- Joined
- Aug 13, 2013
- Messages
- 3,295
- Reaction score
- 32,071
Since law enforcement strongly pushed back on the Ashleigh Banfield report, I decided to take a closer look.
A friend pointed out something important in Banfield’s video. In the thumbnail and at about 18:32 seconds into the segment, Banfield states that the son-in-law is the prime suspect. Just seconds later, she walks that back and says he may be the prime suspect. That is a significant difference.
CLICK HERE TO LISTEN TO A CLIP OF WHAT BANFIELD SAID
Below is a screenshot of the thumbnail from Banfield's video.
I'm showing you this so you can see the claim she makes, but she walks back that claim in her video. It is crazy.
View attachment 641628
Those two statements are not the same thing. Saying someone is a prime suspect versus saying they may be a prime suspect carries very different implications—especially when law enforcement has publicly denied that claim.
Because of this inconsistency, and because law enforcement has pushed back hard against the report, we are not going to allow discussion identifying any specific person as a suspect.
What is allowed:
What is not allowed:
- Discussing evidence
- Discussing theories
- Discussing possibilities in general terms (for example: “someone close to her,” or “possibly a family member”)
We need to be able to discuss all possibilities—that’s what we do here—but we also have to balance that with the rights of real people not to be publicly accused of a crime they have not been charged with.
- Naming specific individuals
- Identifying any person as a suspect
So please speak in general terms and do not identify individual people as suspects.
If you’re unsure whether something crosses the line, just ask in the thread and we’ll clarify.
Thank you for helping keep this discussion fair, factual, and responsible.
Tricia
P.S. By the way, a great reporter on YouTube (and he is an approved source) is Brian Entin. He is in AZ covering this case.
Click here for one of Brian Entin's videos
Click here for Ashleigh Banfield's full video but please do not repost.
You analysis makes perfect sense and I, for one, respect you for that.
So we will not be discussing that said person but I presume we can cite other articles and media that add evidence to the mix but aren't solely referencing Banfield's comments, correct?