If you don't like being called a kook, don't act kooky.They do not have independently corroborated notes of two different reporters... they are both paid by the same corporation. And the Gawker guys are already back peddling so...
Gawker is not back-pedalling on what they saw. They are saying they cannot reach the tipster anymore. Nowhere have they raised any doubt, whatsoever, that they saw what they saw--you are just wholesale making that up. You're within spitting distance of lying.
And yes the Star reporters prepared their notes independently so that they wouldn't bias each other, and then their version was truly independently corroborated by Gawker, which went there independently, viewed the video independently, and wrote up the story independently of the Star.
Again, your claim seems to be that the entire Star organization goes about wholesale fabricating stories, in conspiracy with some unrelated American news source -- the word really is kook. Your claims have all the hallmarks of the absolutely kookiest sort of conspiracy theory.
For starters, you are willing to go about slandering the Star without any proof--absolutely none whatsoever--doing everything you accuse the Star of doing. You claim they go about making up stories, but you don't have even one single reason to believe it, other than they dug up some dirt about your snarling darling. Hilarious!! Except that the Star actually has editors who review stories reporters submit for facts, and in this case, very clearly had a team of lawyers review the story to make sure it would stand up in a court. A far higher standard than you meet. Like any conspiracy theory your own wacked out claims have more holes in them than the official version of events.
Cite any previous case where the Star, or any other Canadian paper, wholesale invented a story. It doesn't happen. Period.
