We are now getting to a point where we cannot review all the cases we write about on any regular basis. Only last week I saw, by chance, that a lady had been found a couple of months after we had published an article about her. We want to keep the victim stories we cover as accurate and fresh as possible. So if you see any issues with detail or you know of an update to a situation please email: tim@reasonedcrimechronicle.com
Corrections:
We try and filter through many sources when we write about a case. We might speculate, but we always make it clear we are speculating. I would like to say we have a lot of relevant experience and an obsession with following a pattern of reason. So any theories we have are always open to debate. Any ‘fact’ we write comes from a mainstream media source unless we say otherwise.
Last week we received a comment claiming we had put out fake news in one article. First, as it wasn’t a child or Trump it seemed a bit immature to use that term and second, we don’t have any reason to put out false information. To put it in perspective the commentator picked out three details from a big article and they have a theory about a killer we do not agree with. I will link the article below.
The point is if a mistake has been made then just give us a reference and we will review it. Accuracy is only as good as the sources we can find and we do try very hard to get it right. We have no ego invested in this project. It is just about the victims and the lessons we can learn from the awful things that happened to them.
We do have some ideas to generate revenue via fiction, but we don’t aggrandise ourselves as Crime Experts. We are writers with experience of dealing hands on with criminals. We admit we are not fans of Ripperology type thinking. The world of crime is as random and crazy as the human race is. Group obsession and over focus on one potential suspect is not our style. We find that opinions become facts very quickly when a broad overview is not taken of any given case.
So if you see something you know is inaccurate we will have got it from other mainstream sources, not discussion forums or plucked out of our imagination. You will be doing us a favour if you give us the reference you have and we will, we promise, review it.
Thank You
Tim and John T
The article that prompted this can be found by clicking here:
