Psycho-Babble Social | for general support | Framed
This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | List of forums | Search | FAQ

Re: The DC Sniper » BeardedLady

Posted by Mal on October 18, 2002, at 8:05:55

In reply to The DC Sniper, posted by BeardedLady on October 17, 2002, at 18:02:42

> If you live in Maryland, you have to be getting tired of the constant fear of the unknown. But what is really getting on my nerves is the media's absolute disregard for the facts.
>
> The other day, NPR reported that the police would be able to have a composite of the shooter due to all the good witness reports, and that they actually have (don't remember the number) 11 (?) people under surveillance.
>
> During the press conferences, the police said none of this was true.
>
> I just heard a press conference today during which one of the detectives (or a higher up--I wasn't looking, only listening) said there are about 8 (?) different guns that use this type of ammunition (or something to that effect. I didn't know I'd need the details later, so...).
>
> Then tonight on the news, the reporter said, "One thing is for certain: the bullets could have only come from one type of gun."
>
> Sheesh.
>
> beardy


Hey, beardy, just playing Devil's Advocate a little here, but...

Perhaps the media are leaking details that the police would rather keep to themselves. I know that if I were affiliated with the authorities, I wouldn't be willing to give deatils to the media on camera or off! In fact, I would probably be willing to lie on camera and say that none of those details were true if I thought it might help the investigation.

By examining bullets recovered from victims, forensics personnel can tell if two (or more) bullets came from the same gun- not just the same TYPE of gun. It may also be true that several types of guns use that same type of ammunition- but that is not to say that several guns fired these particular bullets.

All that said, I have on many occasions heard reporters go on and on about details that were wrong. For instance, a local reporter said that a particular disease is caused by a virus when in fact it is caused by a fungus. This may be inconsequential to 50% of the population, but the other half might know the difference and take action to treat a virus when they should be taking different actions against a fungus. It isn't that hard for the reporters to get it right on something like that, so why don't they???

So there are my two rupees.

MAL


Share
Tweet  

Thread

 

Post a new follow-up

Your message only Include above post


Notify the administrators

They will then review this post with the posting guidelines in mind.

To contact them about something other than this post, please use this form instead.

 

Start a new thread

 
Google
dr-bob.org www
Search options and examples
[amazon] for
in

This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | FAQ
Psycho-Babble Social | Framed

poster:Mal thread:31279
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20021010/msgs/31315.html