bessie
Verified Insider
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2008
- Messages
- 31,771
- Reaction score
- 1,684
In any case I follow, I always maintain a healthy amount of skepticism unless I hear the words directly from LE in a news conference. Short of that, only a direct quote of at least three sentences will suffice to convince me what's being reported is what was actually said. Too often, a reporter will take a statement and by changing just a word or two, skew the whole meaning. That said, this is the AP (usually reliable), and the statement is said to have been made by JG, the department spokesperson. So it carries a little more weight than "police said", or "sources close to the investigation said".So is it your understanding that the e-mail address was truly his - that part of the story, at least, is true?
The article first appeared July 7th, I believe. By then, LE would've known if the e-mail was actually transmitted, and to whom. I don't know when JG told this to the reporter, though. If in the first day or two, details might've been sketchy. But if the department cleared the statement, then it's probably true. MPD also released a later statement saying they had evidence that showed LG was using her cell phone and computer up until about 10:30 that Saturday night, which also supports the e-mail as fact.
Like Smooth, I initially thought the e-mail might be a hoax. McD certainly could've been lying. It would've been foolsh for him to lie because the friends who he claimed saw the e-mail would've refuted his statement. But I don't credit him with thinking rationally, so that argument is null, imo.