Could have been worse
I guess the folks in my previous post should be grateful they had only been Googling "wildlife refuges for rescued deer" instead of "pressure cooker" on one computer and "backpack" on the other. Of course, when the family in this link did the latter, it's anyone's guess exactly who those guys were who showed up to investigate. For all they can tell now, they may have been from Parks & Wildlife, too.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
So how much longer until we have to admit that Eric Blair was right all along?
Looking at the actual story, part of the claim is that "They mentioned that they do this about 100 times a week."
If that's true, we should get independent confirmation of it shortly. If none is forthcoming, it calls the whole story into question.
Overblown. Someone Googled stuff at work on someone ELSE's computer. The owner of that computer called in a tip, the police acted on it, behaved (from what I've read) impeccably, and no puppies were murdered.
It's getting to the point where people are getting all riled up even when everything goes the way it's supposed to.
Sorry, but I'm not seeing the black helicopters.
I was prepared to believe the story wasn't true at all, if there wasn't additional confirmation of it. But the confirmation we got is actually a little odd.
Here is the letter from the local PD saying that they were tipped off by the employer, investigated, etc.
Now, that's not in line with the alleged identification of a 'joint terrorism task force' that does this '100 times a week.' So there are still some questions to be asked. Either the author has fabricated some details, or the Suffolk PD is covering something. I'm not expressing an opinion as to which one is the case, but so far the story still doesn't make sense.
Now, that's not in line with the alleged identification of a 'joint terrorism task force' that does this '100 times a week.' So there are still some questions to be asked. Either the author has fabricated some details, or the Suffolk PD is covering something.
Or, like every other human being on the planet, her recollection/recounting of an incident she didn't actually witness wasn't 100% accurate in all details. Which is utterly unsurprising, and IMO doesn't require additional investigation. That's pretty much the case with every investigation, ever - different people's account vary in small details, or an errant word choice misleads.
Most of these tiny discrepancies are never reconciled, even after thorough investigation. Or at least that's what my spouse tells me, and he has conducted enough of them. I've read the same thing many times from various LE sources.
Absent some strong suggestion of wrongdoing, I'm willing to give both her and the police the benefit of the doubt and take them at their word. I'm not seeing any suggestion (much less a strong one) here.
FWIW, years ago I found all kinds of stuff on my work computer in the search history that had been left by the former occupant of my office. Turns out, he had been fired for viewing porn at work. And the history bore that out rather... graphically :p
If I were setting probabilities, I'd agree that the author is most likely in error. Still, it's an important question. The author can be pressed for details too -- she can reasonably be asked to verify what her husband recalls, since she made this a national news story.
It does seem that the initial reports were one-sided.
Just a little mistake. But the narrative is true, regardless of those little mistakes.
Post a Comment