Replies

It is just so hard to keep up with the conspiracists.

Let us ASSUME that the conspiracists are right, and Adam was either innocent, or was part of a group, and someone else shot him.

Then, a member of Adam’s family might want to try to clear his name, by using forensic evidence found on his body to show he was murdered, rather than committing suicide, as the official story states.

If you WANTED to try to claim he was murdered, then if you found out they were letting random people see the body, you could claim in court that the chain of body evidence was broken, and that the coroner’s claim that the shooting was suicide is suspect, because someone could have tampered with the body to remove evidence that it was murder.

So that is one way that allowing random people to have access to the body could cause legal issues later.

BTW, wouldn’t “tamper with Adam’s body to plant evidence that he was shooting” be one of the things the conspiracy people would argue was done? So wouldn’t finding easy access to the body SUPPORT the conspiracy theory that someone tampered with the body to plant evidence that he was shooting?

I’m not sure what all the different conspiracy theories are, but I was pretty sure that one of them is that he was actually murdered somewhere else, and brought to the school to be used as a patsy.

If the police are part of a grand conspiracy theory, then allowing access to the body would help that conspiracy, by allowing unknown paople to wipe out evidence of murder, and plant evidence of suicide and of being a shooter.

SO I don’t know why that assertion “would support the current narrative”.

And my point was that banning people from getting in to see the body is a rational law enforcement thing, and NOT evidence of a conspiracy (the argument of conspiracy being that they won’t let us see Adam’s body because if we saw it, we would see that he wasn’t the shooter).

Of course, give me ANY facts, any at all, and I can write you a lovely conspiracy that fits every fact you give me. It isn’t that hard, although the more facts you have, the more skill it takes to weave the web.

That’s what the best TV writers have skill at — taking facts and finding a different reality that fits all the facts, so they can spring a surprise on the viewer that doesn’t offend the viewer sensibility.

The downside of this is that at any point in time, a person can put together a pretty good conspiracy theory for anything. The problem is that the police deliberately withhold evidence in complex cases, precisely so they can verify stories later by comparing them to the unrevealed facts.

This is why conspiracy theorists often make the claim that ANYTHING that wasn’t told to them in the first hours MUST be lies. That way, they can build a credible theory around a small set of facts, and when other facts are revealed that destroy their theory, well, those facts “prove” the conspiracy because they are clearly “false”.