|
|
Post by faenix on Oct 26, 2024 0:52:05 GMT -5
Is it time to discuss the Pitfalls of True Crime research?
I started my True Crime research with Frank Gerold's The Boston Strangler. Later I moved on to books like the famous yellow book Zodiac by Graysmith.
All I can say now it that, at least the Zodiac existed and so it needed a book back in those days before the internet--any book.
|
|
|
|
Post by faenix on Nov 1, 2024 0:08:58 GMT -5
When they say "Follow the Evidence", they mean ignore the human element and common sense. They want you to follow the evidence that they subscribe to:
Cherry-Picked Evidence
Evidence from Witnesses who are Unreliable and Uncorroborated
Evidence from academia, law enforcement or good writers or documentarians but definitely not Webhunters.
You get further and further away from the truth and further into the realm of Peripherology where you discuss everything that is not even remotely related to the case and the cherry orchards are endless.
|
|
|
|
Post by faenix on Nov 4, 2024 23:46:34 GMT -5
The Mainstream never keeps up with what's new in the field of Crime and Criminology or anything else.
Everything new is on the forums and bulletin boards and comment sections.
|
|
|
|
Post by AMIdunno on Nov 6, 2024 0:18:11 GMT -5
Most of them don't want it solved. It turns into a cottage industry and they don't want it to stop. As long as it's unsolved, no one can say they're wrong. They can't even tell themselves they're wrong.
But then they're mostly Socratic so nothing is provable anyway. Right? You can't know anything. But I'm an authority because I know that. Don't ask me how!
|
|
