Any additional news?

crazycat · Post by **crazycat** » Mon Jul 03, 2006 10:02 am

Like all of you, I keep waiting and hoping to hear news that Rich and Wilson and anyone else are completely cleared of any criminal involvement in this matter. If anyone that just happens to read this board, but seldom if ever makes a post, has heard anything either way please post it.

oldcatfan · Post by **oldcatfan** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 8:42 am

Wilson has been cleared of any involvement in the incident. Seems he was an unknowing participant by virtue of having a locker at the fieldhouse. Not so with Rich. Still waiting...

MSU01 · Post by **MSU01** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 11:23 am

I wonder when the fine folks down at the Chronicle are going to let everyone know that Wilson has been cleared of any involvement, after what they printed in the initial story that came out...

Bleedinbluengold · Post by **Bleedinbluengold** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 12:16 pm

MSU01 wrote:I wonder when the fine folks down at the Chronicle are going to let everyone know that Wilson has been cleared of any involvement, after what they printed in the initial story that came out...

I don't recall them saying anything other than that it was JW's locker. That's true, is it not? Or, did I miss something, and it wasn't his locker?

tetoncat · Post by **tetoncat** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 12:20 pm

They said he was Directly involved. As was discussed in other threads, someone putting something into your locker without your knowledge should not make you directly involved.

Bleedinbluengold · Post by **Bleedinbluengold** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 5:01 pm

tetoncat wrote:They said he was Directly involved. As was discussed in other threads, someone putting something into your locker without your knowledge should not make you directly involved.

Can you show me the quote from the article? I just don't recall reading that. What I recall reading was something like, "guns were found in a locker that was labeled 'Wilson #1', and there was a Jacques Wilson who wore #1 on the team roster last season."

Don't get me wrong. I am not trying to defend the Chronicle. They can do that for themselves, but this is how misquotes happen, and allegations turn into truths, and then it all blows up. I don't recall reading anywhere in print that JW was "directly involved."

Hello Kitty · Post by **Hello Kitty** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 5:14 pm

Bleedinbluengold wrote:
tetoncat wrote:They said he was Directly involved. As was discussed in other threads, someone putting something into your locker without your knowledge should not make you directly involved.
Can you show me the quote from the article? I just don't recall reading that. What I recall reading was something like, "guns were found in a locker that was labeled 'Wilson #1', and there was a Jacques Wilson who wore #1 on the team roster last season."

Don't get me wrong. I am not trying to defend the Chronicle. They can do that for themselves, but this is how misquotes happen, and allegations turn into truths, and then it all blows up. I don't recall reading anywhere in print that JW was "directly involved."

This for starters does not sound good when the "current" athlete was not really involved.

"Several current and former Montana State University athletes have been linked to an apparent drug-related killing of suspected cocaine dealer Jason Wright"

Grizlaw · Post by **Grizlaw** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 5:55 pm

As I said in another thread, I have no interest in defending the Chronicle. You all have obviously spent a lot more time reading Chronicle articles than I have, so you know better than I do whether it's a good newspaper or not.

But guys...you have to remember, the Chronicle was reporting this story as the news came out. They obviously didn't know how it was going to turn out (they still don't, actually, nor do any of us). Everything depends on what they knew at the time and what they didn't know, but for example...my guess is that at the time they wrote what Kitty posted, all they probably knew was that the gun had been found in a player's locker. In light of that, isn't it a fair statement to say that a current athlete was "linked" to the incident? If a murder was committed and somehow the murder weapon ended up in the desk drawer of my office, I sure don't feel like it would be unfair to say I was "linked" to the murder, do you?

I guess I'm just having a hard time understanding what the Chronicle should do in this situation. Should they just not report anything until the entire investigation, the trial, and the appeal are all completed? If they did that, they definitely wouldn't risk dragging anyone into this that wasn't involved, but I have a feeling you all wouldn't like that approach, either. If they're going to report the facts as the investigation unfolds, though, then they're probably going to end up reporting some things that turn out not to be completely accurate, and I'm not sure there's really any way around that.

GOKATS · Post by **GOKATS** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 7:27 pm

Grizlaw wrote:As I said in another thread, I have no interest in defending the Chronicle. You all have obviously spent a lot more time reading Chronicle articles than I have, so you know better than I do whether it's a good newspaper or not.

But guys...you have to remember, the Chronicle was reporting this story as the news came out. They obviously didn't know how it was going to turn out (they still don't, actually, nor do any of us). Everything depends on what they knew at the time and what they didn't know, but for example...my guess is that at the time they wrote what Kitty posted, all they probably knew was that the gun had been found in a player's locker. In light of that, isn't it a fair statement to say that a current athlete was "linked" to the incident? If a murder was committed and somehow the murder weapon ended up in the desk drawer of my office, I sure don't feel like it would be unfair to say I was "linked" to the murder, do you?

I guess I'm just having a hard time understanding what the Chronicle should do in this situation. Should they just not report anything until the entire investigation, the trial, and the appeal are all completed? If they did that, they definitely wouldn't risk dragging anyone into this that wasn't involved, but I have a feeling you all wouldn't like that approach, either. If they're going to report the facts as the investigation unfolds, though, then they're probably going to end up reporting some things that turn out not to be completely accurate, and I'm not sure there's really any way around that.

I have to agree, imagine that!

Other than the initial media reports, very little info has been released.

Two are in jail, but too many facts regarding motive and specific details as to the personal involvement in the crime by the suspects and/or others remain to be seen, and it may be quite some time before any of these questions are answered.

I'm sure the media is looking for something further to report, but apparently the authorities are keeping a tight lid on the incident pending further investigation. JMHO

Hello Kitty · Post by **Hello Kitty** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 8:47 pm

Isn’t it better to err on the side of caution? Especially when publicly commenting on a persons "link" to a murder? As a writer he should not be so cavalier with his choice of words.

Grizlaw · Post by **Grizlaw** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 9:13 pm

Hello Kitty wrote:Isn’t it better to err on the side of caution? Especially when publicly commenting on a persons "link" to a murder? As a writer he should not be so cavalier with his choice of words.

Of course they should be as cautious as they can be, but how certain do you think they should have to be of a person's involvement before they comment on it?

Wilson may truly be innocent, but the fact remains that the murder weapon was still found in his locker. Any way you look at it, that's pretty damning evidence. If there is an innocent explanation for how it got there, then I'll expect to read about that in the Chronicle when it becomes public as well, but in the meantime, can you really blame them for drawing certain conclusions from the fact that the murder weapon was found in a player's locker?

Of course they should be careful and exercise judgement in reporting things, but given that everything they say might turn out to be connecting someone to the case that is actually innocent, it doesn't seem to me like they were making such an outrageous leap in this particular case.

--GL (JMO, of course)

MSU01 · Post by **MSU01** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 10:13 pm

I just think that if and when Wilson is cleared of any involvement, it would be nice of the Chronicle to print that. It would be newsworthy given that he was mentioned in the initial article as having a very suspicious involvement in the case.

whitetrashgriz · Post by **whitetrashgriz** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 11:47 pm

wow...good posts here, without any idiots! bye bearbac! anyway, grizlaw, you bring up great points. i was thinking the same when everyone was jumping on the chronicle. i'm not a chronicle supporter, per say, but i am also curious what else people expected. they reported as they saw it. i also agree that they too should report that jacque is cleared of all wrong-doing if that is the case. and here lies the problem. they were quick to report "what they knew" when wilson #1 appeared to be guilty, but know that he appears to be innocent, they haven't been so quick to point that out! consistency!!!!

oldcatfan · Post by **oldcatfan** » Fri Jul 07, 2006 10:23 am

[quote="Grizlaw"][quote="Hello Kitty"]Isn’t it better to err on the side of caution? Especially when publicly commenting on a persons "link" to a murder? As a writer he should not be so cavalier with his choice of words.[/quote]

Of course they should be as cautious as they can be, but how certain do you think they should have to be of a person's involvement before they comment on it?

Wilson may truly be innocent, but the fact remains that [i]the murder weapon was still found in his locker[/i]. Any way you look at it, that's pretty damning evidence. If there is an innocent explanation for how it got there, then I'll expect to read about [i]that [/i]in the Chronicle when it becomes public as well, but in the meantime, can you really blame them for drawing certain conclusions from the fact that the murder weapon was found in a player's locker?

Of course they should be careful and exercise judgement in reporting things, but given that everything they say might turn out to be connecting someone to the case that is actually innocent, it doesn't seem to me like they were making such an outrageous leap in this particular case.

--GL (JMO, of course)[/quote]

Why would you expect to read about THAT in the Chronicle? Do you know something about the Chronicle that isn't evident by their past behavior?

GOKATS · Post by **GOKATS** » Fri Jul 07, 2006 11:32 am

A short article in todays 'Chronicle' states that no new arrests have been made, however police have continued interviewing witnesses, including one MSU athlete. The county attorney stated "the investigation continues as we speak".

Someone with the e version may be able to post the article, but it is very short.

Bleedinbluengold · Post by **Bleedinbluengold** » Fri Jul 07, 2006 11:37 am

MSU01 wrote:I just think that if and when Wilson is cleared of any involvement, it would be nice of the Chronicle to print that. It would be newsworthy given that he was mentioned in the initial article as having a very suspicious involvement in the case.

I believe the Chronicle reported that JW was questioned by the police, released, and was cleared of involvement (I can't remember whether that last part was in the article, or if I read on this board).

Post by **SonomaCat** » Fri Jul 07, 2006 11:44 am

The Chronicle article:

http://pioneer.olivesoftware.com/Reposi ... kin-custom

Thanks for pointing that out, GOCATS. I didn't see it the first time I scanned the e-Chronicle this morning.

GOKATS · Post by **GOKATS** » Fri Jul 07, 2006 12:09 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:The Chronicle article:

http://pioneer.olivesoftware.com/Reposi ... kin-custom

Thanks for pointing that out, GOCATS. I didn't see it the first time I scanned the e-Chronicle this morning.

You probably blinked, it is a very short article.

crazycat · Post by **crazycat** » Fri Jul 07, 2006 12:26 pm

Bleedinbluengold wrote:
MSU01 wrote:I just think that if and when Wilson is cleared of any involvement, it would be nice of the Chronicle to print that. It would be newsworthy given that he was mentioned in the initial article as having a very suspicious involvement in the case.
I believe the Chronicle reported that JW was questioned by the police, released, and was cleared of involvement (I can't remember whether that last part was in the article, or if I read on this board).

The article says they are interviewing one MSU athlete. In all likelihood this is Wilson. And interviewing him is only logical. It doesn't say 'at least one...' it just says one, which I think could be a good thing.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Fri Jul 07, 2006 12:31 pm

I read the "one" line with a sense of relief as well. I guess that goes to show how low the bar has fallen for us to find comfort, huh? But it is better than an "At least one," or "several," as you said.