Post by findons on Feb 10, 2018 20:39:23 GMT
The trouble with this story is there are people who report things that are not verified or a source is not given and inaccuracies have been stated and repeated as fact over time. There are still things said here that are not exact. That is not an insult by the way. It just stands to reason when so many read things from the internet or an old newspaper article where a reporter may not have been diligent in checking facts. The article from the Santa Paula News by Peggy Kelly is one recently talked about where the reporter had details there that are just wrong - if we go by what she said as gospel ""Tying Charlene and Lyman together" and ""The Smiths were beaten to death with a log from their own fireplace" at first glance looks accurate. The facts here are that they were NOT tied together and the log came from the stack outside and on the side of the house which he grabbed on his way in. Minute details told in this article are not correct and she sensationalized as much as she could.
I would suggest that in the past many details written in articles were where some of the stories went off track. Most people want to know more specifics and details in order to know what things are trustworthy as they try and help solve this once and for all. Blanket statements that do not tell specific information about whether a source is reliable or a fact can be verified as fact leave some of us to always question which is not such a bad thing. I always want to know every detail as much as possible.
Some reports written from the beginning and through time have had inaccurate things written within them from news media. Sometimes they pass along what has been said and some have not done their diligence in making sure the stories repeated are in fact - fact. It is what it is. I would bet the crime report from the day of the Smith murders says a few things differently from Peggy Kelly of the Santa Paula news and I would go with the crime report if they should ever let the public see it. Even the detective who was on Crime Watch talking about Charlene did not really know what she did for a living as he showed a page from her autopsy report. The current homicide detective who spoke was repeating what he had been told or thought he knew from a report. He was not entirely accurate. He likely missed a detail as there is much information. He was probably just born or a small child when these murders happened. All he has are reports. People are fallible and we hope they do the best they can. I am saying we do want facts that are verifiable and not vague. Not surprising.
There are good reporters and story tellers and some that are not. There are good crime reporters and some "not so much." I am saying here that the reporters and story tellers details while some have been accurate many were not. This I think is where the stories got or can get convoluted. There are good LE and some not. There have been many very good Law Enforcement people in the mix as well and as in any profession some that are not so great. We have been fortunate that the good outweigh the ones that are not "so much." The detectives who worked the case in the beginning like Carol Daly and others are still dedicated to this case and want it solved. Some still lose sleep over it. They won't fully rest until this is solved. Have a good day!