You know, ever since I read Doug Bock Clark’s GQ article about Otto Warmbier there’s been something bothering me, but I couldn’t quite bring it to mind. Now I can. It was the part about supposed “in the know” individuals (yes, those are my words but they quite accurately express the gist) feeling that a 
suicide attempt could plausibly explain Otto’s physical and mental condition upon his return. What was NOT offered, however, was ANY kind of explanation/supposition as to what he might conceivably have used to commit such an act, or how he might conceivably have gone about gaining access to same. Further, if such an attempt on Otto’s part had been of a physical or chemical nature, why was it that apparently NO evidence WHATSOEVER of such an attempt was said to have been left behind ANYWHERE on or in his body? The article goes to great lengths to stress that EVERY North Korean person charged with looking after Warmbier most certainly understood unequivocally that allowing ANY serious harm to come to him could result in their death, and a likely slow and extremely painful one to boot. Given those circumstances, wouldn’t an HOURLY–if not an every 15 MINUTE–shift-change suicide watch on the part of his captives have been a CYA routine from the very beginning? I don’t know what brought about Otto Warmbier’s tragically heart wrenching end, but I do know one thing: you can’t just toss the word “suicide” out there without, at the VERY least, offering some sort of even speculative “how” explanation or supposition (and even then it should be subject to serious questioning), and if you haven’t got it, you don’t throw the term out there, period. What Clark insinuated wasn’t a theory, it was shameful. — WILLIAM C. HENRY