Mala In Se
When I was in private practice, I defended a car wreck case in which the plaintiffs accused my client and its young employee of injuring them when the young employee's van collided with the rear of the plaintiffs' car at an intersection. The primary injury they claimed was the passenger's shattered left humerus at her shoulder. They claimed that the collision caused her to somehow break her left arm. Usually cases of being rear-ended are bad news for the driver who did the rear-ending, but something bumped me about her injury. How did she hurt her left arm when hit from behind but not hurt anything else? When I inquired in discovery and at her deposition, she and the driver said that she had hit the dashboard, the windshield, the console, the seat or the window when the wreck occurred, depending on the time of day. At the end of the day, they dismissed the case after the judge threatened to report them to the grand jury for fraud, because they initiated the wreck on the very day that another company had denied their claim for the very same injury.
I will never have enough information to opine confidently about this spy's murder by radioactive poison, but I will always be lawyer enough to be bumped by motive. Most stories focus on who killed this ex-KGB man. This story ponders from where the poison may have come.
Here is my question: why use this weapon to do it? Nations all over the world control this precious commodity because it is exceedingly rare and exceedingly useful and exceedingly dangerous. It left a trail of radioactive evidence all over Europe. It has very few sources, so the investigative leads spring from a few, very definite places. It had affected more people than the target. It was guaranteed to draw disproportionate attention. This weapon makes an assignation much more complicated than necessary if killing is the only goal.
Was it murder after all, or was the spy still spying?
Was it a message about security and to whom and from whom?
Was it a signal that the "nukes are out" and ready for use?
Was it a bomb assembly gone awry?
Feel free to speculate wildly. It'll be a good book someday.
I will never have enough information to opine confidently about this spy's murder by radioactive poison, but I will always be lawyer enough to be bumped by motive. Most stories focus on who killed this ex-KGB man. This story ponders from where the poison may have come.
Here is my question: why use this weapon to do it? Nations all over the world control this precious commodity because it is exceedingly rare and exceedingly useful and exceedingly dangerous. It left a trail of radioactive evidence all over Europe. It has very few sources, so the investigative leads spring from a few, very definite places. It had affected more people than the target. It was guaranteed to draw disproportionate attention. This weapon makes an assignation much more complicated than necessary if killing is the only goal.
Was it murder after all, or was the spy still spying?
Was it a message about security and to whom and from whom?
Was it a signal that the "nukes are out" and ready for use?
Was it a bomb assembly gone awry?
Feel free to speculate wildly. It'll be a good book someday.
posted by JRB at 11:33 AM
1 Comments:
I wondered the same thing. Why use that when you're just as dead, and just as strong a signal is sent to other erstwhile spys, with a bullet. It brought to mind the spy movies from the 60's where they would put a deadly asp in James Bond's bedroom to kill him, or suspend him over a tank full of sharks by a rope which is being burned by a candle. Why not a bullet?
I think the obvious answer to why in this instance is that it is not the Kremlin, but Dr. Evil that is behind the murder. The trail of evidence leading back to Russia is a clever ruse.
Other than that, I really have no clue, or serious conjecture.
Post a Comment
<< Home