I was only commenting on small town newspapers, (who in my experience gloss over such
things), and politics, (I believe that district attorneys are elected in Virginia which
makes a very political office even more so).
At 05:43 PM 6/15/03 -0500, you wrote:
Oh, I very much doubt that. You'd be surprised at what goes on regularly in small towns, and what the cops find on a regular basis. A LARGE portion of the weirdness in this country is in its small towns, and if I were to describe to you some of the stuff that has gone on in our little town of 2,500 over just the last three or four years, you probably wouldn't believe half of it. I'm sure the locals have known all about him and his exploits over the years - more than even he suspects. There's no hiding anything in a small town. But, you're probably right about the coverage - they're probably sticking very closely to just the known facts. One wrong move in a story right now, and it's a huge potential lawsuit waiting to happen.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2003 5:06 PM Subject: Re: Did you hear the one about Bob Shell?
> I doubt that it is as simple as all that. Roanoke is still a small town. > You're dealing > with a local paper, not the New York Post or Daily News, it is most likely > they toned down > their report rather than playing up the more sensational aspects of the > case to spare the > local populaces's sensibilities. In which case you have to read between > the lines it seems > to me they were hinting that local police were able to piece together a > very bizarre scene. > There is another possibility, if as Greywolf says Shell was producing > "pornography", real > or imagined the local prosecutor may be out to make Roanoke "safe for God > Fearing people".
To grasp the true meaning of socialism, imagine a world where everything is designed by
the post office, even the sleaze.
O'Rourke, P.J.
