I don't care how many editors disagree because you would still all be wrong. You back up your accusation. I am not the one making accusations. I am not the one promoting this a fringe theory. Isn't there a rule about making this about the issues and not people? I have no problem with bringing up your bias because there is a bigger problem at wikipedia then one article. You other editors want to break the rules if it does not suit you.
Apparently facts are only what the individual editors believe. Don't you think you are being arrogant? Do you think someone should prove to you it is not a fringe theory? Do you believe any one that has worked law enforcement would even give you enough details about crimes to make a conclusion one way or the other every time as to what one should believe? I did say something a long time ago about how law enforcement does not make a point of sharing all their information.
Did you miss that? Or are you just seeing what you want to see? It is a fact and not something I heard that law enforcement does not want details put out that they could get a false confession for. Anyone then could give details of how a crime was committed if it were published in the newspapers. Do you believe Pat Brown is more credible then someone that is a highly decorated detective even though she can potentially benefit from publicity while Gannon has never written a book as Pat Brown has and is one of the most decorated police officer.?
Would Dreamguy like to answer that last one? Probably not. Once you are willing to admit your attacks and biases then progress can be made.
Similar authors to follow
Instead this article is about personal biases. I have proven that point so it is fair to bring it up.
- Slumber Party Madness: A Lesbian Group Sex Erotica Story.
- Fall NEW RELEASES!
- Shinto (World Religions (Facts on File)).
- The Serial Killer Files.
- Verlobt für eine Nacht (Julia 2043) (German Edition).
You on the other hand have not said anything you can back up with facts. You can see from other comments I don't support their theory but I am not taking a position against it either as far as the article itself is concerned. I have previously said something about them not releasing information that proves the theory. From what I wrote above The detectives did not make a very good case for a smiley face gang theory. You put me in a situation that is catch Editors making it about other editors.
I should have something to back it up because you think so. You made the false accusation. That is the reaction an arrogant person.
Read e-book The Mailman Murders: Serial Killer Matches Wits With Atlanta Police
Are you here so people see things your way? Prove I made an extraordinary claim. There is something called google. Have you ever used it.
I put exactly what was in in articles. Pat Browns problem is linking the graffiti and the belief that more than one person could be doing murders. It is not an extraordinary claim. If you assumed she never thought there could be a killer you would be wrong. By calling it an extraordinary claim you proved your bias. Pat Brown never said she does not support a serial killer theory. She said she does not support Gannon's theories. Maybe if you told me what the so called extraordinary claim is I might get around to addressing your made up theory on that.
I won't promise anything,because I don't think anyone here is interested in facts in the first place. It says this in the article Criminal profiler Pat Brown calls the serial killer theory "ludicrous. This is poorly worded. If anyone was led to believe Pat Brown thought a serial killer theory was ridiculous then they failed to realize she was commenting on gannon's theory and not a serial killer theory.
Pat Brown commented on this- the ex-cops say they found painted smiley faces near where they suspect the bodies first entered the water.
Because some of the deaths occurred on the same day in different states, the detectives surmise that more than one person is committing the crimes. She commented on the theory of more than one killer and a belief the graffiti may being linked.
All the information that the detectives say led them to this conclusion was not released to the public. I did give the source. Do you even think before you accuse? If someone thinks differently then you prove it. That is what you are doing. It is rude what you are doing..
The Mailman Murders: Serial Killer Matches Wits With Atlanta Police
I have a question for you. Did you assume Pat Brown thought there was no killer in the first place? Why do you think the Forensic examiner is a crackpot website? For someone concerned with crackpot theories and websites ,you seem to have some crackpot theories of your own. I don't think this article has been fair to either law enforcement or Pat Brown because of the misleading statements. It unfairly represents Pat Browns beliefs. It also for a long time made it seem as if law enforcement as a whole was dismissing deaths around the country as accidents with no citations used to back up the claim.
In truth many of them just don't do things that way. They don't all jump to conclusions as Kondracki did. Sometimes it does happen. Drownings can be ruled accidental based on the lack of evidence not because they know in fact it was not a murder. No one knows. It has also not been fair to the detectives as people are misled into thinking it was only smiley faces that link the deaths.
Shop by category
There were clusters of young men missing in short time frames along certain interstates. There were the same names written in graffiti.
There were several other distinct symbols besides smiley faces. It is also not fair to the families and friends of victims that want the drownings investigated.