A conspiratorial tale of murder, with Fox News at the center

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
No, actually, this happens a lot, as I've seen numerous instances of investigative journalism at local or national levels that lead to convictions that otherwise would not have. Pretending that investigative journalism is dubious is ridiculous on its face, and lacks historical evidence to prove your claim. In fact, history can often prove the opposite of your claim.

Maybe for actual leaks, but pushing an alternative investigation path than what the actual investigation is investigating is not how that happens.

Painful or not, sometimes this is the path that leads to the truth. You can't dismiss circumstantial evidence as being possible at this point, just because it might pain the family to see it being proposed and discussed on the national stage. I feel for the family to have to go through this and relive the murder every time it is discussed, but if it leads to the truth, it's worth it.

I can and will dismiss this circumstantial evidence. Coincidences remain coincidences in my book until you can prove them otherwise. Just because it sounds plausible doesn't mean it is.

ETA: And by the way, if "internet detectives" are such a problem to police work, would you please contact law enforcement in the Greater Cincinnati Area and tell them to quick bombarding we ignorant citizens for tips and help in solving unsolved cases? I mean, since the general public, who knows "next to nothing about police work or the law," are constantly being sought out for help concerning cases, these police departments should be told how pointless asking us for help really is, right?

Are you being obtuse here? Reporting suspicious activity isn't the same as sitting at a desk and googling an investigation then pretending like you know all there is to know about it to pronounce guilt.

Just because the D.C. police or FBI haven't asked for public help doesn't mean that the public needs to await such a request. Police investigations are not infallible, and detectives and investigators are not always willing to approach things with fresh perspectives like non-LEO people are.

Of the two groups I'm about to list which is allowed to practice law and arrest people: The police or concerned citizenry?

originally posted by: Krazysh0tMaybe for actual leaks, but pushing an alternative investigation path than what the actual investigation is investigating is not how that happens.

We'll agree to disagree, as I have over a decade under my belt working directly with military police, the criminal investigation division of the Army, federal investigatory agents, and federal attorneys. I'll take my experience over your assertions in this regard every day.

I can and will dismiss this circumstantial evidence. Coincidences remain coincidences in my book until you can prove them otherwise. Just because it sounds plausible doesn't mean it is.

And when the investigation is still ongoing, it's asinine to dismiss ANY evidence, circumstantial or otherwise (all evidence is circumstantial at the start of and during an ongoing investigation, technically). Something tells me that you have limited experience dealing with proper investigations and how to obtain, collect, or seek out actual evidence. It doesn't just fall in the laps of investigators.

Are you being obtuse here? Reporting suspicious activity isn't the same as sitting at a desk and googling an investigation then pretending like you know all there is to know about it to pronounce guilt.

No one has pronounced guilt in any way concerning the Rich investigation. You may be taking it that way, but that's not what FoxNews has done. But correct me if I'm wrong, but you're the one that opened this thread implying that FoxNews is full of BS because the family says so (more or less)...who's pretending to know all there is to know about this investigation and pronouncing a verdict?

Of the two groups I'm about to list which is allowed to practice law and arrest people: The police or concerned citizenry?

Straw man...I never said anyone speculating or connecting dots should be practicing law or arresting people, that's your ill-directed assertion. Investigating unsolved murders, though, is neither practicing law nor arresting people. Anyone can do that, and it's perfectly legal and acceptable, depending on methods.

I think we should move on from this discussion--I'm more open to all possibilities in an unsolved case, and you seem content with condemning people searching avenues not being pursued by law enforcement and with taking the word of the family over possibilities suggest by circumstantial evidence.

To each their own.

a reply to: Krazysh0t
No, we should all be looking for as many sources or reports as possible, however, at the same time, we should not dismiss something just because it is from a particular source either.