Close Reading Response to: Dad: Son brushed up against poisonous plant, died

     Evann Gastaldo's article, "Dad: Son brushed up against poisonous plant, died", about an English gardener who died supposedly from accidental poisoning, provokes the arguable illegitimacy of the investigation. Gastaldo uses diction and syntax to instill a feeling of controversy into the reader, along with details regarding cultural connotation and comparison. The use of rhetoric in the piece leads one to believe that Gastaldo does not in fact believe the allegations made concerning the death of Nathan Greenaway, and confirms the article as a subtle call for further investigation.

     The most obvious use of rhetoric in the piece was diction; Gastaldo consistently used words and phrases such as, "must have" and "not clear", to make a point on the uncertainty surrounding the case. In both of the following sentences he uses the word potential to further emphasize the same idea, "He died on Sept. 7 of multiple organ failure, and at a pre-inquest hearing this week, a potential cause was heard." and "... the plant's toxin wouldn't have been detectable in his blood in as little as 24 hours, making samples taken after his death potentially useless ..." The potential cause of death was heard, but it is not known for sure. Taking blood samples of the diseased to test for the toxin is potentially useless, but again is not proven and there is a possibility that a presence of the toxin could be found. Almost all of the facts that Gastaldo reports within his article include some word that reflects the flimsy logic and evidence of the investigation.

     In the second and third to last paragraphs in the article, where Gastaldo talks about the purpose of the blood samples of Nathan Greenaway, syntax is used in an interesting way to allow the reader to form skepticism without having it deliberately pointed out:

Others testified that the toxin would have caused massive damage to the gardener's internal organs within hours. But a lawyer for his employer isn't convinced, and one problem is that the blood sample taken when Greenaway was admitted to the hospital has been destroyed. 

According to testimony, the plant's toxin wouldn't have been detectable in his blood in as little as 24 hours, making samples taken after his death potentially useless, the Independent reports.

In the first paragraph, a condition is presented that would allow a solution by testing the blood for the toxin. Then, in the same paragraph, it is revealed that the blood test was destroyed. This creates the skepticism. Why would the blood be destroyed? In the second paragraph it is revealed that officials believed the blood to be useless to the inquiry of cause of death. However, the controversial implications of the first paragraph have already set a precedent of distrust, and leaves this information ineffective to reader. Thus, the structure of the two paragraphs help create an ideal feeling within the reader that supports Gastaldo's purpose.

     Aconitum, the plant that supposedly poisoned the man, goes by many different names, such as wolfsbane and blue rocket. In his article, Gastaldo specifically uses names for the flower that are associated with supernatural connotation, "The deadly flower, also known as Devil's helmet, monkshood, and wolfsbane ... " The names, Devil's helmet, monkshood, and wolfsbane are all referring to using the flower to ward off enemies of supernatural and evil entities. The use of these names bring about an uneasy air of skepticism throughout the article that support the overall purpose to make the reader have doubts in the investigation.

     Through the use of diction, syntax, and details, Gastaldo indirectly tells the reader that the investigation over the death of Nathan Greenaway was incomplete and probably unjust.