"Lowell C. Savage" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tim somehow neglects to mention that Barras was able to get out of Martin's > house and that his body was found in "in the undergrowth". (See: > http://makeashorterlink.com/?I2DC15375, near the bottom.)
I don't include a lot of other irrelevant details, either. If Martin had looked for the burglars he had wounded and been unable to find them, that would perhaps be relevant, but Martin instead went to his mother's house and hid the gun he used. > He also manages > to neglect to mention that the jury was illogical enough to convict Martin > of the murder of Barras while acquitting him of the attempted murder of > Fearon. (See: http://makeashorterlink.com/?I2CC12375) There is nothing illogical about concluding that Martin intended to kill one burglar and not to kill the other one. Or deciding that they were sure he was trying to kill one and not being sure about the other one. > Doesn't Tim check his facts? Sure do. Note further that the context of my comment was this list where the case had been extensively discussed and readers would be expected to be familiar with the case, while the WSJ piece would be read by people who would be unaware of the facts left out from that piece. The story is similar in some ways to the famous McDonalds coffee case. Stripped of all the important details, it sounds outrageous (woman get $3M from McDonalds because she spilled coffee on herself) but once you find out all the facts, the verdict seems reasonable. The version of the Tony Martin story spread by pro-gunners is similarly misleading, making it seem that it was a clear case of self-defence when it was not. For example, Glenn Reynolds declared Martin to be a "political prisoner" and wanted Amnesty International to weigh in. Now I don't think that the WSJ or Glenn were being deliberately misleading, but they (and many others) failed to check their facts before writing. > Tim Lambert wrote, in part: > >This article somehow neglects to mention that Martin shot Barras in > >the back and left him to die. It also manages to neglect to mention > >that the jury did not believe Martin's claims to have acted in > >self-defence or "blind panic". This was printed in the Wall Street > >Journal? Don't they check their facts in that paper? > -- Tim
