c2w said: "Serial lying has not been proven, per your standards."
According to "a couple" of "law-enforcement officials", reported on NBC on Dec. 15: One day before the shooting, there was an altercation at the school between Adam Lanza and four school staff, three of whom he shot dead next day, while the lucky survivor was not at work that day. This altercation was being investigated by "state and federal" "law-enforcement officials".
That's already a pretty detailed scenario, right? An entire little five-character short story in itself. And it provides the beginning of a much-needed and blatantly lacking motive.
One day later, we were told that no such altercation ever took place.
At most, that would be one lie. (Logic.)
And it might be one. However. In order to be certain that's what it was, you would have to eliminate all other equally likely explanations. For example:
In the aftermath of the shooting (likely, given the date of the report) one or more of the (likely) numerous detectives on the case spoke to a number of people working at the school who reported AN altercation someone (or several someones) there had had with a young man there the day before. This information was widely and quickly circulated among LE officials generally, due to its legitimate potential as a lead. Upon learning of Adam Lanza's identity, they then thoughtlessly plugged it into what they already believed they knew, because detectives are frequently though not invariably jackasses with a very high propensity for that kind of vanity.
At about that point, one of them was reached by a producer from NBC, and (being a jack-ass with a high propensity for thinking he or she knew what was going on) injudiciously shared that version of events while speaking not-for-attribution and thus being at little-to-no risk for reprisal if wrong.
Later, a fact-checker contacted (phoned or wrote to) a second person who confirmed that the investigation had received and was working with that information while speaking not-for-attribution, which is traditional for fact-check stuff.
NBC now has "a couple" of "law enforcement officials"
_______________________
SHORTER VERSION:: Both the LE side and the media side jumped to conclusions about motive for self-interested reasons. And if that's what happeed, since neither side nor anybody else paid any serious penalty for it, I wouldn't be surprised to see it happen again.
It might also have been a lie. But since it was retracted the next day, I'd be hard put to say what, if anything, anyone would have gained by telling it.
_________________________
More on law enforcement officials and their anonymity in a moment. Because my main point here is:
I DO NOT CLAIM THAT THE ABOVE OCCURRED.
MY CLAIM, WHICH HASN'T BEEN CONTESTED OR CHALLENGED IS THAT SERIAL LYING HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN.
Anyway: c2w, you are right that it is unclear exactly who is spreading disinformation.
I can't be. Because I never said that anyone was. Or that it was being spread.
It's possible.
That disinformation is being spread is indisputable.
.No. It's not. That unreliable and/or incorrect information has been spread is indisputable. How, why and by whom are all unknown.
Either NBC and others are inventing interviews with anonymous "law enforcement officials" that never actually took place, or else those unnamed "law enforcement officials" are deliberately spreading disinformation anonymously through the corporate media. All of them with complete impunity. (Why?)
It hasn't been established as deliberate, though it might have been. But even if it had, that wouldn't be enough to establish that it was disinformation, properly speaking.
That being so, I don't think it's possible to say why. You still have to get to what.
