying to many officials, but most of the reports of death threats around McAfee were those experienced by the people he disliked.
I think that the simplest and most straightforward explanation is that this tweet (and tattoo) were another promotional stunt for someone trying to get out of the charges against him. It would be another in a long line of claims McAfee made on various topics which had the effect of, however briefly, centering himself in the eye of the public. He wasn't adverse to extreme actions and I have no trouble believing that he would both get that tattoo and decide later to end his own life.
[1] https://www.theverge.com/2016/9/12/12887124/john-mcafee-rape...
"My friends evaporated through fear of association.
I have nothing.
Yet, I regret nothing."
https://twitter.com/officialmcafee/status/131680121508322509...
I seriously doubt a drugged-up 75yo who lived outside the US for much of the past 20 years somehow had a hotter scoop on the US government's doings.
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the theory most likely to be true remains the null hypothesis: He didn't have diddly-squat on anybody.
It also makes little sense that the US government would kill him before extradition and not after when they have a lot more control over narrative and investigations. Killing him on foreign soil makes everything needlessly harder for the US.
Part of his career was at Booz Allen Hamilton, though not for too long. Also he was in a position where corporate or personal secrets may have been accessible, which could also explain why an extradition would lead to action.
I think the GP you replied to meant McAfee. (Snowden was never supposed to have killed anyone, was he?)
...or not.
TIL; thanks.
It seems like HN is becoming more like Reddit and downvotes now indicate disagreement instead of being used to hide things that don't add to the discussion.
I don't think John had any credibility left for that to happen. We will never be 100% sure but I lean %99.99 that he committed suicide. He was not the kind to spent time in jails. Boredom killed this man
I think the HN community has little overlap with the #FreeMcAfee club.
I don't doubt that at the time he said he wouldn't commit suicide, he meant it, but based on other tweets quoted among these comments, he was very clearly in a state of depression brought on by his incarceration -- and, for god's sake, he'd spent most of the last decade as a fugitive. This is a man who went to extreme lengths to avoid being in prison. So when you keep asking, over and over, "What makes you think he would possibly commit suicide to avoid spending the rest of his life in prison," the answer is "literally everything the man had been doing before he was caught."
There is so much reactionary outrage online that people accuse you of supporting a belief for simply discussing it even if you didn't push it and haven't committed to it.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/m7qawy/john-mcafee-no-longer...
Kind of undermines his credibility.
McAfee was always paranoid. He was not a threat to the man. He also lied a lot and even admitted it many times.
https://web.archive.org/web/20201005231441/https://twitter.c...
https://twitter.com/officialmcafee/status/120086428376625152...