Yes. Bill Stanton went to all the different media outlets offering this up with the condition that he not be named as the source. I don't work like that. If he wanted to present this information on the record as a family representative then maybe I would report it.
You ask if it is credible. I would use the word accurate.
Is it accurate? I have no way of knowing because i'm getting it second hand or possibly third hand so I cant ask follow up questions or figure out what if the source has some other interest going on.
For instance, in that article it says that Samantha's kid saw Lisa at 6:30 or 6:40. So my question is how did she know it it was 6:30? 4 year olds cant generally tell time. I've met that kid and spent a little time with her. She's just a little younger than my own daughter so i'm pretty clued into kids that age and I just don't how well a little girl that age could asses a situation. Did she know it was 6:30 because she saw a clock she could read like a digital clock radio? Did she know it was 6:30 because Dora or some TV show just ended? Did someone tell her it was 6:30? Did they tell her at the time or later, maybe the next day? Did she know Lisa was of because Lisa was walking or crawling or crying or did she just assume the bundle was Lisa?
This is all theoretical...but I hope you get my meaning and see why I don't easily report material with this kind of sourcing. IF it was Bill Stanton on the record then he would be accountable for what was said. Same with all these people like James and Shane...I knew the gist of their info long before i reported it because until i speak to them I don't know for sure what the story is AND they are then accountable for what they say.
If any of you followed my reporting in that first month or so you'll know I vary rarely report anything off the record. Occasionally we choose not to name someone for various reasons...for instance for a while we referred to the Brandos as just the next door neighbors, and we didn't name Dane's last name. Mostly this is if, in the context of the news, we are implying someone did something wrong.
Also there was a whole thing about who Mike Thompon named in a photo line up, but the whole process was so flawed that we didnt feel like it was solid..BUT it was part of the story and part of the investigation so we reported on it and even after i tracked down the guy he named and that guy denied it we didn't name him.
Also occasionally I describe someone as " a family member". This is a compromise where I feel the person is given the protection they want to be able to have, yet the viewer understands their motives and maybe their prejudices about the case.
You may have heard me use this language when describing a division in the family over the Tacopina strategy if not doing media.
I may also sometimes just say LE or KCPD as shorthand for one or more cops. Usually it;s KCPD spokesman Steve Young...no secret, just that more people understand that way.
ALso, various people have told me things off the record and they all know that I have maintained that still. If any of them read this I hope they know how much it has helped.
Sometimes the way off the record info helps is that it can set us in the right direction then we can confirm it through other sources.
So, anyway 99% of the time I don't deal with off the record information...i instead try to work hard to get it on the record...so that Bill Stanton time line just isn't going to work for me.
But let me say that many very good journalists come to different conclusions on these sorts of questions all the time. I always suggest getting info from as many sources as possible
