At what point do papers stop saying “allegedly?”
The way it’s phrased does seem weird. Like, what happened to her isn’t an allegation, it’s pretty well established, because she’s, you know… dead… not sure why they’re using it to described what happened to her rather than who is accused of the crime…
And the guy who allegedly killed her is also dead, a victim of his own crime, allegedly.
Right? No one will be held responsible… allegedly…
When a court of law has handed down a judgement.
I think we’re aware of that, but the crime itself isn’t “alleged”… she’s dead! It happened. Now, I get calling the perpetrator “alleged” (though he’s dead, too). But yeah, it’s all about ensuring legal protections for the paper, not about purveying the truth of what happened. I get why papers do this, but… it’s not particular helpful for understanding the reality, especially in a case like this where no one will be held responsible for what happened.
A reply to the bad faith harassment campaign against me [Flint Dibble] orchestrated by Dan Richards (DedunkingPast) and promoted by Graham Hancock after my appearance on Joe Rogan. I will be limiting comments on this one to reduce driving trollies and harassment.
Those buildings will be sold off to some developers and lost.
It’s fine… who needs the arts anyway… I mean, who does art make wealthy! /s
Oh, I know the answer!
Damien Hirst!
The police said on Monday that they were searching for a man who allegedly removed a knife from the scene of a shooting at a Brooklyn subway station on Sunday, when officers shot and injured four people while confronting a fare evasion suspect.
The development contradicted an earlier claim from the department that authorities had recovered the weapon from the scene, which officers later said was a different knife.
On Sunday, the NYPD initially said the knife was recovered from the scene and posted a photo of it on social media. But police changed course on Monday afternoon and said an unknown man was being sought for allegedly removing the knife from the station and fleeing the area at 3:30pm.
My crystal ball is filling more details:
On the following Thursday police announced that the surveillance video of the incident is unusable for mysterious technical reasons. Later the same day mobile phone footage emerges of the unknown man picking up an object near the scene and calmly and casually walking off.
Friday: More footage from another angle revealed that what he picked up, directly in view of a CCTV camera, was his own phone, which he had fumbled and dropped while texting.
2032: NY prosecutors quietly dropped the case against the man whose shooting started this whole thing, admitting that there is no evidence that there ever was a knife. The defence have been demanding bodycam footage of the incident to definitively prove that there was no knife, but no footage appears to be available for some reason. NYPD told the court that it was all accidentally deleted for some reason.
Mayor Eric Adams on Tuesday praised the NYPD officers who shot at an alleged fare evader on a crowded subway platform in Brooklyn on Sunday, striking and injuring four people.
“I think that those officers should be commended for how they really showed a great level of restraint,” Adams said at his weekly news conference, in response to a reporter’s questions. “It’s just unfortunate that innocent people were shot because of that. But they were shot because they had a dangerous repeated offender on our subway system.”
There are millions of people in New York that they didn’t shoot, and you want to fault them for the tiny fraction of exceptions?
Let me put this into the cop translator:
Police admit there was no knife, they shot a person and bystanders over a simple fare evasion and then made up a lie that they presented a threat because of a weapon. When they realised that the knife they planted wouldn’t hold up to scrutiny they made up the ludicrous story that someone else just ran off with the real knife.
That’s what we’re all thinking, right?