While I can't confirm his off the record conversations, that 100% sounds truthful in today's climate.
Eye Oh!
Because there are thousands of reports that go through a police station probably in a given month, he can't account for every report that's gone out for the last 3 years. He's covering his own ass, which is what I'd do in that circumstance. However, as I said earlier, the fact that McMurphy was so quick to edit his story and not stand up for it, along with it being 3 weeks now, leads me to continue to be very skeptical this report exists. I've never said it's impossible that it does, but it's highly unlikely IMO.
Its on McMurphy now if the actual investigation says otherwise. And he failed to confirm actual facts before reporting and editing. His credibility is shot. With the job he acquired on Social Media through Watch Stadiumas a result of his "story". McMurphey may be seeking a new job. As he should be
I already covered that which goes back to double standards. To claim McMurphys story to be true and assume snobbism to be false. Is one of many double standards i listed.....
I think I can take a guess here . . probably (as he stated) he was informed that the police report he had seen was not consistent with what had happened.
You're dumb enough to not realize there are already two copies of this report publicly available, one from 2015 and one from July? Why is he needing to provide anymore?
I have no doubt that is probably what happened, but why would he just roll over so quickly and completely forget that he supposedly saw a report that says otherwise? If anything, wouldn't it be worth digging into? He is, afterall, an "investigative journalist".
He did go over what happened. FFS man. And I've posted the quote of the story how it existed on the 1st, and the current version now. That part wasn't changed within that story, it was different than his first breaking of this around the time of the media day event. AFTER that event, he was given a revised version of it AND HE STATED AS MUCH in his article.
In actuality, whether McMurphy flat out lied, or has been completely above board is completely irrelevant - especially to the "investigation" at Ohio State. Either Zach Smith committed a firable offense in 2015 and it was covered up, or he didn't and there is nothing to be seen here.
Because those "two copies" are completely different from one another.
I can't speak for McMurphy, but my best guess is that he wanted to report what actually happened, and the evidence at which he was looking led him to report something that did not happen.
There's also the part about him initially saying Earle Bruce talked Courtney Smith out of pressing charges in 09, to now for some reason omitting that part after her mom told him no such event occurred.
Sure, I would do things differently. It's clear he's out of his element doing indy work on FB. That is clear as day. At least IMO. He's used to a support staff. He did say he turned to two trusted people to help him with editorial and fact checking before posting the story because he's used to having that level of support. Obviously he's been solo since that posted and he's just bad at the editorial process. That makes him a bit of a hack at the very least and I've called him that since day 1.
You are suggesting because he didn't post some online version of the original document he said he saw, not that he had in his possession, that he MUST be lying and I simply can't wrap my brain around how people not biased and looking for blood can come to that conclusion. Show me where he's been questioned about the existence of this report. If you can't. it's moot. Entirely and completely. Period.
A guess is not factual. McMurphy hasn’t provided anything that has been actually verified yet. It’s badically been tabloid style journalism. Rooted in shock value. If 11 warriors could provide copies of the police reports they had. And McMurphy could post texts that can’t be confirmed. Or could have been altered by him or Courtney. That’s based on assumptions and speculation not fact. Reporters have done worse especially in today’s age of “media”. No different than we can’t say Snooks information isn’t correct by that standard. Until legitimate reports are released following the investigation from the proper channels. We can’t assume McMurphy or Snook are correct. Just speculation like it’s odd McMurphy seems to be making this personal
No they're not. Some parts of the report have changed - one was pre-investigative, one was post.
