I have happily never heard of this youtube show, nor the person who rolls it out whom you've named above. Ty. So why do we believe that it is truthful and not tampered with by someone then?
Just because we don't see it doesn't mean it doesn't happen at all.
Why though? What makes this podcast a reputable source over any of the others out there? What makes Grey Hughes an approved source here as well while I'm at it? Genuinely asking. THere is no oversight, no ethics involved in social media creation. None. Its a money making machine (how often does Grey ask for donations on his show and then tell off people who don't see things as he does???). Its gross. No thanks.
I think the main reason MS became an approved source is because they were leaking(?)/revealing things about the case no one else had, but could be verified. As far as GH, got me.
If they had these concerns, I wonder, could they not have sent them directly to JG? Is there not some legal footwork here they could have done in order to bring it to her attention in a motion or something? I'm not a lawyer, so this is a genuine question. Why make it public? How much money does each episode garner for Murder Sheets or other content creators? What is their motivation and end goal here? If it were as noble as we hope, then surely there must have been some more ethical way to go about this, no?
Having not listened, and refusing to listen so I want to ask: who asked whom to do this? What proof is there of this or are we just meant to accept that The Murder Sheets is the gospel truth, or their "source(s)" are? It might all be true or true in part, but because I cannot verify the source, and because I believe in information hygiene -- I'm not buying into the frenzy. Even if major media picked this story up at this point, it would still be just a story - a one sided view through a narrow lens in my view. Ty in advance if you're able to answer (or anyone is).
She isn't obligated to be respectful of the family though, is she? It would be nice, yes. It would be professional sure. But she isn't obligated to as far as I know? I say this without having any idea what she may have said about the family, but unless she's committed libel or slander against them, then I'm afraid its just not nice, but not illegal. We are respectful of the family members here, but in many, many places, the internet is not nearly so kind.
I recall that - how is their behavior less egregious than any of the other social media creators then? Why did they take it upon themselves to leak information? Motivation is key... sounds profitable to me.
Yes. They were approved when MSM covered their release of the RL search warrant and then the police interview of KK.
fox59.com
What is inherently unethical about it? I’ll be the first to say I don’t like MS and I find them obnoxious, but they do come across valid information because they’ve become a trusted outlet in this case. I’m not sure I agree that potential blatant ethical concerns (if that’s what is being alleged) should be swept under the rug and kept hush-hush while waiting on a court ruling, especially when it appears that side is also constantly using legal process to sidestep the gag order and attempt to influence the public at large.
Maybe not legally, but I think morally she would be obligated, to treat the victim's and their grieving families with respect. IMO
Thank you for taking the time to get the links!Yes. They were approved when MSM covered their release of the RL search warrant and then the police interview of KK.
Search warrant: Delphi killer took souvenir, may have ‘staged’ murder scene
DELPHI, Ind. – A search warrant reveals new details of the investigation into the 2017 murders of Abby Williams and Libby German in Delphi. According to a search warrant obtained by the Murde…
New details in Delphi double murder investigation revealed in police interview obtained by podcast
Police are now grilling an accused pedophile who allegedly made contact with one of the girls on social media.abc7chicago.com
I see what you’re saying. I don’t know that it’s exactly unethical but how is what they’re doing considered a good thing when they’re slinging mud just as much as the people they’re talking about? I don’t see this as some act of heroics or bravery. I see it as a mud slinging festival. One I won’t pay to attend. The mud stops being slung when it stops being profitable.
The current defense lawyer's fingerprints are all over this chat. THESE are their colleagues and confidants. These are the troops they brought into court in previous hearings . Ausbrook and Wieneke are legal advisors for the current D team.
YES, they are ....future DMs will reveal just how they are doing so.
Not 'random' people. CW REPRESENTED RA before the Supreme Court of Indiana. She is not a Rando.
I think if you watched it and saw for yourself what they were saying AND PLANNING to do, you might feel differently about some things.
The last I know is that Gull approved the subpoena but that’s end of my memory on what else may have come from it. MOO
