On July 10th, 2016, Seth Rich, a voter expansion data director and data analyst for the Democratic National Committee, was shot and killed by an unknown assailant nearly a block from his home in Bloomingdale, Washington, D.C.. Rich sustained two gunshots to the back, according to D.C. police. The D.C. police department was made aware of the gunfire at 4:20 am by a gunfire locator called ShotSpotter. Rich was found unconscious at the scene and later died in the hospital from his injuries. Nothing was taken from Rich, although his watch strap was torn and he sustain bruises on his hands, knees, and face, which means that a struggle could have taken place. The police concluded that this was a botched robbery, an attempted robbery that failed and ended in Rich’s death. Less than two weeks after the shooting, Wikileaks released almost 20,000 private emails and over 8,000 attachments from the DNC. Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks, offered a $20,000 reward in the search for Rich’s murderer and implied that Rich may or may not have been the source that hacked into the DNC and provided him with the emails. On the other hand, private sector cyber-experts are confident that Russian intelligence hackers were responsible for hacking the DNC, extracting the emails, and sending them to WikiLeaks in an attempt to influence the 2016 presidential election. Although all of these conclusions are only speculation, only two are feasible: ‘botched robbery’ and ‘Russian involvement.’

Although the police can do little to explain the circumstances involved in the death of Seth Rich, Joel Rich, the victim’s father, believes that his son engaged his attackers before he was killed. This scenario would potentially confirm the ‘botched robbery’ conclusion, however not enough information is present to jump to that conclusion. Many believe that since the circumstances surrounding Seth Rich’s murder are unexplained, Rich must have been the target of an assassination. Believers of this theory typically use the evidence that there is no clear motive for the murder to occur. This, therefore, points to a larger power at play. Given that Seth Rich was in an authoritative position within the DNC, it is believed that he could have had access to private emails, the same emails that WikiLeaks released to the public less than two weeks after his death. Conspiracy theorists believe that Rich was the source that provided WikiLeaks with private DNC emails, and because of this, the DNC, or perhaps Hillary Clinton, must have ordered a hit on him. In a sense, this theory is not as irrational as it appears at first-glance. It relies on much more indirect evidence than the ‘botch robbery’ conclusion, however it employs a great deal of said evidence. Though this theory has a lot of evidence that could potentially back it up, a substantial amount of this evidence is unfounded or simply misleading or incorrect. This cannot be said of the evidence supporting ‘botched robbery.’ 

Before a direct conclusion can be made, it is important to understand what circumstances cause the rising of political conspiracy theories and the aspects that could potentially validate them. In any conspiracy theory, there are things that trigger or support their upbringing. For example, every conspiracy theory is the result of a lack of information made public, whether that information is hidden from the public, or simply isn’t known by anyone at all. Conspiracies also originate from the methods in which the public can maintain control of the government. They serve as a way for people to keep their government in check and to ‘govern from a distance.’ The act of spreading conspiracy theories is completely legal and is one of the side-effects of freedom of speech, provided by the first amendment. In the novel Conspiracy Panics, Jack Z. Bratich maintains that a number of things support the continuation of conspiracy theories, one of which is professional journalism. In the mid-1980s, daily newspapers began publishing conspiratorial narratives instead of turning away from them. Many of these daily newspapers were well-respected and widely accepted by the population. Professional journalism suddenly became the medium in which conspiracy theories were validated within the public’s perspective. This fact is doubly true today, for many people turn to online newspapers to answer and validate the questions they have, questions that, for lack of information, should not have straight-forward answers. Nevertheless, these ‘answers’ are provided by modern journalism. 

Despite the actuality that some well-respected news outlets advocate political narratives, the fact of the matter is that newspapers are not always the most important sources to draw from. This is especially true in this case because reliable information can only be obtained from a few sources. These sources include — and are limited to — the D.C. police department, Seth Rich’s family and friends, and any private investigators working on the case. The police have the most direct evidence obtainable regarding Seth Rich and the circumstances of his murder. They were at the scene of the crime and are the main driving force that is trying to solve the mystery. Rich’s family provides the second most important testimonials because they know more about Seth than absolutely anybody. Additionally, his family possesses their invaluable opinion as to whether or not Rich would have done what some people believe he has done. Similarly, Rich’s girlfriend and close friends can share what they know about Rich’s character and legacy. Private investigators are similar to police detectives, except they are only working on this case and are doing it pro-bono. 

It is important to understand the difference between the most important and least important sources. The most important sources, such as the police and Rich’s family, have first-hand accounts of the situation as an aggregated whole. These accounts are not limited to just hard evidence. They have the ability to look into the notion that Rich’s death may have come from an order coming from higher power. The least important sources, such as public opinion and news outlets, can work with information they gather from the strong sources, but can also fall prey to relying on other unreliable sources. For example, some news outlets use public opinion to form a narrative prompt. They then use political information to form and shape that narrative into something fitted for their targeted audience. The audience, in-turn, digests the regurgitated information and, based on the perceived credibility of that news outlet, the audience often-times accepts it. 

Despite the fact that news outlets are not the most important sources, they are the most abundant sources; some of which are obviously more credible than others. An article in The Washington Post, authored by Manuel Roig-Franzia , employs the most important sources in order to impose a claim. It informs the reader about Seth Rich’s personality based on the testimonials provided by Rich’s family and friends. It also goes into great detail of the grievances that the family is going through because of these intrusive conspiracies. This makes the reader aware of something they may or may not have been aware of in the first place: Rich’s family is in emotional turmoil at the hands of public insinuation. This opens the reader’s mind and allows them to sympathize with Rich’s family and potentially makes them realize that it is a disservice to Rich’s parents to unjustly question the motive and integrity of their murdered son. In the parents’ perspective, their son’s legacy has been tainted and besmirched. It is important to make a full investigation in every possible aspect of the murder to truly serve justice to the victim, as long as this investigation is not carried out in an impromptu or reckless manner. 

One of the things that conspiracy theorists utilize in this case are the statements made by Julian Assange not long after Rich’s Death. When asked in an interview if Seth Rich was his source, Assange states that his sources sometimes take large risks to obtain the information that they provide him. The literal meaning of this statement was meaningless, a simple guise to obscure the implications underneath. The implication itself was that Seth Rich was, indeed, his source. Whether this is true remains to be proven. After Assange avoided two sexual assault charges in Sweden, it has become difficult to believe any implication he makes. Rich’s parents believe that this is a political exploitation of their son’s death, one that would go a long way to prevent Hillary Clinton from being elected. They stated that Seth had just accepted a promotion to a position in Clinton’s campaign and was determined to get her elected. This is an example in which the family’s testimony should overpower any insinuation made by company owners such as Julian Assange. However, many right-wing theorists will still deny that testimony, for in their perspective, the person who leaked the information must have a more reliable testimony, even if said venal testimony is extremely dubious. 

On weaponized transparency, by Alex Howard and John Wonderlich, provides a detailed account of the inner workings of investigative journalism. Howard and Wonderlich explain many tenets and rules that investigative journalists must follow for ethical reasons. For example, an ethical news outlet may accept and publicize leaked information as long as that information is assessed beforehand. More precisely, thoughtful decision-making skills should be utilized when lawfully deciding what should and shouldn’t be released to the public eye. Then, Howard and Wonderlich question the morality of WikiLeaks publicizing sensitive information in the name of government transparency, information that included email addresses, social security numbers, passports, etc. The article emphasizes that leaked information is invaluable to investigative journalists, but that this information should be treated with care and respect instead of carelessly released to the public. Some may raise the question: Is Julian Assange violating the law? This is a difficult question to answer fully and one that would already have been acted upon if answered with ease. One can say that the first amendment defends his actions entirely, however Assange has made private federal information public, which should be illegal. The issue here is that the information was provided to him by his ‘anonymous source.’ Therefore, he is simply publishing a leak that was already stolen by someone else. This does not mean Assange is guiltless. Some espionage statutes state that anyone who “publishes” information relating to the national defense is liable for a violation of the espionage act and can face criminal prosecution under U.S. law. However, many complications arise from accusing him, one of which is the fact that he is rarely on U.S. soil, a fact that is difficult to work around in and of itself. He is also a self-proclaimed ‘journalist’ which is an attempt to legitimize himself as a member of the media. 

These tangents do serve a purpose. The fact that Assange is committing minor crimes on the very thin line between lawful and unlawful must discredit any testimony he makes. He implies that Seth Rich was his source, but uses this lie to further his ulterior political goal: to make sure Hillary Clinton loses the election. Not only does he make false implications, he also offers a $20,000 reward for finding Seth Rich’s killer. This is either an obvious sign that Rich and Assange are connected, or that Assange has ulterior motives. Based on his history, the latter is most likely true. 

The only other rewards that have been offered were a $25,000 reward from the D.C. Metropolitan Police and, surprisingly, a $105,000 reward from a Republican D.C. lobbyist, Jack Burkman. Burkman, however is working with the family on a personal level and is someone that Rich’s family actually respects, unlike Assange. Burkman is an attorney serving as a private investigator and is working pro-bono. The reason he is doing this is because “[t]he objective here really is just to get closure for this family. This is a young kid in our profession. This could have happened to any of the young people who work for me.” Burkman also states that he is not here to “expound on anything even remotely conspiratorial.” Other than that, he only mentions conspiracy in the sense that every aspect of the case should be considered, including conspiracy, otherwise Seth Rich would not be provided a means of obtaining justice. Burkman hopes that the $105,000 reward will greater incentivize efforts to find the murderer. 

Earlier this year, Burkman said that he found evidence that Russia was involved in Rich’s murder. He mentions that he thought of the crime scene as “very odd” since Rich was not robbed and his apartment was not broken into. He proposes that Seth Rich discovered that Russian Intelligence operatives hacked into the DNC to obtain information and influence the 2016 presidential election. Shortly after this discovery, Rich was detected by said operatives and was supposedly assassinated. Less than two weeks after the assassination, Assange publishes the leaks. Note that Assange claims that the leak was not provided to him by Russian Intelligence. Although this is very important evidence, Burkman is reluctant to elaborate because it turns out that his source is from a man claiming to be a former officer within the U.S. Intelligence division. The man is unwilling to become revealed to the public for fear that he may be targeted by the agents he accuses. Burkman states, “I've met this person and he seems very credible. We're now investigating the allegations he has made” Burkman also reveals a statement made by the man: 

‘These days we all know what the Russian government is like and because I'm concerned with my safety and my family's safety, I have to be careful about what I put on the record’

Burkman believes that if investigated, his source will cooperate. Burkman has also hired a private protection agency in order to provide protection to the man’s family. In order to spread awareness, Burkman has sent letters addressing the topic to chairmen Michael McCaul and Jason Chaffetz of Homeland Security and Government Reform. In the letters, he briefs them of the case and urges them to inform the rest of their committees and begin investigating Russia’s involvement in Seth Rich’s murder. 

In the events of Rich’s murder, there seems to be three separate speculations that a majority of people believe in or argue against. As described earlier, they are the ‘botched robbery’ theory, the ‘DNC assassination’ theory, and the ‘Russian involvement’ theory. Now that these various speculations have been thoroughly described, the last thing to consider is the likelihood of each occurrence. Given the rare circumstances observed at the scene, a botched robbery seems improbable, but not implausible. And, within the perpetually occurring crime continuum, attempted robbery is the most common incident being considered, by a landslide. As far as Russian involvement is concerned, it’s not irrational to believe that Russia is always trying to hack into U.S. intelligence. Russia has always made attempts to gain influence and power in the world and there have been several instances where it was proven that Russia hacked confidential information residing in U.S. databases. This is also a seemingly improbable scenario, but cannot be ignored. Finally, if Seth Rich were assassinated by the same committee that he worked for, there would be so many ramifications that simply could not be covered up. Furthermore, a number of people would have to be involved, and it just doesn’t seem rational to believe that there are several people within the DNC that are willing to commit murder and also have the ability to flawlessly cover it up. Therefore, right-wing conspiracy theorists need to let go of their bias and begin considering things that explain Seth Rich’s death within the realm of practicability.
