Western Australia has some of the strongest legislation in the world regarding journalistic integrity. If you read it in a newspaper, you can safely say it's true. ( Be very careful to read the exact wording of an article; a rumor is a rumor, a fact is a fact)
The media, on numerous occasions, have reported that Lance Williams is no longer of interest to Cold Case Detectives.
It's common practice for police to release misinformation in high profile cases such as this one. Do you think WA 's media laws would stop them?
You seem to be saying "whatever it says in the WA papers is true, full stop. This is incredibly naive. On this very thread we have discussed many examples where the media have made mistakes.
I lean towards misinformation by police as part of an investigative campaign but at the same time wouldn't be overly surprised if some information came to light that changed my view.
But right now there's two many things that just don't add up. Anyone who is absolutely convinced there's no way the information could be incorrect needs to explain the following;
1. Why only The Post? This is the only media outlet that directly reported it. Such a big case and no other media outlets were able to gain any info other than what The Post presented? That's odd in itself.
2. There's only two reasonable explanations for the above; a) strategic release by police, and b) unauthorised leak. If its unauthorised then why haven't police plugged that leak? If its authorised and the info is true, why only the Post? It's either an unauthirised leak or police are trying to make out it's an unauthorised leak.
3. JR was left exposed to heavy weather for 57 days. My research says it's unlikely to find such trace after 2 days let alone 57. Possible but again, highly unlikely.
4. When the Schramn review rolled around they found a handfull of leads. One allegedly was the fibres found on JR. So the Schramm team are super focused, find a lead that could crack the case open and they misplace it. That's absurd. As if that would happen. The only possible explanation is BC made an error in journalism. But again, it's yet another thing that doesn't add up. Too many for my liking.
5. From memory, the first time the Post reported this DNS was never mentioned. The words 'forensic link' was used. The next article a few months later DNA was mentione in the middle of the article. It's not only suspicious that the goalposts changed but to mention DNA in passing is also suspicious.
If BC knew they had DNA thn why not mention it in the first article? Why was DNA not i the article title? Surely that's the story? If he only learnt of DNA after the first article then again,why wasn't DNA mentioned in the article title.
This is a massive story and if the other media outlets thought it were true there would be a lot more going on.
6. If they've had DNA since 2011 or whenever it was, why haven't the media got wind in a change of investigative methods. Surely there's an element of 'test everyone you can'. The media would get wind of this pretty quickly. Police would have lists of 1000s of suspects and they'd be trawling through them aggressively.
With those questions unanswered along with the knowledge that in cases like these it is normal for police to oush out strategicalky planned information, I'm leaning towards just that. As more info becomes available my view will evolve. But right now the info tells me hang back and wait and see what happens.
