It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A conspiratorial tale of murder, with Fox News at the center

page: 3
13
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 19 2017 @ 09:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It's just too hard for these big outlets to do the right thing and admit when they make mistakes....
it's a shame




posted on May, 19 2017 @ 09:01 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

Fair enough.
They should definitely respect the family's wishes, whatever they may be.



posted on May, 19 2017 @ 09:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

lol triggered
and you earlier pointing out the ad hom lol

SO an investigation outside the normal leo world constitutes FAKE NEWS now?
That is what you are attempting to put forth here.
When the MSM cant control the narritive this is what happens

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The are really really trying to control the narritive though, are they not?

Assange with manning = dems love him
Assange with rich = fake news

Assange appears to be the one with some principle



posted on May, 19 2017 @ 09:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

We don't have to apologize for citing CNN, just because this particular site is filled with people who believe everything they disapprove of, is "fake". They do lean in a more liberal position, but is not nearly as propagandized as Fox, or MSNBC, or God help, Alex Jones- the freak.

Just saying.



posted on May, 19 2017 @ 09:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Further down the comments it looks like the medic posts a bit more, he/she sounds like they know what they are talking about



posted on May, 19 2017 @ 09:06 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

So you got nothing to refute the information presented in the OP then?



posted on May, 19 2017 @ 09:09 AM
link   
a reply to: CthulhuMythos

It can sound credible all day, but that doesn't mean anything. People lie with astounding ability to sound truthful. Furthermore Reddit is 100% anonymous, and /pol/ is HYPER conservative. Are you saying that anonymous (and clearly partisan) sources are credible if they sound like something you want to hear?
edit on 19-5-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2017 @ 09:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t
What asininity--while the family can sue (anyone can sue anyone for anything, or at least threaten and try to), you can't sue someone for discussing speculative possibilities in an unsolved murder case. That's the most ridiculous thing that I've heard in a while, and taking into account all that's happening in D.C. these days, that's saying something.

Maybe Roger Aile's death was caused by Rich's family in retaliation for FoxNews discussing possible concerns over Rich's murder?

See, it's just speculation. Let me guess, they're going to threaten to sue me now?

I'm scared, as I'm sure FoxNews is, too.

BTW, his family can make all the claims that they want to that Rich wasn't leaking things to Wikileaks--I'm not saying he was or wasn't, but I am saying that if he was doing that, I highly doubt that he'd be openly sharing such details about it with his family.

It sounds like his family is still stuck between stages one and two of grief...denial and anger. Yes, the onus is on those making the claims of a Wikileaks connection to prove it, but it's also on the family not to make claims that they can't prove, either, and not to threaten lawsuits based on an unproven claim.

Of course, if there would be a proper investigation into that computer of Rich's that's sitting in an evidence locker, maybe we would have the answers that we need. In any event, a murder/robbery that has a guy shot in the back with no valuables taken sure has the signs of a 'hit' more than a robbery, and I'm not the only one saying that. But there are other possibilities as well, but it's certainly a plausible one.

His family can bitch about public speculation all that they want (I'm sure that I would be doing the same if it were my family member), but a lawsuit about this will go nowhere, as will their threats and demands.

And concerning the claim that this whole 'hit' theory is only right-wing, as the WaPo story claims--I've heard a few Democrats say that it certainly looks like a 'hit,' too. So, maybe the theory originated on the right, but the right is not the only one's who consider it possible/plausible. It's Washington, D.C., during an election cycle; there are no rules or moral limitations.



posted on May, 19 2017 @ 09:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Even your trusty lefty snopes lists rich being the leaker as "unproven"
not false
not fake
unproven

why would an effort to find out what really happened be called "fake news"?



posted on May, 19 2017 @ 09:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Krazysh0t
What asininity--while the family can sue (anyone can sue anyone for anything, or at least threaten and try to), you can't sue someone for discussing speculative possibilities in an unsolved murder case. That's the most ridiculous thing that I've heard in a while, and taking into account all that's happening in D.C. these days, that's saying something.

The only unsolved part of the case is who did it. The police have said that it was a robbery gone badly. So a news organization saying otherwise is lying and if the family feels like it they can pursue a libel case against them.


BTW, his family can make all the claims that they want to that Rich wasn't leaking things to Wikileaks--I'm not saying he was or wasn't, but I am saying that if he was doing that, I highly doubt that he'd be openly sharing such details about it with his family.

It sounds like his family is still stuck between stages one and two of grief...denial and anger. Yes, the onus is on those making the claims of a Wikileaks connection to prove it, but it's also on the family not to make claims that they can't prove, either, and not to threaten lawsuits based on an unproven claim.

Making a claim, namely that he had a connection to wikileaks, requires evidence. It doesn't magically get credence with the leading theory behind Rich's death just because someone suggested it at one point.


Of course, if there would be a proper investigation into that computer of Rich's that's sitting in an evidence locker, maybe we would have the answers that we need. In any event, a murder/robbery that has a guy shot in the back with no valuables taken sure has the signs of a 'hit' more than a robbery, and I'm not the only one saying that. But there are other possibilities as well, but it's certainly a plausible one.

The OP mentions that the FBI doesn't have that laptop. And without any definitive evidence proving it was a hit then it will forever be speculation.


His family can bitch about public speculation all that they want (I'm sure that I would be doing the same if it were my family member), but a lawsuit about this will go nowhere, as will their threats and demands.

And concerning the claim that this whole 'hit' theory is only right-wing, as the WaPo story claims--I've heard a few Democrats say that it certainly looks like a 'hit,' too. So, maybe the theory originated on the right, but the right is not the only one's who consider it possible/plausible. It's Washington, D.C., during an election cycle; there are no rules or moral limitations.

Liberals can be duped by bull# too. Claiming that you've met Democrats who believe it was a hit doesn't magically mean that this speculation is anything but speculation.



posted on May, 19 2017 @ 09:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Even your trusty lefty snopes lists rich being the leaker as "unproven"
not false
not fake
unproven

why would an effort to find out what really happened be called "fake news"?

You do realize that "unproven" means that it isn't hasn't been proven true yet right? Not that it's not fake. Furthermore, you didn't even link the snopes article you are talking about.
edit on 19-5-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2017 @ 09:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

www.snopes.com...

as to your"unproven" snopes definition is this: UNPROVEN
This rating indicates that insufficient evidence exists to establish the given claim as true, but the claim cannot be definitively proved false. This rating typically involves claims for which there is little or no affirmative evidence, but for which declaring them to be false would require the difficult (if not impossible) task of our being able to prove a negative or accurately discern someone else’s thoughts and motivations

If ii cannot be proved false then it is not fake



posted on May, 19 2017 @ 09:44 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Yet you ignore the fact that the unproven claim exists to say that it cannot be shown to be true. You are cherry picking information here to try to give credence to a topic that Snopes doesn't see evidence for. You link that very opinion and try to use it to say that it isn't fake news.



posted on May, 19 2017 @ 10:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The fact that it is unproven means it needs MORE INVESTIGATION which is what the fox story was doing.
Where is the laptop?
Where are the cops body cam data?
Rich is dead why have the authorities not spoken to Assanage about the possible connection?

I know it sucks for the family, but you don't stop an investigation because it is hard.



posted on May, 19 2017 @ 10:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
The police have said that it was a robbery gone badly. So a news organization saying otherwise is lying and if the family feels like it they can pursue a libel case against them.

You're talking to a guy with a pretty extensive background in the legal field--I know first hand how often the police can get it wrong.


Making a claim, namely that he had a connection to wikileaks, requires evidence. It doesn't magically get credence with the leading theory behind Rich's death just because someone suggested it at one point.

I'm not saying that it deserves credence, but there is certainly enough circumstantial evidence when looking at the bigger picture of how, when, and where (the only three knowns at this time) that it remains possible, especially when you take into account Assange's comments when discussing Rich's death. I don't blindly trust Assange, but I certainly give his comments credence when he is one of the few people who actually know who his informants are. He has nothing to gain by lying about or falsifying implications about Rich and his association with Wikileaks...a high-profile murder, if done because of leaking to Wikileaks, would really be a deterrent to future leakers/whistleblowers.


The OP mentions that the FBI doesn't have that laptop. And without any definitive evidence proving it was a hit then it will forever be speculation.

Okay...so what about the PD? And if neither have it, where is it? Why would it be missing? Again, in an unsolved murder investigation, his personal communications would be looked through with a fine-toothed comb to look for anyone with motive...so where is the laptop?


Liberals can be duped by bull# too. Claiming that you've met Democrats who believe it was a hit doesn't magically mean that this speculation is anything but speculation.

I didn't say that I've met them, I've heard them coming out saying it publicly. But, you know, one person's BS is another's theory that has yet to be proven, so it's a bit early to call the theory BS when it hasn't fully been investigated yet. Like I said, a family's claims are just that: Claims. Families of victims ALWAYS try to paint the deceased in the best light possible.

But just remember, speculation is exceptionally healthy in an unsolved case--theories in unsolved cases are what often lead to cases getting solved. Don't disregard this just because a couple articles and people think the claims are garbage, just like I don't subscribe to them being factual yet. Absolute acceptance or dismissal of possibilities in unsolved cases in an inappropriate way to approach such things.



posted on May, 19 2017 @ 10:48 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Or it means there is nothing to it from lack of evidence. It's called the null hypothesis in science.



posted on May, 19 2017 @ 10:54 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Here's the thing. This conspiracy is being fueled by the right wing media. Fox News is paying an investigator to investigate. It isn't the police or the detectives making these connections, but a news organization. That is dubious at a minimum. Look, if it were the police pulling these threads then I'd be in agreement, but the problem is that internet detectives who know next to nothing about police work or the law start making proclamations of guilt or directions the investigation should take based on limited evidence being presented by a news organization. That is deceitful and it is painful for the family who wants real answers, not to become a political football.



posted on May, 19 2017 @ 10:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: shooterbrody

Yet you ignore the fact that the unproven claim exists to say that it cannot be shown to be true. You are cherry picking information here to try to give credence to a topic that Snopes doesn't see evidence for. You link that very opinion and try to use it to say that it isn't fake news.

Snopes is a hack site, period. Putting any weight into their determination in an unsolved murder case is like asking an average fast-food employee what the calculations are that are necessary to send a man to the moon.

But Shooterbrody is correct--at least the site is honest enough (in this instance) to note that his involvement in the leaks is not provable either way. But just like you claim Shooterbrody is wrong for using this determination from Snopes as a way to cherry pick information, you're using the unsubstantiated claim of the family to do the same thing.

I'm just trying to be objective in the use of claims as evidence, here.



posted on May, 19 2017 @ 11:04 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Well I'm just defaulting to my normal position of skepticism based on the Null hypothesis and Occam's Razor which I usually adopt for conspiracy theories. The OP is just an extension of that.



posted on May, 19 2017 @ 11:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Fox News is paying an investigator to investigate.

No, they're not. Here, refresh your memory from your own linked article:

Wheeler is a Fox News contributor, and his private investigation of the Rich case is being financed by Ed Butowsky, a Texas money manager who sometimes appears as a guest on Fox to discuss economics and personal finance.

So, I guess that if you're trying to use the transitive property to make your claim, you could be half correct, as some of Butowsky's income from which he's paying Wheeler is derived for occasional appearances on FoxNews (I assume), but to claim that FoxNews is paying the investigator is a downright falsehood.


It isn't the police or the detectives making these connections, but a news organization. That is dubious at a minimum.

No, actually, this happens a lot, as I've seen numerous instances of investigative journalism at local or national levels that lead to convictions that otherwise would not have. Pretending that investigative journalism is dubious is ridiculous on its face, and lacks historical evidence to prove your claim. In fact, history can often prove the opposite of your claim.


Look, if it were the police pulling these threads then I'd be in agreement, but the problem is that internet detectives who know next to nothing about police work or the law start making proclamations of guilt or directions the investigation should take based on limited evidence being presented by a news organization. That is deceitful and it is painful for the family who wants real answers, not to become a political football.

Painful or not, sometimes this is the path that leads to the truth. You can't dismiss circumstantial evidence as being possible at this point, just because it might pain the family to see it being proposed and discussed on the national stage. I feel for the family to have to go through this and relive the murder every time it is discussed, but if it leads to the truth, it's worth it.

The search for truth in an unsolved case, no matter how politicized it may seem, does not end when the family complains about the search.

And like I said, the fact that they're trying to shut down FoxNews with threats of a lawsuit is absolutely ridiculous.

ETA: And by the way, if "internet detectives" are such a problem to police work, would you please contact law enforcement in the Greater Cincinnati Area and tell them to quick bombarding we ignorant citizens for tips and help in solving unsolved cases? I mean, since the general public, who knows "next to nothing about police work or the law," are constantly being sought out for help concerning cases, these police departments should be told how pointless asking us for help really is, right?

Just because the D.C. police or FBI haven't asked for public help doesn't mean that the public needs to await such a request. Police investigations are not infallible, and detectives and investigators are not always willing to approach things with fresh perspectives like non-LEO people are.
edit on 19-5-2017 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join