Quote:
Originally posted by notcasesensitive
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/01/nyregion/01DEAT.html
[spree: sad story about dad killing 8 year old son]
The main reason I posted this here is that several of the reported angles troubled me.
Why is the Times putting in references by some unidentified parent that maybe this 8 year old kid who was just murdered might have been kind of bossy at school? Relevance?
Why report that the house appeared empty the next day and then discuss what photos the reporter could see through the living room window? Creepy. Invasive. Potentially helpful to would-be burglers. Noteworthy?
Why try to boil debt securitization down to "basically selling i.o.u.'s" as though he was doing something shady or something?
So has the Times just lost it or what?
|
Yeah, I'm voting for "lost it."
What the hell? Why bring up the fact that the kid was "unusually comfortable talking to adults" or that he was "given to using harsh language around other children." What does that mean? That he killed himself? That the other kids did it?
Could you tell me again how dad hadn't had a job since 2000?
And nice statistics about the death count on that train. MOST of them suicides.
