Post by Drifter on Feb 7, 2014 22:22:41 GMT
I don't have much more I can say to this, but Drifter, as to the discrepancy between "Myth" and what I wrote --- when I was researching my article I was told the dog wasn't a priority, so I didn't make it one in my story. The "Five Myths" was a short online component that I wrote in response mostly to hard-core followers of the case. That was the extent of my knowledge about the dog at the time, and because I was told it was a dead end, it wasn't something I looked into as if I would when putting into the main, print article. Now, months later, I'm writing a book, and have all the materials to work with, thus more information. I hope that clears that up. I think everyone, investigators included, would agree with you that the dog issue is a confusing one. No one has necessarily made it so, in my opinion, it just is.
---------------------------------------
Fair enough. So you lacked knowledge about a particular aspect of the case, but you went ahead and published the information anyway.
Aside from that, your wording is quite definite: "Forensic specialists were able to determine that ...". That wording does not imply lack of knowledge; it implies very specific information obtained from some source, information that readers hang their hat on as factual. If it was false, where did those false facts come from? Should we distrust "forensic specialists"?
I hope you see how your decision to publish false information has both (1) caused confusion with what you wrote in your message in this thread, and (2) led people who read your online article astray.
Will you now kindly retract your entire "Five Myths" blurb?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"... I'm writing a book ...".
I cringe!
Hope you have a good editor.
Drifter