Taylor Armstrong’s husband’s death has been confirmed as a suicide and the coroner reports a male ‘roommate’ found the body. What a tragedy!
The LA County Coroner’s Office released its autopsy findings on Russell Armstrong today, ruling his death a suicide. Chief Coroner Investigator Craig Harvey told Us Weekly
the 47-year-old husband of Taylor Armstrong was found hanging from an electrical cord from the rafters in the room of a friend’s house where he’d been staying. “The cause of death is hanging and the final manner of death is suicide,” he said.
Russell’s date of death is listed as Monday, August 15 but the last time his roommate had a conversation with him was Friday, August 12.
The coroner says a male roommate found Russell, although conflicting reports claim Real Housewives of Beverly Hills star Taylor was also at the house at the time.
Russell had previously told his sister Laurie Kelsoe that suicide was “not an option” for him as he would never do that to his children. Russell had three children; son Aiden, 13, (with ex-wife Barbara Fredrickson), son Griffin, 11 (with former fiancee Milette Fields) and daughter Kennedy, 5 (with Taylor).
Get More Taylor Armstrong News Here!
Efe
Posted at 5:54 PM on March 16, 2012
Beth: thanks for saihrng your comments. I was waiting for someone to raise the point that Armstrong’s work is 30 years old and infer that his findings may not be applicable to technical/scientific writing of the 21st Century. I have chewed on this point for some time now. I recognize some would suggest that what is needed is to replicate Armstrong’s work today and others will say that he looked at Journals well removed from their discipline (meaning such obtuse writing would never happen in my backyard). However, when I look at the landscape of writing output in the life sciences, I am comfortable taking the position that the issue of communication quality remains largely the same today as in the early 1980s. I think there is considerable inertia that ensures the status quo for communication quality reporting research. Much of the inertia comes from how people are socialized by superiors and peers in their particular disciplines to think about the rhetoric of their discipline. Often this socialization occurs through the document review process and also the modeling that occurs through reading the output of others or the dictum here, when you write your report, make it read just like this one .For the past 18 years I have been asking questions of life science authors about their reading audiences, how readers interact with documents, and how authors know when good is good enough. In short, unfortunately I have seen no change in the responses to these questions. Frankly, most have never considered such questions and hold little insight in how to respond.