Professionals, Amateurs, and then there's us...
It feel like a straw man. Did I question anything from Gill? Chris and I have discussed many things but I certainly haven't said anything pejorative. By only comment I recall about Hendry was that his comment about Nina's Diaz story didn't mean much as he was/is a FOA/IIP "member".
Why would Gill rely on Nina or Hendry or Hendry on Nina or...
Chris' field isn't DNA or a number of other subjects he discusses here but he doesn't ever just make pronouncements. He backs almost everything with cites.
I have been very specific about what I question. I've shown in the case of Nina that even the NY Times thought a story on her perhaps crossing the line was warranted and she was described as pursuing a theory. I showed that by placing the Nappy conversation ahead of his supposedly spotting Rudi that she left the impression Nappy worked that night when it seems clear he was interviewed by her much later during the trial.
Should Barbie, Andrea and Follain be given the benefit of the doubt? How about R Owen?
[quoteJournalism can be a slippery slope. No doubt there are gradations of quality. If Nina isn't best in class, who is?
Read the Ny Times story.
You keep making these personal attacks without specifics. You make claims on things that maybe someone said about something. Recently I believe you made a claim about a Milan officer that was named by maybe Nina and he told of the call from Perugia or at least in context you implied it but no more. No cite.
Moore clear as day said in the March 2015 interview that Mignini said at the press conference that they had bleach receipts yet that seems to be false. Do you admit that was a factoid and never happened?
I don't in any wish to emulate any G-Man.
Concerning the Hilite, this is your MO that I'm referring to.
On what basis does it
"seem false" to you?
Do we have a transcript of the press conference? I don't. I haven't seem one or heard of one. I don't know if Moore is right, or even if Moore was specifically referring to the press conference.
But the claim that a clean-up occurred, which Mignini has maintained, is plainly false. The bleach story is "of that species", and disproven by the presence of footprints in luminol, and the absence of swirl patterns in same - according to Moore - which sounds credible to me.
Yet you assume, presumably, without the benefit of a 'case closed' transcript, that Moore got it wrong. Maybe he did. But how do you know?
You maybe correct. But your claim has no foundation, other than your own insistence that your assumptions must be accepted. With all due respect, I decline the privilege.
I don't have all the facts and sources at my fingertips. When I know where something comes from, I try to provide it. When I don't, I mention that I seem to recall something, and more often than not, someone comes in with the cite and completes the point.
Your spin on a NY Times story isn't binding dogma, ok?
Your twisting my words to imply comparisons I never made is just silly. Your pointing to Chris's field of expertise is a deflection from the point that Nina is a professional, and her expertise is journalism.
I'm positive I read about the phone call from Milan as reported by a Milan cop, and that the cop was named in the report. I'm pretty sure it was either Burleigh or Dempsey. So you assume what? That this recollection is either unreliable or false, but in any event, cannot be factually correct.
And what is the basis for your conclusion? Only your own assumptions. You're welcome to them, I do not find your assumptions convincing.
Grinder, it seems silly to have to repeat to you, that professional journalists in mainstream publications, who work with editors and have reputations to protect, are more credible to me than your skepticism. That you seem to feel differently, is entering the land of Mach.
You've brought a lot of insight to the boards. But I do think you sometimes overplay your hand, FWIW.
