Comments on: Is Joe Price Lying?

By: Craig

Craig — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 20:58:26 +0000

Thanks for your interest David, your comment and taking the time to write. Your words were taken to heart. The four of us here hold down full time jobs and if possible we would devote far more time to this effort. But I must take some exception on how you characterize the comments that David the Editor made on the original posting of Joe’s fundraising letter. Through his hard work he unearthed this closely held document that is only now seeing the light of day. That was a pretty decent find in our opinion. What clues if any or context that can be gleaned from the letter is certainly open to interpretation, ours and yours, but we considered it deserving of a post. Anyone following this case in the MSM or elsewhere would’ve run with it. We’re in the fortunate position of being able to dissect it and share our opinions on the content and now so are you.

As a bit of background, none of us brings extensive experience in either blogging or criminal justice to this project, just the desire to try and put the pieces of this puzzle together. But what we lack in those skills might be more than compensated by a combined 35 years experience we have as journalists in both print and broadcast. This site is strictly an organic effort by a group of four men and we will rely on those like you to get involved and lend your individual expertise, analysis and insights to this case and its developments.

We welcome your thoughts as well as those from other readers and would gladly afford any interested & informed party the opportunity for a larger post on any facet of this case. The interest in Robert’s murder is out there and we hope it grows into a larger group of concerned people. If for example you know of a criminal investigator that you’d like to see involved here, then by all means please share. You know where to find us.

Your suggestion about a psychic can be tackled in another post. I’m not sold. Again, thanks for sharing and joining us. We hope to hear more from you as we progress. Craig (an editor)

By: David

David — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 03:11:47 +0000

These are good thoughts, especially on how to better structure the site to fit a criminal investigation. I don’t think taking a break is the answer either because the point of this blog is to raise awareness of the crime, and if the blog does not have new content, then there are less eyeballs, and less awareness. We continue to work on new information, and longer pieces, and will keep your very smart suggestions in mind.

We have not contacted a psychic yet, but are willing to look at every avenue.

David (an editor here at WhoMurderedRobertWone.com)

By: David

David — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 02:56:30 +0000

If the only new discussion item is ambiguity in the claims of a fundraising letter, or an email suffix indicating that administrative leave is not the same thing as being fired, then let’s just take a break for a while.

When the new blog was announced, I was hoping there would be sections devoted to key elements of the case that currently are scattered among the entries during the past three months. What might be helpful is if a professional criminal investigator could provide guidance on how to structure the site to both provide current information to viewers and solicit new thoughts in an organized fashion that fits the way crimes such as this are investigated. Perhaps, suspects (rather than merely the three obstruction defendants), the victim and any information that might trace to a motive, a timeline and evidence (tagged by source and reliability), etc.

And has there been any thought to using a psychic, just to see if it leads to any new insights?