Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Eastside Catholic stuff
Comments
-
Yep just said the same thing in the Wam.bananasnblondes said:
Why did King5 make an editor's note clarifying that one random kid wasnt involved. That seems...oddhuskyhooligan said:
Something really weird about exonerating one and only one individual.
And the wording is funny too. The police reports explicitly state Scott wasn’t involved? That seems extremely unlikely.
-
It would appear he got in touch with his lawyersbananasnblondes said:
Why did King5 make an editor's note clarifying that one random kid wasnt involved. That seems...oddhuskyhooligan said: -
But there was no mention of him in any actual news reports. I don't think any names were mentioned. It seems odd that you would clarify that a certain student you never explicitly mentioned was not involved in an incident. The only explanation I see is that this is driven by pure narcissism like, "my son is a local celebrity. You need to run an extra story to make sure everyone knows he wasnt involved."Neighbor2972 said:
It would appear he got in touch with his lawyersbananasnblondes said:
Why did King5 make an editor's note clarifying that one random kid wasnt involved. That seems...oddhuskyhooligan said: -
There are two layers. Those who were there at the event, and those who circulated or viewed the video. If the police seized cell phones to check the circulation they may also be privy to text conversations regarding the event.
Some of these convos could be documented? Who knows. Maybe some of these kids lied about or attempted to stonewall investigators, helping a coverrup.
Anyway, there are many ways people could end up looking bad in relation to this case. -
Pure narcissism is definitely on the table here.bananasnblondes said:
But there was no mention of him in any actual news reports. I don't think any names were mentioned. It seems odd that you would clarify that a certain student you never explicitly mentioned was not involved in an incident. The only explanation I see is that this is driven by pure narcissism like, "my son is a local celebrity. You need to run an extra story to make sure everyone knows he wasnt involved."Neighbor2972 said:
It would appear he got in touch with his lawyersbananasnblondes said:
Why did King5 make an editor's note clarifying that one random kid wasnt involved. That seems...oddhuskyhooligan said:
I’m sure Gee’s Involved teammates appreciate him social (media) distancing himself from them so quickly and forcefully. -
General rule ... if somebody works really hard to convince you of something ... probably means that they are in full damage control mode
-
I honestly don’t disagreeTequilla said:General rule ... if somebody works really hard to convince you of something ... probably means that they are in full damage control mode
-
Seems like a preemptive strike to soften the blow of news regarding other levels of involvement or culpability.Tequilla said:General rule ... if somebody works really hard to convince you of something ... probably means that they are in full damage control mode
-
King 5 is burying them right now on TV. This is only getting started.
-
I don’t think King 5 is going to be the arbiter of truth on this. There is a reason they got all the documents from the PD a year and a half ago and other media outlets were unable to get anything until a lawsuit against the PD had formed and the Palo Alto newspaper reported about the abnormal behavior between King 5, the school, the kids’ lawyers and the PD.KrunkJuice said:King 5 is burying them right now on TV. This is only getting started.
For King 5 to come out with this all today, with a segment based predominately on direct interviews with the PD who investigated this seems super fishy.
The lawsuit with Seattle Times vs the county PD is going to be the main driver of how big this case gets and how much truth about what happened with the investigation ultimately gets shared.
