On a side note, I thought the level of disturbingly graphic detail provided by the Spokesman Review (separate article, print-subscription based only) of the video was in extremely poor taste. I would have compared it to a cheap supermarket tabloid except they have demonstrated more journalistic integrity than the rest of the press
Last week when this trial phase first started I mentioned in my thread that I wasn't going to post any more Duncan threads unless something truely newsworthy happened or a verdict was handed down.
I've read lots of disturbing articles since then and haven't posted a single one because it would be continuing to sensationalize Duncan's crimes.
Two articles were posted today at about the same time within 5 minutes of the verdict coming out, one from Spokesman Review and one from Idaho Statesman.
I selected this one as it didn't contain any graphic detail, where the Idaho Statesman one details were added where they didn't need to be added.
I have a theory about that type of reporting - and I’m sad to say there’s been a few posters around here that I’ve wondered about.
I believe they enjoy the details. I simply don’t believe the public at large needs to know the horrors, we all know Shasta survived and could have expected the same or worse treatment - I think it’s criminal to detail, knowing some pervert out there enjoys reading them.
I also can’t believe that law enforcement can’t get get a file open on a computer.