On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 21:34:48 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:


On Fri 19 Aug 2005 09:23:06a, David wrote in message
:

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 02:50:52 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:


No, that's just one of the commuters. I've found plenty of references to
"initial eye witnesses". What's missing is where the "Running, Heavy
Coat, Acting Suspicious, Eluding" was confirmed or attributed to some
"Official".

Absent that, then it would appear to me that the *media* took commuter
interviews and have morphed those unofficial descriptions into the
official "Scotland Yard Initial Brief". When in fact, I can't find where
a named official with *any* law enforcement agency involved provided
that information. Now that investigation details have been leaked, it's
being drummed as if S.Y. was attempting a cover-up, when there's really
*zero* indication they had any intention of covering anything up. In
fact, by breifing the victim's family *during* the investigation, it
looks like S.Y. is trying to be completely straight with the facts, as
they are verified. Perhaps the media *has* been duped and is
perpetuating non-factual information that is aggravating an already
tragic situation - again, not through malice, just through shoddy,
journalism. And no-one's calling them on it (except me, of course).

-=jd=-
?

The ''Guardian'' article above says that Scotland Yard provided those
erroneous details. Scotland Yard is the HQ of the Municipal Police,
ain't it?



The "Guardian" is just passing along what they heard - Note that they don't
quote an official either, and just presume it eminated from S.Y. Look at
that other link you provided - the one where you claimed to have found the
source. You source was a commuter. IN that same article, another commuter
"source" said the guy was wearing a bomb-belt with wires sticking out of
it. You *do* read the links you push, right?

-=jd=-
I am aware of the evolution of the story. The question is are these
guys Sterno bums? Did they hallucinate this vivid and quite wrong
version, or is it something else?