Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[pilot padron]

Whatever floats your boat and a few factual corrections

I've read a lot there, though I never joined. (They accused me of being various pro-innocence posters there, such as niktendo, although I wasn't. There was a poster called stint7 or something like that who was quite astonishingly rude about me apparently on the grounds that I'm a veterinary surgeon, thus all I can do is clip dogs' toenails. This would be at the same time as you were sending me very touching and much appreciated messages of sympathy by PM here, about my mother's death - maybe you recall?)

Anyway, I've read enough to see that what you say there isn't true. There are two basic ways someone who isn't convinced about guilt comes into the forum. One is openly, maybe using a JREF screen name, as Rose did. In that case, the cry of "troll" is raised immediately, with called for banning from people who say they're offended and disgusted even having to read such posts. The accusation is that the person is only there to "disrupt".

So people try it the other way. They try to go in with questions, not making their pro-innocence viewpoint clear at the start. The chances are that even then the nature of their questions is rumbled, and the above happens. It's exactly the same as when you go on a homoeopathy forum and ask how they know that one supplier supplies better-quality products than another, or how they know that airport x-ray screening inactivates remedies. They've met these questions before, they know they can't answer them and they're deadly, so they ban anyone asking them.

If such a poster is clever enough not to be rumbled by the nature of their initial questions, they may survive a little longer. But sooner or later they ask an awkward question or two. The regulars realise they are not toeing the party line, and calls to ban the offensive, disruptive troll start again. Added to that is the accusation that the person was concealing their true opinion, and so was being dishonest. Breathtakingly, someone usually claims that if only they'd been open about their opinions from the start, they'd have been welcomed with open arms. Orly?

I've seen it multiple times in the period I've been reading that site. It's the behaviour of people who have their minds made up and do not want to be confused with either facts or logic. It's the behaviour of people who are incapable of sustaining a rational argument for their point of view, and know it. It's exactly analogous the the homoeopathy forums, I'm afraid.

As for "don't want to re-hash the same arguments", that's baloney. I'm happy to re-hash the same arguments on Lockerbie, for example, as often as any newbie cares to ask them. Keeps me familiar with the logic and the evidence, and occasionally the newbie brings in a bit more relevant evidence and everyone's understanding is enhanced. Closing off debate is the act of a group who can't defend their position and so choose not to.

Rolfe.

You argue that "from what you have read", what I argued about PMF above is untrue.
I strongly disagree with your *opinion*.

1) Your choice to "be happy to re-hash the same arguments" is apparently not shared by the Administrators at PMF.
That is why this Thread is 70,000+ posts long and strongly criticized by many of the very experienced JREF members.
From what they opine here and on Forum Feedback, many very experienced JREF Posters also apparently are definitely not "happy to rehash the same arguments" for 70,000+ times
That is why PMF Administrators sometimes step in and require some posters to refrain from excessive extremely disruptive recidivism.

2) Your argument's offense at someone on another Board being obviously sarcastic in referring to doggie toenails is also difficult to understand.
This since, Steve Moore walks on water as far as most here are concerned.
When I expressed similar offense here at Moore referring to Dr Jonas Salk as a selfish bastard, I was roundly criticized here and piled on as being unable to appreciate Moore's "sarcasm".

3) I do recall the supposedly *private* PM that I sent you expressing sincere condolences about the death of your mother.
I find the connection between that PM intended to be *private* and a repeatedly reviled poster from another Board's views on the murder of Meredith Kercher to be not only unconnected but in fact incomprehensible.

4) I do not recall what stint7 wrote on another Forum.
I do recall how several here use what stint7 says somewhere else as a way to circumvent Rule 12 and repeatedly personally attack me here.
Is that per chance the same way you argue about being erroneously connected with niktendo?

5) May I remind you also about a poster on PMF named 'donnie'.
He is a perfect example of the way I argue that people get themselves banned from PMF.
After literally *years* of deceit, donnie finally confessed and apologized for being a complete fraud.
He admitted consistently lying on PMF and playing other PMFers for suckers for the entire very extended period he was there.
Yes, he was eventually banned from PMF.org, but still is allowed on .net.
In fact, he just yesterday, in so many words insinuated on .net that he was probably the "upper level member" of PMF that Fisher/Fischer brags here about "being in contact with".

My argument about PMF was intended to answer seemingly sincere questions from another Poster.
I stand by everything in my answer and strongly reject your argument that any of it is "untrue"

 

[smkovalinksy]

I, too, find it almost virtually impossible to not confess after a short while that they in fact were there and saw the body. I can't think of any good reason, other than the fear of being suspected based on their alleged drugs use and apparently "weird"behaviour during the first hours after discovering the body. But I guess, no one would be able to endure such a huge pressure coming from everywhere (incl police and their own families). They knew each other for what, 8 days? I refuse to believe they would lie for each other for 4 long years(if they only saw the body). Not to mention that one of the reasons why I thought they're innocent of the murder, is the fact that they basically never turned on each other or on Guede (about whom they never ever suggested that he was the killer). I refuse to believe they thought all of that through in such a short time (after discovering the body until the arrests). It's impossible and it amazes me how the guilters along with the prosecution could come to another conclusion.


I find the story to be very complicated. The case, as Bruce many times said, is simple. Guede attacked and killed Meredith. Amanda and Raffaele had nothing to do with it. Still, I've seen people claiming that AK and RS knew what happened and never came forward for various reasons. It's a scenario that at one point bothered me very much. Maybe the sensationalist in me tells me that there's something else to this story, but at the end of the day, they were declared innocent, there's no evidence, they're free and they absolutely had no involvement in Meredith's murder.

Yes, I think all you say here is correct, and Bruce as well. Each time I try to imagine that they MUST have at least seen the body, or suggested to Rudy that he go over there, never dreaming that he would take it as far as he did - on closer examination the scenario comes apart at the seams.

 

[Grinder]

You argue that "from what you have read", what I argued about PMF above is untrue.
I strongly disagree with your *opinion*.

1) Your choice to "be happy to re-hash the same arguments" is apparently not shared by the Administrators at PMF.
That is why this Thread is 70,000+ posts long and strongly criticized by many of the very experienced JREF members.

First off .org has just passed 100,000 posts so apparently their approach hasn't reduced volume.

A new poster there just brought up a very interesting point. He asked why Meredith would spend the night alone in the cottage instead of sleeping over at her girlfriends' place. I had never really thought about this.

She knew that only Amanda could possibly be there and she was scheduled to work a Le Chic.

Now, how is he received? TM and S7 rip into him for blaming the victim and the repeated lie that the kids never gave a alibi that was the truth.

The false alibi statement, of course, is based on TM's belief that they are guilty. By P** standards unless they admitted to killing Meredith they had to be lying.

ETA: The alibi logic is similar to the contamination, oft repeated statement, that one must prove contamination for it to exist. The source of that was Novelli a MD not a DNA crime scene expert.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

You argue that "from what you have read", what I argued about PMF above is untrue.
I strongly disagree with your *opinion*.

1) Your choice to "be happy to re-hash the same arguments" is apparently not shared by the Administrators at PMF.
That is why this Thread is 70,000+ posts long and strongly criticized by many of the very experienced JREF members.
From what they opine here and on Forum Feedback, many very experienced JREF Posters also apparently are definitely not "happy to rehash the same arguments" for 70,000+ times
That is why PMF Administrators sometimes step in and require some posters to refrain from excessive extremely disruptive recidivism.

2) Your argument's offense at someone on another Board being obviously sarcastic in referring to doggie toenails is also difficult to understand.
This since, Steve Moore walks on water as far as most here are concerned.
When I expressed similar offense here at Moore referring to Dr Jonas Salk as a selfish bastard, I was roundly criticized here and piled on as being unable to appreciate Moore's "sarcasm".

3) I do recall the supposedly *private* PM that I sent you expressing sincere condolences about the death of your mother.
I find the connection between that PM intended to be *private* and a repeatedly reviled poster from another Board's views on the murder of Meredith Kercher to be not only unconnected but in fact incomprehensible.

4) I do not recall what stint7 wrote on another Forum. I do recall how several here use what stint7 says somewhere else as a way to circumvent Rule 12 and repeatedly personally attack me here. Is that per chance the same way you argue about being erroneously connected with niktendo?
5) May I remind you also about a poster on PMF named 'donnie'.
He is a perfect example of the way I argue that people get themselves banned from PMF.
After literally *years* of deceit, donnie finally confessed and apologized for being a complete fraud.
He admitted consistently lying on PMF and playing other PMFers for suckers for the entire very extended period he was there.
Yes, he was eventually banned from PMF.org, but still is allowed on .net.
In fact, he just yesterday, in so many words insinuated on .net that he was probably the "upper level member" of PMF that Fisher/Fischer brags here about "being in contact with".
My argument about PMF was intended to answer seemingly sincere questions from another Poster.
I stand by everything in my answer and strongly reject your argument that any of it is "untrue"

I know you like to play games with your different characters online but do you think you will ever be able to tell the truth just once about anything?

Here is what Donnie actually said "in so many words"

 

[snook1]

First off .org has just passed 100,000 posts so apparently their approach hasn't reduced volume.

A new poster there just brought up a very interesting point. He asked why Meredith would spend the night alone in the cottage instead of sleeping over at her girlfriends' place. I had never really thought about this.

She knew that only Amanda could possibly be there and she was scheduled to work a Le Chic.

Now, how is he received? TM and S7 rip into him for blaming the victim and the repeated lie that the kids never gave a alibi that was the truth.

The false alibi statement, of course, is based on TM's belief that they are guilty. By P** standards unless they admitted to killing Meredith they had to be lying.

Yes, they tottally tried to put him down. I wonder if this new poster will be banned or maybe they will keep him...

Both TM and Stint7's opinions are very aggressive and delusional.

 

[snook1]

5) May I remind you also about a poster on PMF named 'donnie'.
He is a perfect example of the way I argue that people get themselves banned from PMF.
After literally *years* of deceit, donnie finally confessed and apologized for being a complete fraud.
He admitted consistently lying on PMF and playing other PMFers for suckers for the entire very extended period he was there.
Yes, he was eventually banned from PMF.org, but still is allowed on .net.
In fact, he just yesterday, in so many words insinuated on .net that he was probably the "upper level member" of PMF that Fisher/Fischer brags here about "being in contact with".

Donnie, as far as I can remember, also said that he received great support from his fellow PMFers after the crime tourist - SA - "got him". Moreover, Donnie said that he used PMF as a source of information and made friends with few members there. He was banned after yet another "dump on donnie day", when he was called an idiot a million of times and tried to defend himself. He never confessed. He was busted, his real name was revealed and laughed at, he was offended so badly that multiple members on PMF said that this time PMF crossed the line.

Donnie understood how immature he was and how he should have come forward with his real agenda, but he never did. Instead, he tried to make the best out of the situation he found himself in and stayed around.

Donnie's a real player. Yes, I am.

Now, Stint, get over it.

 

[Grinder]

Donnie, as far as I can remember, also said that he received great support from his fellow PMFers after the crime tourist - SA - "got him". Moreover, Donnie said that he used PMF as a source of information and made friends with few members there. He was banned after yet another "dump on donnie day", when he was called an idiot a million of times and tried to defend himself.

Donnie, understood how immature he was and how he should have come forward with his real agenda, but he never did. Instead, he tried to make the best out of the situation he found himself in and stayed around.

Donnie's a real player. Yes, I am.

Now, Stint, get over it.

Are you saying you're Donnie?

 

[Rolfe]

You argue that "from what you have read", what I argued about PMF above is untrue.
I strongly disagree with your *opinion*.

Die Gedanken sind frei.

1) Your choice to "be happy to re-hash the same arguments" is apparently not shared by the Administrators at PMF.
That is why this Thread is 70,000+ posts long and strongly criticized by many of the very experienced JREF members.
From what they opine here and on Forum Feedback, many very experienced JREF Posters also apparently are definitely not "happy to rehash the same arguments" for 70,000+ times
That is why PMF Administrators sometimes step in and require some posters to refrain from excessive extremely disruptive recidivism.

It is always perfectly easy to outline a strong, logical and well-founded position succinctly. I could see people getting fed up if a newbie kept coming back with ignorant comments, but the PMFers don't even try to supoprt their so cleary-held opinions first go out of the box, not even on the off-chance the poster is sincerely looking for enlightenment.

2) Your argument's offense at someone on another Board being obviously sarcastic in referring to doggie toenails is also difficult to understand.
This since, Steve Moore walks on water as far as most here are concerned.
When I expressed similar offense here at Moore referring to Dr Jonas Salk as a selfish bastard, I was roundly criticized here and piled on as being unable to appreciate Moore's "sarcasm".

Come on, that was obvious irony. Anyone could spot it a mile off. There's an actual word for the figure of speech - where you say something obviously internally contradictory to get attention. Calling Jonas Salk a "selfish bastard" is in that category. Like calling water dry.

If anyone was being ironic with their comments about clipping doggie toenails, or about my patients having four stomachs - no, they weren't. They were being intentionally insulting, and it was obvious from the context.

3) I do recall the supposedly *private* PM that I sent you expressing sincere condolences about the death of your mother.
I find the connection between that PM intended to be *private* and a repeatedly reviled poster from another Board's views on the murder of Meredith Kercher to be not only unconnected but in fact incomprehensible.

Although the forum rules make it plain that there is no obligation to keep PMs secret, I would not normally pass on anything that appeared to breach anyone's privacy. Why you might think that I should keep it secret that you sent me a couple of very touching and much appreciated PMs on the death of my mother, I can't imagine.

I am not niktendo. Although posters on PMF thought I was. See how easy it is, when you just state the plain truth? And there is no way such a statement infringed on my privacy, at all.

4) I do not recall what stint7 wrote on another Forum.
I do recall how several here use what stint7 says somewhere else as a way to circumvent Rule 12 and repeatedly personally attack me here.
Is that per chance the same way you argue about being erroneously connected with niktendo?

OK, I'll say it again. I am not niktendo. It's easy.

5) May I remind you also about a poster on PMF named 'donnie'.
He is a perfect example of the way I argue that people get themselves banned from PMF.
After literally *years* of deceit, donnie finally confessed and apologized for being a complete fraud.
He admitted consistently lying on PMF and playing other PMFers for suckers for the entire very extended period he was there.
Yes, he was eventually banned from PMF.org, but still is allowed on .net.
In fact, he just yesterday, in so many words insinuated on .net that he was probably the "upper level member" of PMF that Fisher/Fischer brags here about "being in contact with".

I remember Donnie. Cowed and occasionally sneered at, he never quite came out and said he thought the students were innocent. He just managed not to be banned. Then after the not guilty verdict, he confessed he had made up his mind for innocence some time ago, after having joined in good faith, but had not revealed this because he knew he would be banned.

And he was.

My argument about PMF was intended to answer seemingly sincere questions from another Poster.
I stand by everything in my answer and strongly reject your argument that any of it is "untrue"

You're entitled to your view of the world. What do you think would happen if I tried to join PMF and politely presented a well-argued and well-referenced case for a time of death just after 9pm?

Rolfe.

 

[Grinder]

You're entitled to your view of the world. What do you think would happen if I tried to join PMF and politely presented a well-argued and well-referenced case for a time of death just after 9pm?

Obviously you'd be warmly welcomed and your expertise would be valued highly. After being convince that ToD didn't fit with the prosecution's theory, the majority of members there would reconsider their PG position and would question the entire case.

Many would come forward with their new-found disdain for those, both amongst them and on the outside, that have mislead them all these years.

Finally they would install you as forensics moderator since their last one is busy answering phones at a fashion house.

 

[snook1]

I remember Donnie. Cowed and occasionally sneered at, he never quite came out and said he thought the students were innocent. He just managed not to be banned. Then after the not guilty verdict, he confessed he had made up his mind for innocence some time ago, after having joined in good faith, but had not revealed this because he knew he would be banned.

And he was.

People on PMF knew exactly what I thought about AK and RS's guilt. Most of them, at least. I have tons and tons of PM's saved, where I'm speaking with various members there and they promised not to reveal anything. This whole thing continued, the members never said anything that they not only supported Donnie but that they spoke with him day in day out via PM's(some of them had serious doubts about their guilt and never said anything). It was interesting to see all of them bashing me on the main threads and then writing me PM's that they had to be harsh publicly but they actually like me.

Right before my ban I received bunch of PM's. They were filled with hate and anger. It was nasty. That's why I think this is a hate group, nothing else.

 

[pilot padron]

My last words on this topic

I know you like to play games with your different characters online but do you think you will ever be able to tell the truth just once about anything?

Here is what Donnie actually said "in so many words"

[qimg]http://i.imgur.com/RlZnh.jpg[/qimg]

Yes, any open minded person could see that "In so many words", that is precisely what donnie *insinuated*, and precisely makes my point.
Your copy from the hated site proves little except that what I said in my argument was indeed factual.

Also, instead of attempts to re-write history, like Grinder's/Rolfe's arguments below, I suggest you copy n and paste the complete sad saga 'donnie'
Copy verbatim where he himself admits that he was deliberately deceitful and totally untrue to everyone for the entire time on PMF.
No insinuation or in so many words modifiers necessary if you need to re-visit that sickening saga

Yes, that confession is the real history.
What he says he did (and later attempts to weasel and justify) was the reason and the only reason he was banned..

1) Read the facts and weep.
2) Save us the superficial re-writing and defending the indefensible (again).
2) Remember the old saying about 'strange bedfellows'.
3) Personally, I would almost rather associate with someone who was just confused, rather than a self admitted long term totally deceitful liar.

ETA: yet another attempt to re-write history by Rolfe.
FACTS:
1) Donnie 'confessed' only after he was exposed as a liar and not before
2) Donnie went to his other Forum and tried to delete all evidence before he 'confessed'
3) Excuse me if I find nothing admirable about any of those facts you conveniently omit.

OPINION
If you presented an argument in the excellent way you present most of your arguments here, I would expect you would just get several rebuttals.
Many of which might say the TOD talking point was argued ad nauseam, and little is to be gained by re-visiting it.
The Administrator might ask you to stop arguing that topic.
Whether you get banned depends entirely on how well you obey the Administrator's rules from that point.
Exactly what I argued several times above.

 

[RoseMontague]

People on PMF knew exactly what I thought about AK and RS's guilt. Most of them, at least. I have tons and tons of PM's saved, where I'm speaking with various members there and they promised not to reveal anything. This whole thing continued, the members never said anything that they not only supported Donnie but that they spoke with him day in day out via PM's(some of them had serious doubts about their guilt and never said anything). It was interesting to see all of them bashing me on the main threads and then writing me PM's that they had to be harsh publicly but they actually like me.

Right before my ban I received bunch of PM's. They were filled with hate and anger. It was nasty. That's why I think this is a hate group, nothing else.

Interesting.
Were you nice to Rose when she was there, or did you join in the bashing fun?
I appreciate your insight, were the PMF's already aware that you are the same poster as snook1 on JREF?

 

[snook1]

Interesting.
Were you nice to Rose when she was there, or did you join in the bashing fun?
I appreciate your insight, were the PMF's already aware that you are the same poster as snook1 on JREF?

No, they don't know yet, but I'm sure it's a matter of minutes. Stint will inform them. After all, the majority of his posts on PMF is about JREF.

Rose, you were the one who I secretely admired throughout the years. I didn't join in the bashing - that's really not me, I'm a positive person. Also, I don't post there anymore, for many months now. Recently I wrote few posts where I tried to defend myself for the last time.

There are many stories to be told about how they all lie to each other on a daily basis.

 

[Grinder]

Obey!!!!

whether you get banned depends entirely on how well you obey the administrator's rules from that point.

 

[RoseMontague]

No, they don't know yet, but I'm sure it's a matter of minutes. Stint will inform them. After all, the majority of his posts on PMF is about JREF.

Rose, you were the one who I secretely admired throughout the years. I didn't join in the bashing - that's really not me, I'm a positive person. Also, I don't post there anymore, for many months now. Recently I wrote few posts where I tried to defend myself for the last time.

There are many stories to be told about how they all lie to each other on a daily basis.

Do you think they hate you now or are they just still pretending not to like you?

Maybe they are just pretending to dislike Amanda? I am going to have to look at PMF a bit differently now. Reminds me of Through The Looking Glass. Is it worse hating somebody or just pretending to hate somebody? A lot to think about.

 

[Rolfe]

OPINION
If you presented an argument in the excellent way you present most of your arguments here, I would expect you would just get several rebuttals.
Many of which might say the TOD talking point was argued ad nauseam, and little is to be gained by re-visiting it.
The Administrator might ask you to stop arguing that topic.
Whether you get banned depends entirely on how well you obey the Administrator's rules from that point.
Exactly what I argued several times above.

No. I would get boilerplate nonsense about gastrointestinal contents being "unreliable" without stating how or why. I would get boilerplate references to problems with using this evidence in other cases, where the circumstances were different, without understanding why different circumstances lead to different conclusions. I would get cherry-picked references to the longest citation they could find for T-lag, without acknowledging that that reference is an outlier and the consensus is significantly shorter. I would get boilerplate references to studies of T-lag in pathological situations which are not relevant to a healthy young woman eating wholesome food. I would get people trying to conflate the time for the stomach to empty completely with the time for it to begin emptying. I would get people suggesting it was possible for ingesta in the duodenum to slip accidentally as far as the ileum, post mortem.

And when I pointed out why these entrenched positions were in error, I would be banned. If I got that far.

Rolfe.

 

[LondonJohn]

Obey!!!!

It's an Orwellian nightmare that would be hilarious if it wasn't so very sad.

Basically, the pattern of events goes something like this:

1) Newposter appears on .org and argues a pro-acquittal or pro-innocence position.

2) Various core .org posters weigh in almost immediately and high-handedly tell Newposter that his/her views are unwelcome and/or ill-informed.

3) At this point, often various core .org posters will either make an overt request for Ganong to take action, or they will very possibly PM/email her with the same request.

4) Ganong will post a patronising offer to Newposter to not post until he/she "learns the ethos of the board".

5) Newposter will post another (usually reasonable and polite) argument favouring non-guilt or innocence.

6) Newposter will start to receive direct abuse from various .org posters.

7) Newposter will often respond at this point by questioning why he/she is being attacked, often becoming defensive in the process.

8) Ganong will take this opportunity to inform Newposter that he/she is not to post on .org - either for a specified period of time, or indefinitely. Ganong will not, of course, admonish any of the core .org posters who have insulted and goaded Newposter.

9) Newposter will understandably take umbrage at this condescending, authoritatian approach which has no underlying logic, and will often post to say so.

10) This will give Ganong all the excuse she needs to ban Newposter permanently for "disobeying the rules".


It's truly an amazing display of arrogant protectionism going on over there. The Soviet Politburo or Khmer Rouge would have admired Ganong's methods of control and misdirection. I find it fascinating to observe.

 

[snook1]

Do you think they hate you now or are they just still pretending not to like you?

Maybe they are just pretending to dislike Amanda? I am going to have to look at PMF a bit differently now. Reminds me of Through The Looking Glass. Is it worse hating somebody or just pretending to hate somebody? A lot to think about.

Well, it's a complicated thing, as you've noticed. I'm not sure what's on their minds. All I know is that there are some "high profile" members on PMF that think AK and RS did not kill Meredith Kercher but they never said it on the main threads. So yes, some of them are pretending they hate Amanda

As to me, most of them hate me just as much as they hate Amanda/ Raffaele or Bruce, but they have even less respect for me, beacuse I lied to them about my position.

 

[Dougm]

OPINION
If you presented an argument in the excellent way you present most of your arguments here, I would expect you would just get several rebuttals.
Many of which might say the TOD talking point was argued ad nauseam, and little is to be gained by re-visiting it.
The Administrator might ask you to stop arguing that topic.
Whether you get banned depends entirely on how well you obey the Administrator's rules from that point.
Exactly what I argued several times above.

Am I wrong, or doesn't the above detailed process translate to:

* Point is raised the long standing posters don't agree with
* They have discussed it before, and decided they are right
* If you bring it up, you will be asked not to talk about that, because it is settled
* If you don't obey, you will be banned

What is the difference between that and being banned for disagreeing with the groupthink?

I guess I am just not bright enough to understand.

 

[Grinder]

It's an Orwellian nightmare that would be hilarious if it wasn't so very sad.

It's truly an amazing display of arrogant protectionism going on over there. The Soviet Politburo or Khmer Rouge would have admired Ganong's methods of control and misdirection. I find it fascinating to observe.

Misdirection. I think that's the description of her writing style I've been looking for. You know, when she says something like: People say that London John isn't really in England, I myself can't verify that but neither can I deny it's truth. The fact that Loony may well not live in London isn't relevant to the veracity of his posts. If he lived on the moon, he would be even Loonier.

You missed the pattern a little. The newposter need not express an opinion of not guilty, they only need to address an issue "that's been decided". "Please read the entire P** site and then come back"

If the newposter brings anything from a non-approved source that is also cause for derision. Even a veteran is not allowed to state that at the beginning she had hoped that the kids were innocent.