[uvular]

I hope Dan gets in some sort of trouble over this. In his haste to be the one credited with this 'breaking news', I think he may have put his source, whoever it was, in trouble. And the way he reported it, it really sounded like his source has to be connected to the defense.

Why, for instance, would a transcriber or anyone else who may have had contact with this amendment to the autopsy, conclude as Dan did, that it could possibly be a noose and make it sound like someone had purposely strangled and stabbed Connor? Sheesh!

Good morning all, and as always, thanks rb for your dedication!

[uvular]

FYI-Feiger now On MSNBC.

[Spunky]

"Why, for instance, would a transcriber or anyone else who may have had contact with this amendment to the autopsy, conclude as Dan did, that it could possibly be a noose and make it sound like someone had purposely strangled and stabbed Connor?

This really strikes me odd. Why in the world would this information have been an AMENDMENT?

It would seem to me this would have been one of the first things put in an autopsy report.

[Howlin]

I think he may have put his source, whoever it was, in trouble

I'm praying that that is exactly what happens!

And if you remember from yesterday, almost as soon as Abrams took to the air, he himself used the word "noose" -- and he used it often.

Even later in the day on MSNBC, Lester Holt said, "The word 'noose' is nowhere in this report."

It HAD to come from the defense.

[runningbear]

in my opinion, it isn't really Abrams fault for reporting something given to him. It is that person(s) who should be at fault for releasing such information knowing court instructions not to do so.