Nathan McDonald : Clearly, you and I don’t share the same concern of protecting the police investigation.
Christina Stoy/Blink on Crime : Really- you feel the fact that a witness, who is on record asking you to leave from being perched on his electrical box, the exchange of which was released publicly, is protecting an investigation?
This was from her comments section. We had a lot of exchanges.
According to Christina Stoy and Blink on Crime, I was identified by a witness sitting on a box. That was in her interview and perpetuated in her comments section. As you can see, she was key in that perpetuation.
Christina Stoy was referring to released documents by Tucson Police. No where is an exchange with a witness asking me to leave an electrical box released publicly. She’s referring to the document below. This is a clear lie. She read the report, she twisted it to mean what she wants it to mean, then she stated that twist as fact.
If I remember correctly, she later said that she would have to defer to her contact for the positive identification. Apparently, “released publicly” actually means “released privately by my made up contact.”
Christina Stoy has never shown any document that supports that statement. I wasn’t the man that Mr. Lutzelberger spoke with that morning. More importantly for Christian Stoy and Blink on Crime, no public documents identify me. “Matches the description” and “positively identified” are two significantly different statements. That seems like journalism school 101 to me.
I challenge Christina Stoy and Blink on Crime to produce any support for that statement “a witness, who is on record asking you to leave from being perched on his electrical box, the exchange of which was released publicly”.
Of course, she can’t. But rather than retract or correct that asserition, she just sticks to her lies.