When someone dies suddenly less than a month after announcing his intention to soon reveal explosive tapes about a prominent political figure during an election year, questions will inevitably arise.
Every mystery story from Sherlock Holmes to the latest true-crime novel is based on a suspicion by a courageous or intrepidly truth-seeking investigator that something in the official report was not kosher.
In the Andrew Breitbart case, there is now not only cause for suspicion about his untimely-yet-seemingly-very-timely death, but also about the fact that those close to him are so intensely interested in closing the case.
Andrew Breitbart was himself a courageous investigator who went up against enormous forces who wanted him to stop his investigation. Yet, when his investigation was stopped, we’re supposed to believe Andrew died of natural causes?! And no one seems more fanatic about making Andrew Breitbart appear to be just a regular goofy guy who happened to drop dead on a street at one a.m. than those closest to him? Move on, everyone, nothing to see here.
Yes, people have heart attacks, just as sometimes dogs actually eat people’s homework, but in this case especially, reasonable people should not be expected to fall for such a lame explanation and simply move on.
When Whitney Houston was found dead, there were changing stories as to what the cause was. Initially, it was reported that she possibly had drowned in the bath tub. But, each time, the story said something to the effect that it was “apparently caused by ...”
Andrew Breitbart’s death and cause of death (by natural causes) both were announced at the same time (before any post-mortem being done). There was never any suggestion that was “apparently caused by natural causes”. This is what causes a red flag to go up.