Were he planning on continuing past the bridge he would probably have stopped and turned at that intersection, There is no outlet past Memorial Rd. on Midwest Blvd. just a few houses, some side streets, a Department of Wildlife building and the lake.

nm, misread your post.

I see people drive fast a lot and my first thought has never been " hey, that guy's going to go commit suicide".

How often do you see someone driving almost 40 MPH over the speed limit?

I don't know if I've ever seen that.

I see people drive fast a lot and my first thought has never been " hey, that guy's going to go commit suicide".

I agree. My first thought is more like, "That a$$hole is going to kill somebody." (I've spent years driving around NE OK County. Watching out for exactly that sort of behavior. In other words, Defensive Driving with Self Preservation in Mind.) Please be advised that in no way is a "Rush to Judgment" implied nor intended. In this case.

How often do you see someone driving almost 40 MPH over the speed limit?

I don't know if I've ever seen that.

When I was 19 I did about 70 mph over the speed limit.

How often do you see someone driving almost 40 MPH over the speed limit?

I don't know if I've ever seen that.

I've only witnessed that sort of anomaly on Interstate Highways. And it is even rare out there. Still . . . 40 in a 30, even on 10th Street, is sort of the same thing with only a difference of degree of infraction. Isn't it? =~)

When I was 19 I did about 70 mph over the speed limit.

When I was about 25 I took a brand new Trans-Am (belonging to a good friend of mine, and with his encouragement) up to over a 100 mph on Northbound Choctaw Road just North of Lake Thunderbird. To this day I thank God that nobody pulled out in front of me from one of the many sideroads or driveways. I'm not sure if I dodged the bullet or if innocent bystanders did so. In any case, I realized that driving like that is like running with scissors. At the age of 25. Maybe 23.

Putting aside any implied similarities to the JFK Controversy, The Silkwood Mystery, and any other connections involving programming such as "Midsommer Murders" (that borrow a lot from past video presentations and don't rely on the ability to type, read and comprehend =~) . . . My guess would be that Mr. McClendon was informed by his legal staff that he was about to be the scapegoat for all the earthquakes related to fracking. Which, in my opinion, would have been unfair.

Regarding the seatbelt, apparently he was somewhat famous for never wearing it. Perhaps from his land man days, I guess, although for the life of me I think that not wearing a seatbelt is one of the dumbest things ever. Anyway - providing this information is true - not wearing a seatbelt would not be compelling evidence one way or the other. That doesn't mean that other evidence doesn't point in that direction.

If you've ever worked in the oil industry, safety has always been a big issue. My dad was/is a landman and a geologist amongst many other things in all his years in the energy sector and he's always worn his seatbelt. I discovered the reason for why he always backs into a parking space...because that's what you do on the well site so if the SHTF you can get the heck outta harm's way.

If Aubrey chose to not wear his seatbelt then it was a personal decision based on carelessness.

I agree. My first thought is more like, "That a$$hole is going to kill somebody." (I've spent years driving around NE OK County. Watching out for exactly that sort of behavior. In other words, Defensive Driving with Self Preservation in Mind.) Please be advised that in no way is a "Rush to Judgment" implied nor intended. In this case.

That would be more like it.

When I was about 25 I took a brand new Trans-Am (belonging to a good friend of mine, and with his encouragement) up to over a 100 mph on Northbound Choctaw Road just North of Lake Thunderbird. To this day I thank God that nobody pulled out in front of me from one of the many sideroads or driveways. I'm not sure if I dodged the bullet or if innocent bystanders did so. In any case, I realized that driving like that is like running with scissors. At the age of 25. Maybe 23.

I got my dads suicide door Lincoln up to 115 on interstate when I was 19 or 20. They wrote the reckless driving ticket at 101. (Yes, hell to pay.) I still speed, but don't think I'd be doing 88 on that road. Low 70s maybe, on a work day, all fired up. But I wouldn't have gone through the bridge at that. I'm defensive enough I slow down when the road, shoulders and/or right-of-way ahead are blind. It would be way too sketchy for me to drive fast through that overpass, or at least how it looks on photos. I've been to the area north of there by the lake, don't think I've been through the bridge before.

Regarding the 40 MPH over the speed limit, I was referring to the idea that someone would be doing that as a regular habit, rather than someone doing it for jollies or a specific purpose.

I find it hard to believe that on a regular business day under normal circumstances, that Aubrey was routinely driving 40 MPH over the speed limit.

I checked his driving record when all this happened and he had a below normal amount of speeding tickets.

Regarding the 40 MPH over the speed limit, I was referring to the idea that someone would be doing that as a regular habit, rather than someone doing it for jollies or a specific purpose.

I find it hard to believe that on a regular business day under normal circumstances, that Aubrey was routinely driving 40 MPH over the speed limit.

I checked his driving record when all this happened and he had a below normal amount of speeding tickets.

I grew up in Deer Creek whith a lot of country roads much like the one that he was on. I, and many people I knew, regularly drove that fast. I never got any speeding tickets. People drive differently on back roads like that than they do in the city. And they aren't patrolled nearly as often.

The data log only hits the 5 seconds prior to impact. he could have been going 100+ and been at 88 five seconds before impact. Then impact happened at 78mph. So basically you have the assumption of aiming the car in a way that he would hit it. Going nearly 90mph and trying to hit something coming up in your view on purpose, takes some level of skill - thus having to decelerate and "tapping brakes" to assure he would clip the wall the way he did.

And I feel like some people in this thread are completely discounting the witness' account of the accident. The guy who saw it happen was @ 122nd and Midwest Blvd, and claims to see Aubrey fly through the intersection which is a 4-way stop going at a very high rate of speed.

Now I don't know about you, but if I see someone blast through a stopsign in front of me going 90+mph. My immediate thought is not "Oh this guy is just going about his day and is known to drive fast".

At this point, we are grasping for coffee stirring straws as to why this was not intentional.

That's funny, because I was talking with another poster about it, and he was insisting that the witness said he did NOT run the stop sign - meaning that he had peeled out, starting from a dead stop - and said THAT bolstered the suicide theory (which I would actually agree with, if so). So...which is it? Did he blow the stop sign, or did he peel out? And which one would indicate suicide again..?

These arguments are just a bunch of confirmation bias at work. People have decided it's suicide and are interpreting every piece of evidence as being supportive of their own position.

My take, if he blew through the stop sign, it could be indicative of suicide, OR drowsy driving, OR a medical emergency, which means it indicates nothing, really. If instead he peeled out at the stop sign and headed straight for the wall, I agree it starts to support the suicide theory.

Again, at the end of the day, we just don't know yet.

It probably is suicide. But again, if I was intent on killing myself by driving into a bridge, I'd make sure I was going faster than 78 when I hit. Last thing you want to do is live through it as a quadriplegic. I'd have hit that bridge at about 140.

I checked his driving record when all this happened and he had a below normal amount of speeding tickets.

Not intending to malign him/his character in any way, but that's really not saying much. If I owned a crapton of land out in the middle of nowhere and made a billion dollars an hour I'd drive like a bat out of hell myself. Any cop that was dumb enough to pull me over, I'd just toss out a few "Do you know who I am?"s and a couple "You know I own this entire town, right?"s myself.

I totally agree with you that odds are really high 40 MPH over was not normal for him, but he's pretty well-known for considering speed limits to just be suggestions...suggestions for other people. I wouldn't say a lack of speeding tickets for someone richer than Croesus indicates anything much. On the rare occasion the cop didn't buy the story, I'd just go to the judge, with whom I'm probably playing golf next Wednesday, share a laugh and a drink, and the ticket would go away.

That's funny, because I was talking with another poster about it, and he was insisting that the witness said he did NOT run the stop sign - meaning that he had peeled out, starting from a dead stop - and said THAT bolstered the suicide theory (which I would actually agree with, if so). So...which is it? Did he blow the stop sign, or did he peel out? And which one would indicate suicide again..?

These arguments are just a bunch of confirmation bias at work. People have decided it's suicide and are interpreting every piece of evidence as being supportive of their own position.

My take, if he blew through the stop sign, it could be indicative of suicide, OR drowsy driving, OR a medical emergency, which means it indicates nothing, really. If instead he peeled out at the stop sign and headed straight for the wall, I agree it starts to support the suicide theory.

Again, at the end of the day, we just don't know yet.


I suppose if you think the witness is lying? He is on video and quoted as saying precisely that.


“A loud roar coming down the hill. Sounded like an engine or tires roaring,” said Griggs.

Griggs said he was stopped at the intersection of NE 122nd and Midwest Boulevard waiting to turn left when he saw a black SUV speed through the intersection.

“He zoomed through. I mean zoomed. I'm talking about gettin' it,” said Griggs.

Griggs eventually made the left turn onto Midwest Boulevard.

“I turned and went this way and I got to the top of that hill right there where that sign is, that's where I seen it,” he said. “It was an instant explosion I mean it was a fire ball.”

^

Hey, that was my fault. I thought he had said Aubrey stopped the intersection.

My bad!

It probably is suicide. But again, if I was intent on killing myself by driving into a bridge, I'd make sure I was going faster than 78 when I hit. Last thing you want to do is live through it as a quadriplegic. I'd have hit that bridge at about 140.

You'd have to be pretty good to hit that small of a target going 140 mph.

Not to mention, most modern vehicles are governed and won't get up to 140mph.

I am thinking a lot of people here have never driven a car 100mph+ and tried to steer. At those speeds you are calculating every move when going straight. Full blown white-knuckle and praying your tires are going to stay intact. Add attempting to hit an upcoming object that doesn't really have that much real estate, the natural instinct to better guarantee a solid impact would be slowing down.

I think Aubrey was likely going 100mph+ or near that down most of Midwest Boulevard past 122nd. Then began slowing down and aiming the vehicle to hit the bridge. This is evidenced by the steering of the wheel left of center and the light tapping of the brakes. Also evidenced by the blackbox recording 88mph at the point at which he began steering left, then impact @ 78mph.


Like another person in this thread said, we will likely never have a smoking gun. I doubt the family would willingly give out information that would support an intentional crash theory.

Not intending to malign him/his character in any way, but that's really not saying much. If I owned a crapton of land out in the middle of nowhere and made a billion dollars an hour I'd drive like a bat out of hell myself. Any cop that was dumb enough to pull me over, I'd just toss out a few "Do you know who I am?"s and a couple "You know I own this entire town, right?"s myself.

I totally agree with you that odds are really high 40 MPH over was not normal for him, but he's pretty well-known for considering speed limits to just be suggestions...suggestions for other people. I wouldn't say a lack of speeding tickets for someone richer than Croesus indicates anything much. On the rare occasion the cop didn't buy the story, I'd just go to the judge, with whom I'm probably playing golf next Wednesday, share a laugh and a drink, and the ticket would go away.

Or, since it's in a sparsely populated area, while you're on the side of the road, you could just pull out your short stack of Ben Franklin portrait ID's and make it go away right there.

So no medical condition, no brakes, and no swerving. Straight into a bridge. What am I missing again?

So no medical condition, no brakes, and no swerving. Straight into a bridge. What am I missing again?

Location at that time of day on that particular day.

This article claims that Aubrey had the pedal floored a few seconds before impact:

Police: Gas pedal floored before McClendon crashed at 78 mph (http://www.pennenergy.com/articles/pennenergy/2016/03/police-gas-pedal-floored-before-mcclendon-crashed-at-78-mph.html)

"McClendon had his gas pedal floored until 1½ seconds before impact, when he reduced it from 99 percent to 25 percent depressed, the police chief said."

I suppose if you think the witness is lying? He is on video and quoted as saying precisely that.


^

Hey, that was my fault. I thought he had said Aubrey stopped the intersection.

My bad!

I didn't want to quote Pete by name if he didn't want me to. He and I were discussing this offline, and he was saying it might be indicative of suicide that he DID stop, and now YOU say it's indicative of suicide that he DIDN'T stop. So...which is it? Again, I will point out that if I were handicapping it I would probably lean to suicide also, but all of these speculations and certainties completely REEK of confirmation bias. He stopped? SUICIDE! He didn't stop? DEFINITELY SUICIDE!

Regarding white knuckling at 100 MPH, I don't know what kind of car someone is talking about, but pretty much every car I have driven in the past 20 years feels SUPER comfortable at 100, much less 88. And while I wouldn't say that I do 100 that often, I routinely do 90ish and more when passing people on the interstate. It is HARDLY white knuckle. Not even close.

And regarding this quote:


So no medical condition, no brakes, and no swerving. Straight into a bridge. What am I missing again?

You just described drowsy driving every bit as much as you described suicide.

My point is that there is TONS of confirmation bias in this thread. Will we ever know for sure? Doubtful. Will we ever know more than we do now? Probably. More than anything it would help to know what his appointments were for that day, and/or if he had any personal or other business that he was attending to in the direction of the crash scene.

I never knew much about McClendon until I read the posts in this thread. Based on what I read, he seemed like a guy that would fight through his problems rather than commit suicide. I'm reminded of the advertisements for anti-depressants where they say suicidal thoughts were possible side effects. Does anyone suppose something like this is possible?

I'm reminded of the advertisements for anti-depressants where they say suicidal thoughts were possible side effects.

I've always wondered exactly how they determined that was a side effect as opposed to the entire reason you're taking the medicine in the first place. Antidepression: "Possible side effects include depression and suicidal thoughts". Well, yeah, that's why I'm taking it. Migraine medicine: "Side effects may include headaches". Again, that's why I'm taking it. Motion sickness: "Possible side effects include nausea". Yup! This is the entire reason I'm taking it! Insomnia pills: "May cause drowsiness". Sure hope so!

Regarding white knuckling at 100 MPH, I don't know what kind of car someone is talking about, but pretty much every car I have driven in the past 20 years feels SUPER comfortable at 100, much less 88. And while I wouldn't say that I do 100 that often, I routinely do 90ish and more when passing people on the interstate. It is HARDLY white knuckle. Not even close.


True story. I passed Urbanized on the shoulder going 110, while he was passing someone else going 90+. Modern cars suspension and handling (esp AWD ones) are superb. Not sure I'd go over 100 in that Tahoe, tho. That body roll would not be fun.
Didn't McC miss an important meeting the night before? (Mexican Pres or something) He def. had some time to weigh things before that morning.

And regarding this quote:



You just described drowsy driving every bit as much as you described suicide.
[/QUOTE]

No, actually it describes a person who deliberately crashed into a bridge.

And regarding this quote:




You just described drowsy driving every bit as much as you described suicide.


No, actually it describes a person who deliberately crashed into a bridge.

What? You don't see how it could also be somebody who nodded off at the wheel?

Just for the record. 100 mph is pretty easy to reach in most modern day vehicles, esp. full size big engine vehicles. He was on a two lane road so 100 mph would be a little nerve racking. On the turnpike 100 mph would actually be pretty easy to do and I have seen many cars doing just that.

I never knew much about McClendon until I read the posts in this thread. Based on what I read, he seemed like a guy that would fight through his problems rather than commit suicide. I'm reminded of the advertisements for anti-depressants where they say suicidal thoughts were possible side effects. Does anyone suppose something like this is possible?

I was on an anti-anxiety medication some time back, that had a bad side effect of depression and suicidal thoughts. I had to get help and get off of it after 4 days in a row waking up and having trouble deciding between going to work or driving my motorcycle into the side of a bridge. So short answer... absolutely.

I think we can all agree that stress from an impeding legal case killed Aubrey McClendon. Either from falling asleep or suicide it really makes no difference in the end. Well, it makes no difference to us living anyway.

^

That determination makes a huge difference for lots of reasons.

Won't get into them now since this is all still speculative.

What? You don't see how it could also be somebody who nodded off at the wheel?

No, I really don't.

No, I really don't.

Are you being serious? Let me quote the relevant part again, and then go into details, because I am very curious what part you believe wouldn't apply to someone who had fallen asleep.

"So no medical condition, no brakes, and no swerving."

Let's start with no medical condition. People fall asleep without a medical condition being the cause literally daily. Moving on to no brakes. If you fall asleep at the wheel, how likely are you to use the brakes? Moving on to no swerving...actually, you MUST swerve and leave the road to hit the bridge, but one assumes you mean no swerving to avoid the bridge. So other than the initial swerve off the road from being asleep, same situation as the brakes, sleeping people don't really steer much.

Conclusion: "So no medical condition, no brakes, and no swerving." can easily describe the result of falling asleep at the wheel. No medical condition forced you to fall asleep, being asleep meant no brakes and no steering, both requiring one to be conscious. Please explain in detail what part of "So no medical condition, no brakes, and no swerving." makes it impossible that falling asleep at the wheel is an impossible cause.

^

One huge indicator away from the sleep theory is that the report said he tapped the brakes but kept his foot on the accelerator up until 1.5 seconds before impact.

Also, if you read that Bloomberg article, it says he gave his security detail 'the slip' that morning. I personally know the reporters involved in writing that story and they wouldn't say something like that if their interviews and research did not give them a great deal of confidence.


While almost anything can be deemed possible, I think we are pretty much to the point that the preponderance of evidence points clearly to an almost inescapable conclusion.

^

One huge indicator away from the sleep theory is that the report said he tapped the brakes but kept his foot on the accelerator up until 1.5 seconds before impact. ...

Yes, this, absolutely. Someone asleep, having a heart attack, or any other medical condition that would cause them to leave the road would not, most likely (anticipating Urbanized's post that he's heard of people doing this :) ), tap the brakes twice, keep steering straight, and leave his foot on the accelerator until 1.5 seconds before impact. And also, if he was asleep/drowsy, when he left the pavement, the unevenness would most likely wake him up and there might be swerving, slamming on the brakes, etc. instead of tapping the brakes and no swerving whatsoever. There may be no proof of suicide, but realistically, with the way things played out, it is almost certainly that.

Yes, this, absolutely. Someone asleep, having a heart attack, or any other medical condition that would cause them to leave the road would not, most likely (anticipating Urbanized's post that he's heard of people doing this :) ), tap the brakes twice, keep steering straight, and leave his foot on the accelerator until 1.5 seconds before impact. And also, if he was asleep/drowsy, when he left the pavement, the unevenness would most likely wake him up and there might be swerving, slamming on the brakes, etc. instead of tapping the brakes and no swerving whatsoever. There may be no proof of suicide, but realistically, with the way things played out, it is almost certainly that.

Absolutely 100% agree. The evidence made available is proof (to me) that it wasn't just falling asleep at the wheel. But I want to know what part of
"So no medical condition, no brakes, and no swerving." could not possibly describe someone who fell asleep at the wheel.

Delete duplicate

Are you being serious? Let me quote the relevant part again, and then go into details, because I am very curious what part you believe wouldn't apply to someone who had fallen asleep.

"So no medical condition, no brakes, and no swerving."

Let's start with no medical condition. People fall asleep without a medical condition being the cause literally daily. Moving on to no brakes. If you fall asleep at the wheel, how likely are you to use the brakes? Moving on to no swerving...actually, you MUST swerve and leave the road to hit the bridge, but one assumes you mean no swerving to avoid the bridge. So other than the initial swerve off the road from being asleep, same situation as the brakes, sleeping people don't really steer much.

Conclusion: "So no medical condition, no brakes, and no swerving." can easily describe the result of falling asleep at the wheel. No medical condition forced you to fall asleep, being asleep meant no brakes and no steering, both requiring one to be conscious. Please explain in detail what part of "So no medical condition, no brakes, and no swerving." makes it impossible that falling asleep at the wheel is an impossible cause.

No need to be snippy, and yes, I'm very serious. How in the world someone could be going 88 mph, go off the pavement, tap the breaks, keep the foot on the gas, keep the vehicle going in a straight line, and be asleep at the wheel is beyond me.

No need to be snippy, and yes, I'm very serious. How in the world someone could be going 88 mph, go off the pavement, tap the breaks, keep the foot on the gas, keep the vehicle going in a straight line, and be asleep at the wheel is beyond me.

"So no medical condition, no brakes, and no swerving." is a quote from you. Since you are now changing it from 'no brakes' to 'tap the breaks[SIC]', obviously I agree with you, that doesn't describe a sleeping person. But it's not what you said. Since you are now amending what you said, I'll assume no intent to answer and drop the subject.

In the internet day and age where fake & misleading is so prevalent, some people have gone the direction of wanting 100% proof before they will believe anything. This is OK, but the ability to draw realistic conclusions is also a valuable skill in problem solving.

Its pretty obvious, but not 100% positive, what caused McClendon's death but people will hold on to any shred of doubt that could exist.

He was a great man who did a lot for our community. Honestly though, even though he was a multi-billionaire his life had to be hard even before he got in to legal trouble. Constantly working your butt off & constantly staying busy, only to have everything ripped away from you twice would be put anybody in a defeated state of mind. Having money doesn't prevent people from being human & having emotions. Suicide is a major epidemic.

Some people are acting like us concluding he committed suicide is some kind of attack on his character. Its not at all. Its a mental health issue & people dealing with mental health is not a personality flaw.

Hopefully you aren't as angry in person as you seem to be on here.

I think we often read a lot more into forum posts than what is there. I know I wasn't feeling angry when I responded to you. I doubt anyone else was particularly angry, either. The funny thing is, my first assumption when reading your post is to read it in an angry tone (i.e. perceive you speaking it in an angry tone). I doubt that was your intended effect.

Anyway, my point is, no need to make it personal.

Why does everyone care if this is suicide or accidental? What is the reason for everyone getting so worked up?

In the internet day and age where fake & misleading is so prevalent, some people have gone the direction of wanting 100% proof before they will believe anything. This is OK, but the ability to draw realistic conclusions is also a valuable skill in problem solving.

Its pretty obvious, but not 100% positive, what caused McClendon's death but people will hold on to any shred of doubt that could exist.

He was a great man who did a lot for our community. Honestly though, even though he was a multi-billionaire his life had to be hard even before he got in to legal trouble. Constantly working your butt off & constantly staying busy, only to have everything ripped away from you twice would be put anybody in a defeated state of mind. Having money doesn't prevent people from being human & having emotions. Suicide is a major epidemic.

Some people are acting like us concluding he committed suicide is some kind of attack on his character. Its not at all. Its a mental health issue & people dealing with mental health is not a personality flaw.

There is a difference between drawing an informed conclusion and treating something like a certainty based on incomplete information. The problem is not the drawing of the conclusion; it is the repeated denial that no other conclusion can be drawn

Considering that I am the one most vocally suggesting it could still be something else, I can only assume you are talking about me. And yet I have stated several times that I personally believe that there is a strong likelihood that it WAS suicide. THAT is an example of an informed conclusion. Yet those remarks are being ignored here for the sake of argument.

Reading those comments as "holding on to any shred of a doubt" is a straw debate. I have yet to see anyone suggest that it is not possible or even likely that it was suicide; in fact most like myself have agreed that it is likely. Comments like my own have been of the nature of Devil's advocate, and yet are being attacked as if they are professing that the Earth is flat.

Do I think it was suicide? It seems very probable, based on circumstances. Am I certain it was? Of course not. And neither are you, or anybody else, unless they are willing to forsake reason and logic to bolster their own opinion. You talk about problem solving, but actually a key component to good problem solving is a rejection of confirmation bias. There are posters in this thread who are being willfully ignorant and/or intellectually dishonest, and those are characteristics that I personally find to be repugnant.

everyone... let's all take a breath and try to cool off a little. there are many posts in this thread that are getting way too heated. -M

Last thought on this for the time being: the vehicle and crash data are at this point probably the LEAST compelling evidence to support suicide, if only that they don't clearly rule out one or two other possibilities. If it were argued in court this evidence would surely be found to be inconclusive. Much more compelling is the apparent state of his business and personal affairs, and the recent free-fall, including the indictment, all of which makes the circumstances clearly suspicious. Beyond that, if you are making a case FOR, the most telling evidence might be if it is determined that he had no clear reason for being in that location, and if in fact he had faked out his security, ESPECIALLY if he normally stayed on schedule and in communication. If nothing comes out to explain him being there at that time, it looks bad, and even the fact that to date nobody has explained it leads to that conclusion.

Since each of these elements seems fairly damning, people have (reasonably) drawn the conclusion that it was probably suicide. The problem is when you start trying to read the tea leaves and interpret EVERYTHING as supporting you opinion. That is the definition of confirmation bias.

All of the above is to say that if this wreck had happened in 2007 or 2008 - when he was riding high, was clearly a billionaire, had landed the Thunder, still had all of his wine, and was at the helm of a seemingly unstoppable CHK - and ESPECIALLY if he were known to be headed to a meeting, we would have all been here posting about what a tragic loss it was, and how sad that he was probably nodding off due to burning the candle at both ends, or fiddling with his phone, driving recklessly, or whatever blank we chose to fill in. Suicide would probably not even be whispered. Even if the crash data were exactly the same. Confirmation bias.

everyone... let's all take a breath and try to cool off a little. there are many posts in this thread that are getting way too heated. -M

For something that should really be of no concern for almost no one but his family and theoretical insurers.

Regarding life insurance, how would the insurance company make that determination of suicide? Do the authorities make that determination, and insurance companies have to go with it? Or will this be something that could end up being hashed out in court? I feel like Pete was referring to this topic earlier when someone asked who cares if it was a suicide or not.

Regarding life insurance, how would the insurance company make that determination of suicide? Do the authorities make that determination, and insurance companies have to go with it? Or will this be something that could end up being hashed out in court? I feel like Pete was referring to this topic earlier when someone asked who cares if it was a suicide or not.

None of it matters if the policy is over 2 years old, a man like Aubrey has policies that are over 2 years old.

Insurance or not, accident or not. I'm betting he had plenty tucked away to make sure his is family has no worries.

This may be a dumb question, but say he left a suicide note (or a suicide text?) for his family. Would they be legally obligated at all to turn it over to the police or insurance company, or could they just keep it secret between themselves for as long as they wanted?

Aubrey McClendon Left His Biggest Backer With Billions To Lose | Times Record (http://swtimes.com/news/state-news/aubrey-mcclendon-left-his-biggest-backer-billions-lose)

Aubrey McClendon Left His Biggest Backer With Billions To Lose | Times Record (http://swtimes.com/news/state-news/aubrey-mcclendon-left-his-biggest-backer-billions-lose)


Among those on the hook are college endowments, charitable foundations and state employee retirement funds for Arizona, Florida, Minnesota and Oregon, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. They invested in a $4.1 billion EMG fund that staked most of McClendon’s deals.

Seems like they got the headline wrong.

So, in speaking to one of the national reporters that has been hot on this story, it seems the police's role in this is finished.

They finished their accident report, which included the cause of death as "blunt force trauma" and have forwarded everything else they had -- interviews with others, cell phone records, etc. -- to the county medical examiner.

The ME will ultimately rule on "manner of death", such as accident or suicide. They may also report they did not have enough information to make a call one way or another.

They had said it would take about 2 months before the made that ruling and that time has just about passed.

They should call a press conference when they are ready to release the info.

I read an article in the DOK today about a man that died in a crash at the same place, Midwest Boulevard, just South of Memorial. Like Mr. McClendon, he was going North. I lived in that area for forty years, and I don't understand the problem unless they just lost consciousness or weren't paying attention.
C. T.

Oh no... Really hope this won't become what I am thinking...

Oh no... Really hope this won't become what I am thinking...

What are you thinking?

Like... This becomes the bridge for those who choose to end their lives.

Anonymous,
Did I miss something? I haven't read anything about the autopsy report or a press conference.
C. T.