That is what the RCMP said. Again, they don't have to tell the public the truth about their use of informants (or identify them), unless it's in court.
Guess they were hoping it would go away ... But the people want a public inquiry and Trudeau and the RCMP do not.
I don't know what's liberal about sitting on the story and hoping it goes away - but their editorial staff makes decisions about what to cover based on something - for some reason they just ignored a huge story by fellow journalists working for a reputable source . It is up to CBC to investigate the Maclean's story more vigorously - not just take the RCMP's word for it - if they have good reason to believe it's not true.
globalnews.ca
I think there will be eventually a lot of embarrassing details come out - like the cops who shot at the firehall and their own colleague who was guarding it. I don’t see the need to make everything from the investigation public, as long as there is an independent investigation of the police procedure.This should go here not in the conspiracy thread. It is related to saving credibility of a journalistic source and story though - and to how much message control is happening..
‘No confidential informants at issue’ in redacted RCMP documents related to N.S. shooting | Globalnews.ca
A provincial court judge must decide how to balance judicial fairness with public interest and the protection of an ongoing RCMP investigation.
You are stuck on this theory. All that is to it is that he was hanging out with a neighbour who had a criminal background and that he got money through Brinks. Hardly convincing. I doubt anything will come out of this, plainly because there wasn’t anything.
I don’t believe the reasoning given, after the big story was printed in Maclean’s and refuted, that he got $475K cash out before he did what he did, because he was scared of covid. And I don’t believe Maclean’s would make up a giant story out of nothing. From further away, with some objectivity, I think there definitely needs to be more investigating. If nothing comes of it then Maclean’s was irresponsible. However, it is journalists’ job to report the news, and yes, it is the role of investigative journalism to follow leads that the powerful sometimes try to bury. We have all but forgotten that.
It was a pretty long story. Somebody buried it, for some reason, that's why. No, I'm not obsessed with it (Mrs. A) - I don't think about it constantly, or even daily. It's just one of many thread topics here I follow up on. I just hope it's more fully investigated from every angle, including the angle presented in Maclean's. No news org is looking too far into the credibility of the Maclean's story either. Nobody's called for a retraction or apology by the editor of Maclean's. Nobody's suing them. Nobody's interviewing them. If they were so sure it's not true other credible investigative journalists worth their salt would really be on Maclean's case about their irresponsibility rather than just having a couple of people say a few words that disagree and that's that - they'd be speaking to the editor, trying to find out more about why they felt it important to do a feature story about potential links of the shooter to the RCMP - several people seem to be hoping it'll fade away. That's not even normal. It's a huge story - once a credible source puts it out there, it is of national importance - and everybody just put their hands in their pockets and walked away whistling, it seems to me.
No but when someone behaves as strangely as he did, it’s normal to raise concern. Like, with the replica cop car and collection of auctioned police cars. It’s amazing people knew about it and he was allowed to drive that car. The assault on his partner. Those things needed to be on the radar before he got into a replica cop car to go anywhere. I think they might’ve been ignored for a reason, though, as per the Maclean’s story. Of course we don’t know because our media is tight lipped, bought and paid for.
nowtoronto.com
They are investigating themselves, I guess, because there's still curfuffle about how they are going to proceed with a full public inquiry - citing technicalities as reasons for stalling. The media consortium is just trying to get access to what they already know about this case. And, as such, the perpetrator is dead - he's the criminal who committed the atrocities - so they aren't needing to protect him in their ongoing investigation. (That information does not jeopardize the "suspect" in a criminal trial - because he's gone.)