equationgirl
New Member
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2011
- Messages
- 80
- Reaction score
- 1
I agree with you, equationgirl, that a drugs link is very unlikely.
But I nearly spluttered a mouthful of coffee over my keyboard at reading your last two sentences re taking care not to tar anybody a drug dealer.
There are well over half a dozen individuals who've been cleared named here as the killer. Crikey, most of us have named one person, gone to bed, and then the next morning pinpointed somebody else.
I think the greatest legal threat is that there may be one or two people in Clifton who we *haven't* labelled as a psychotic killers, and they'll sue for the fact that they won't be invited to have a role in the TV mini-series ten years down the line.
I'm concerned that some of the posts on here may breach laws on libel/slander (can't remember which applies to written and which applies to verbal statements). Yes, we're all trying to get to the truth and help the investigation where we can, and I know a lot of what is written is opinion, but there are some pretty strong statements being posted about specific individuals when there is no factual basis or supporting evidence. I have also posted previously that naming people outright as the killer may be problematic.
I'm all for solving this, but this is a public site that could be read by anybody and I for one think that it would be a tremendous irreplaceable loss if this website was shut because the owner was sued, especially when such an outcome could have been avoided through careful posting.
Pseudonyms were being used for various people earlier on, for example, and I don't see why it can't be reintroduced.
When this has been solved, whilst we may move onto the next case easily, innocent people caught up in the aftermath of this one may be wrongly branded as drug dealers or killers or paedophiles etc for a very long time. That is not justice.