Did you hear about the census worker in Kentucky that was found dead hanging from a tree with the word "Fed" written on his chest?
Early speculation was that he was killed by anti-government and/or meth-crazed rednecks.
In this thread over at
Outside the Beltway, I expressed
my doubts:
Maybe I read too many police procedurals, but seems to me an easy way to determine this (or at least get a sniff on the right trail) is to determine whether he was dead before or after he was hanged.
If it was the hanging itself that killed him, I'm putting my money on suicide.
Yep, suicide.
The idea got some push-back from some other folks, like this from Mithras:
Interesting theory. Why did a suicide write the word "fed" on his own chest? Just curious. Fed up? He'd just eaten?
That made me laugh, but I went on to explain some of the things that led me to think it was suicide.
Ha! That's a good one.
I think the "fed" angle should probably be downplayed since it is, after all, coming from an anonymous "law enforcement official." This happened earlier this month. They're still trying to figure out if foul play was involved. The body was decomposed when they found it. Add to that, he was hanged.
Hanging is not a very good way to murder someone. But it is a common method of suicide. The carvings on his chest, if they are carvings (remember, the body was decomposed), maybe they're early tries. In his despair, he sets the knife down, picks up the rope. It's conceivable.
Seems more likely than some backwoods rednecks went Deliverance on him. You'd think they'd feed him to their hogs, not leave him swinging from a tree.
To which Mithras replied:
It is, you're right. [as in, hanging being more suicidal than homicidal] It also has a certain history in this country as a way of sending a message.
To which I replied:
This is no doubt true, but there's a racial component missing in this case. (The guy was white, after all.)
Developments in the case seem to keep open the possibility it was suicide. He was found with his feet on the ground, which would make sense if he tied the rope to his neck and leaned into it. Less sense if someone else tied the rope to his neck and strangled him with it. The cause of death has been (autopsy pending) ruled asphyxia. Not blunt force trauma, not blood loss, not internal hemorrhaging from a beating. His own mother says she has her own ideas but won't say them out loud until the investigation is wrapped up. (Which sounds to me like a mother holding out hope that her son didn't take his own life rather than a mother with a suspect in mind.)
I'm also curious whether the autopsy will show whether the cancer he survived had returned. In the absence of mad-mobs of Michelle Bachmann supporters or redneck meth labs, recurring cancer could conceivably be a motive for suicide.
All things being equal, the simplest explanation is usually best.
But then I started to lose faith. It seemed as if I was the only one who thought this guy might have killed himself.
Everyone seemed intent on explaining the "Fed written on his chest" thing. (It was written in Sharpie, not "carved into his chest" as I had originally thought.) But no one seemed to be willing to explain the modus operandi of the crime itself.
If you want to kill someone, you shoot them. You stab them with a knife. You beat them with a rock. If you want to, you can strangle them too.
But if you're going to strangle someone, you just strangle them. You don't hang them from a tree. And you certainly don't hang them from a tree
when their feet are touching the ground.
Add to that, there were no defensive wounds on the body. None. This bit wasn't in the earlier reports, but if it was, I think it alone would have stopped all speculation that this guy was murdered. Not every murder comes with defensive wounds, of course, but consider:
1) Sparkman's theoretical killers had to accost him somehow, either at the crime scene or somewhere else.
2) They had to remove his clothes. (Sparkman was found naked.)
3) They had to write "Fed" in Sharpie on his chest.
4) They had to put a rope around his neck.
5) They had to strangle him with that rope, either by lifting him off the ground and dropping him back down (because, remember, he was found with his feet on the ground) or by pushing on him so that the pressure of the rope strangled him.
And I'm to believe that he never struggled
at all while any of this was happening? He didn't even have involuntary death throes as he slowly strangled to death against his will?
I'm really to believe that his killers left no mark on him even as they staged this elaborate scene?
Yeah, right.
So while a lot of people were speculating on the motive for a murder that might not even be a murder, I was speculating on the suicide angle.
Why would he commit suicide? These are often personal reasons inscrutable to anyone else, but...
He did survive cancer a few years ago. I'm sure he found that to be an unpleasant experience, draining emotionally, spiritually,
and financially. What about the possibility that the cancer returned?
Terminal cancer seems like plenty of motive to end his own life.
So why the elaborate scene? The "fed" on the chest, the nakedness, the duct tape on the hands and feet? Is it possible that he wanted to make it
look like murder, either out of consideration for his family or because of some mundane financial reason (as in, life insurance won't pay on a suicide).
Maybe I'm jumping the gun with the whole cancer/insurance stuff, but I don't think I'm too far off on the suicide/faking a murder stuff, even though it is admittedly just speculation. It seems to be the way
the story is going anyway.
The officials said investigators continue to look closely at suicide as a possible cause of Sparkman's death for a number of reasons. There were no defensive wounds on Sparkman's body, and while his hands were bound with duct-tape, they were still somewhat mobile, suggesting he could have manipulated the rope, the officials said.