The Short Version of the Big Chuck Philips Post Below
That long post immediately below this one? Here’s the essence of what it’s about.
Former L.A. Times reporter Chuck Philips wrote a front-page story saying some guy was innocent of murder. Except that there’s all sorts of evidence showing the guy isn’t innocent.
The L.A. Times had a lot of that evidence, but didn’t publish it.
One of the pieces of evidence was a civil deposition the murderer gave. I have a copy here.
In that deposition, the guy said he was framed for murder by the same guy who killed both Biggie Smalls and Tupac Shakur. This made the murderer sound, I don’t know . . . kind of like a guy spinning tall tales. Like a cheap con artist.
The L.A. Times had that deposition. But they didn’t report the parts that made their oh-so-innocent guy sound like a cheap con artist. Instead, they reported a bunch of other stuff from the deposition, and played it up to make it sound credible.
The stuff they reported benefited Suge Knight — a guy Philips has been accused of being wayyy too close to.
Oh, and the guy’s claim of innocence may also be predicated on forged or phony documents.
That’s about it. Now, if you’re ready, go back and read the whole thing — or as much as you can slog through.
P.S. Oh . . . I should also mention that the FBI has apparently been investigating allegations that Philips smuggled messages from Suge Knight to the imprisoned murderer. I have new information on that, too.
Now go read the big post on this.
Thanks for the condensed version. I’m not surprised at all by the L.A. Slimes. It only shows in greater detail what a joke that ugly rag has become. My only solace is the Times is slowly dying like all of the other Old Media is dying. Happy Day! Watch those stock prices tumble and viewership plummet. Yeah! They are getting what they deserve.
J. Raymond Wright (d83ab3) — 11/17/2008 @ 8:04 amThese guys used to rely on the twinky defense. Post OJ, they use the everybody is stupid and will believe what the LAT prints. Probably hopes that BHO will pardon him.
Good reportage!
vet66 (56a0a8) — 11/17/2008 @ 8:06 amI also appreciate the abridged version, though I am reading the longer post too.
The LA Times has got to be kidding by having Phillips on their payroll at this point, especially writing on this particular story. I’m sure it’s not a lot of fun to be in law enforcement and have a major media player in your community have such contempt for you that they would utterly shill for likely killers.
Juan (4cdfb7) — 11/17/2008 @ 8:08 amMurdoch predicts what will happen to the times with people like Rainey writing for them.
PCD (7fe637) — 11/17/2008 @ 10:58 amHow do you know Philips had the whole deposition? You seem to think that the entire LAT had some unspecified motive for exonerating this guy. Isn’t it more plausible that someone leaked Philips the parts of the deposition that supported the pro-Suge Knight version of the story while strategically leaving out the parts that would have thrown it into question? Isn’t that how you guys do it when you leak things to the press?
vb (3725a3) — 11/17/2008 @ 3:01 pmComment by vb — 11/17/2008 @ 3:01 pm
Keep looking for that pony, it’s got to be in there somewhere.
Another Drew (a9bf4b) — 11/17/2008 @ 3:21 pmBy jingo, vb, I think you’ve tumbled onto something there. It must be that the “guy” has really put one over on the poor, downtrodden, lat. That’s the reasonable explanation.
49erDweet (d77617) — 11/17/2008 @ 3:22 pmPatterico:
Not kites?
Dafydd
Dafydd Abhugh (db2ea4) — 11/17/2008 @ 4:33 pmThe LA Times should be ashamed of itself and shouldn’t be allowed to continue as anything but a National Enquirer publication. This shouldn’t be surprising, though. The Times covered up for Obama and his leftist illuminati cronies for the past 21 months while he was running for president.
Jeff (49888f) — 11/19/2008 @ 11:19 am