Sounds like someone wants to give Canada a bad image, so they make up a story
years after the event that doesn't ring true.


ah, but it is true. I also know that main ham's (the one responsible for most
of it) current call letters.

And using the term "soft evidence" in what I believe is the correct way to use
the term (does prove to other people by exposing the whole situation and
everyone involved with it)., I could expose them . However,

to fully expose them means that I also have to expose innocent people who may
not want their names and adresses printed on the internett. (just their names
and the city where it all happened will expose their adresses t o anyone who
wants to find them) and is probably illegal to do so if they son't want their
names on the internet.

However, not exposing the names of the innocent people also, leaves gaps in my
"proof" that could be said to not be proof since those gaps exist.

Becfause of the legality questions, plus if it were me in their shoes,

I'll have to go with only partially exposing the criminals instead of fully
exposing them, otherwise innocent people might get hurt.

I think that's part of the reason that Dragnet changed the names in their true
stories:

"only the names have been changed in order to protect the innocent".

However, that was back in the 50's and 60's.

today, doing that is considered "fraud" by judges, or at least by one judge,