danlb_2000
Premium Member
If I’m supposed to believe anything Tom Coorless or marni1971 says, why don’t they at least explain in some detail what these “sources” say happened? Or how that wouldn’t be covered in the police report?
Or is the real problem that their sources were either nonexistent or wrong, and they’re not saying anything close to concrete because that would reveal they didn’t have the story right to begin with?
But God forbid I question the almighty insiders.
Martin has said in the past they he often can't provide more details because he is protecting his sources. Martin has given us enough verifiably correct information in the past that I tend to trust what he has to say.
Police reports aren’t conflicting info. You have tangible information on one side and absolutely nothing but hearsay on the other.
People are just choosing to believe self-proclaimed insiders who insist it happened and they have sources.
The good insiders are not "self-proclaimed" they are people who have delivered reliable information in the past.