From what I can ascertain, Swann works for ' WXIX Fox 19' in Cincinnati, a locally owned Fox affiliated channel, and hence his employer isn't answerable to Murdoch. That's why he's been able to put together, for example, a video criticising Fox News. I could link it for you, but it would be taking us off topic, and after all, if you're going to make such comments it should probably be based on your research on the matter.

It's curious that you should choose too refer to eye-witness statements from victims, and film footage showing a person running from the scene of the Sandy Hook shooting as 'hearsay and supposition'.

And the question posed in the OP Guevarista?

to the authorities apparent determination to have us believe that in each of these cases, a sole nutter was responsible, despite much evidence to the contrary.

Stupid, if there was evidence don't you think the police would have been or are investigating it?

Guevarista wrote: See the following:

www.cobaincase.com/events.htm

Particularly see "Meeting with the Police" and "Courtney Love on Notice".

Gilly wrote: Guevarista wrote:
Just for clarity, is it me you're referring to as stupid? If so, I'm sure you understand the forum guidelines regarding personal insults - if you've a solid argument, why would you be trying to divert with personal baiting?

Yes, you'd absolutely expect them to be investigating if everything was above board and no cover-ups going on, wouldn't you. Yet the lone culprit thing is being stubbornly pushed, despite placement of weapons & multiple eye-witness accounts arguing to the contrary. That's rather the reason why it raises suspicion.
Guevarista wrote:
That sentence doesn't actually make sense, but I assume you're just trying to say, there were no other shooters involved. OK, if that's your opinion, it's fine. And the motive of victims stating to the contrary would be, what, exactly?
Guevarista wrote:
Ah, so yo're ignoring the many reports of weapon placement, puddles of blood, eye-witness reports etc etc - which could better be described as 'evidence'. Those things have been highlighted repeatedly on the internet, but you're saying the police haven't bothered to investigate them because they didn't exist. The witnesses providing evidence in the OP vid didn't exist then? OK, thanks for offering that opinion.
Gilly wrote:
Let me reverse the question, what are the "anti-authorities" reasons, for having us believe there was a 2nd shooter and "Socialist" Obama "government coverup" despite much evidence (and the small matter of a closed forensic case) to the contrary.

So what does this mean?

On April 15th, one week after Cobain's body was found, I went to the Seattle police station and met with Sgt. Cameron, one of the homicide investigators assigned to the Cobain case.

Items discussed with Sgt. Cameron included:

Numerous inconsistencies and contradictions in logic...
The missing credit card and continued activity on the card after Kurt's death...
The fact that Courtney specifically told Dylan to check the greenhouse and yet he didn't even tell me about the greenhouse...
The letter on the stairs from Cali seemed phony and didn't make sense...
Document examiners said Courtney wrote the letter on the stairs...
Doubts about Kurt's handwriting on the so-called "suicide note," especially the bottom portion...
The electrician's statement about Kurt's hair appearing to have been combed...
Courtney's motives for possible involvement in Cobain's death?...
She'd get more money from a suicide than from a divorce. With a suicide, Courtney would inherit and control the entire Cobain and Nirvana estate. If Kurt divorced her, she'd have to settle for half, at best, of Kurt's assets...
Kurt's record sales would increase, leaving Courtney with even more income...
And finally, based on what I'd learned about her personality, Kurt's death and the publicity it generated would help Courtney launch her own career.

I asked Sgt. Cameron why he told me the door was locked from the inside, pointing out that the lock was a simple push-in and twist type. "Anyone could have pulled that door shut after locking it!" I added.

"There was a stool wedged up against the door," Sgt. Cameron replied, with a touch of resentment in his voice.

Once again I assumed the police had evidence that Kurt was alone when the shotgun was discharged, but I still had some real problems with this case!

When I asked Sgt. Cameron if I could look at the photographs to see why the electrical supervisor thought Kurt's hair had been combed, he responded, "We haven't developed the photographs and probably never will. We don't develop photographs on suicides."

"Nothing you've said convinces me this is anything but a suicide," Sgt. Cameron informed me as we concluded the meeting.

MAY 8TH, 1994.

I sent Courtney a letter indicating my suspicions about Kurt's death.
Dear Courtney,

I'm sure you know by now that my investigation has been somewhat more active than you might have been aware of. The purpose of this letter is to clarify my position regarding our working relationship.

You may recall our trip to Carnation on Thursday, April 14th. I mentioned during the drive that I was beginning to turn over some "rocks" that I wasn't sure you'd want turned over. I asked you if you wanted me to continue digging. Kat, who was in the back seat, said, "Oh yeah, she wants to know everything." You responded, "Yeah Tom, do what ever it takes. I want to know everything that happened." Your instructions were clear, so in the days and weeks that followed, I proceeded to "do whatever it takes."

As the investigation continued, my attempts to get at the truth often seemed to be deliberately hindered. While reading some of the articles being written in newspapers and magazines, I discovered the information being released to the press was inaccurate and often cleverly misleading.

I consider the circumstances surrounding your husband's death to be highly suspicious. My investigation has exposed a number of inconsistencies in the facts of this case as well as many contradictions in sound logic and common sense. I'm required to report findings such as these to the police, so on Friday, April 15th, I spoke with Sgt. Cameron about some of what I've learned so far.

As I've experienced in past cases, police detectives don't often welcome the work of outside investigators. I've learned it's somewhat idealistic and naive to think the truth might be more important than professional pride.

I've decided to continue working on this case until I see it to its conclusion, without additional charge. Attached you will find an invoice which accounts for the charges billed for our services, including time and expenses. As you can see, prior to my return to Seattle on April 13th, these charges exceeded the retainer amount. However, please consider your bill paid in full. There will be no further charges.

As I pursue the truth regarding the events surrounding your husband's death, your cooperation and assistance will be appreciated, but not required.

Sincerely,
Tom Grant
THE GRANT COMPANY

This is a briefer response than I'd have liked to give, because I'm pushed for time, so will return to it later.

But a couple of points.

Why are you referring to people who were present, and were shot at, as "The anti-authorities"?

So they in your opinion, eye-witnesses should be discredited on the grounds that they're confused. Gotchya. There wasn't just one witness in the temple case btw. It refers to witnesses, plural.

Why would they fail to acknowledge his presence, yet not hush up detainment of others? I doubt it was a cop, rushing form the crime scene before the other police got there?

Law enforcement doesn't seem too reticent to provide footage, or at least release facts regarding footage content when it suits them, which is, I suppose, why it seems odd.

Well in the states you have federal police and local police and each locale might have different policy and they might decide not to show the public things for varying reasons. Maybe they don`t want to upset parents or perhaps they don`t want to give a platform to killers, their priority I would hope is serving their community and not serving internet conspiracy theories.

i-baster wrote: Do you think this would be best served by investigating all possibilities by having an open investigation, or jumping to a conclusion very quickly and then publicly stating that they'd prosecute people who posted any information on Facebook that contradicted their verdict?

How do you know they jumped to a conclusion quickly and did not have an open investigation?

i-baster wrote:

Perhaps you could now answer my question instead of ducking it. Again.

The police arrested people for making posts on facebook about a Footballer dying, you don't think it's slightly consistent to offer the same treatment for somebody who is insensitively prying into and pestering, making accusations against a recently bereaved community?

In the video the speaker makes it clear he's referring to people impersonating a police officer on Facebook or disseminating innaccurate reports under the name of official sources, as far as I'm aware that's fraud in most countries.

The police arrested people for making posts on facebook about a Footballer dying, you don't think it's slightly consistent to offer the same treatment for somebody who is insensitively prying into and pestering, making accusations against a recently bereaved community?

In the video the speaker makes it clear he's referring to people impersonating a police officer on Facebook or disseminating innaccurate reports under the name of official sources, as far as I'm aware that's fraud in most countries.

Guevarista wrote: Wasn't the footballer incident connected with racism?

The speaker absolutely does not make it clear he's referring to people impersonating a police officer on Facebook etc. On the contrary, he emphasises that anybody who posts anything that disagrees with them is open to prosecution. So, 'anybody', could be said to include the people from the recently bereaved community.

Yes sorry you're right on the second point, so essentially the source for all other information is the media?
Misinformation is quite a real thing, and that is exactly what this whole CT fixation on shootings is about, feeding suspicion, feeding tension, feeding mistrust and the climate of fear.

i-baster wrote:

Perhaps you could now answer my question instead of ducking it. Again.

Guevarista wrote:
I agree with some of your points there. (Hurray!)

I hate that it's often so hard, if not downright impossible, to determine fact from unintentional misinformation and deliberate disinformation. Hate it!

I don't particularly like your choice of words in labelling it a CT fixation. To be fair, if there are opposing facts presented, I'd think it unnatural to not want to probe deeper for the truth, and particularly in view of the many good reasons, even in recent history, to mistrust. It's not so much fear driven, as a desire to know what's really happening, and why.