It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: SlapMonkey
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.
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.
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.
originally posted by: Krazysh0tMaybe for actual leaks, but pushing an alternative investigation path than what the actual investigation is investigating is not how that happens.
I can and will dismiss this circumstantial evidence. Coincidences remain coincidences in my book until you can prove them otherwise. Just because it sounds plausible doesn't mean it is.
Are you being obtuse here? Reporting suspicious activity isn't the same as sitting at a desk and googling an investigation then pretending like you know all there is to know about it to pronounce guilt.
Of the two groups I'm about to list which is allowed to practice law and arrest people: The police or concerned citizenry?