The latest shocker from Hollywood has Brittany Murphy as the victim of possible foul play, and a short while later her husband also became a victim by dying under the same circumstances. The death of Murphy according to recent lab reports, seems to have been caused by long term poisoning.
Although no one, at this point, have made the announcement that the 32 year-old actress was murdered. Even though forensic evidence clearly points to this conclusion. Murphy’s father felt so certain that his daughter had been purposefully killed that he ordered separate lab tests performed after the Los Angeles Coroner Department labeled her death a mixture of cold medications and pneumonia.
In 2009, Brittany was pronounced dead on December 20. Five short months later her husband, 40 year-old Simon Monjack died of pneumonia as well. Apparently no one, apart from Angelo Bertolotti, found this coincidence odd. Certainly not law enforcement officials who had closed out Murphy’s death as nothing out of the ordinary.
But Bertolotti was never satisfied with the official explanation of his daughter’s death. Murphy had told him that her public support of a “whistle blower” had led to the actress being followed by government agents and that she was not only under physical surveillance, but, her phone and communications were being monitored.
Possibly. Except, her lab tests came back from an independant lab showing that Murphy’s hair contained abnormal amounts of heavy metals. Forensics 101 would say that is evidence of long term poisoning. Even in the days when toxicology was not as advanced as it is today, traces of poison (noticed by the amounts of heavy metals and or arsenic) in a victim’s hair meant that they had been “fed” poison over a long period of time.
In the past, human hair follicles contained traces of arsenic that had been administered to victims over a period of time and these were easy to find in analysis. So too are so-called “heavy metal poisons” which include mercury, thallium, zinc and copper, et al. The human body requires small amounts of these metals but too much will kill. These “heavy metals can also be found in insecticide and other poisons.
In the case of “short-term” poisoning, symptoms would have been apparent during the autopsy and would have shown up in the toxicology tests run by the Los Angeles Coroner’s office. However, these tests would not have been run if the cause of death, as reported by the coroner, appeared to be from complications arising from pneumonia and a toxic mix of cold remedies. So the likelihood of a long term campaign of murder does seem more likely. Long term poisoning could have caused Brittany Murphy’s death and that of her husband.
But, who would do such a thing?
One theory has Brittany murdered because of her public support of Homeland Security whistleblower, Julie Davis, who was also Murphy’s friend. Following the old adage of “there’s no smoke without fire,” Davis’ support from Murphy, and presumably her husband, must have put the both of them on some sort of “watch list.” Especially since journalist Davis was listed as a “domestic terrorist” after her revelations about foreign terrorists gaining access to the country.
Davis herself has supported Brittany’s father in his allegations that his daughter was murdered. Murphy’s mother has always maintained that the Sin City actress was killed by toxic mold and believes that both the actress and her husband were killed by this mysterious fungus. That theory has been discounted, much as the purposeful poisoning theory has.
Since the independent tests ordered by Murphy’s father show these heavy metal traces in his daughter’s hair, it seems to indicate that long term poisoning was the cause of Brittany’s death. Since her husband died from the same symptoms five months later, it would seem that he had been targeted as well. With the Los Angeles Coroner stating that the new evidence does not indicate a need to re-open Murphy’s case, the question of who was poisoning the star will, for now, remain unanswered. But it does not take Sherlock Holmes to see that something does not add up in the star’s death.
By Michael Smith