<However, I agree that you were asked to make the interview, and therefore had to report its' results.>
ALL of you should note that the requests I made for Jeff to obtain from Jim consisted of FACTS that could be corroborated and verified { witnesses who saw Jim at the Rink, saw his Jeep all night, saw him enter the apartment and not leave, etc.}, NOT responses from Jim that he alone would know, or create {what he watched on TV, {{ nor,the verification of TV programming}}, what he ate, etc.}.
Jeff, on his own, included numerous things that were not requested and do not confirm or change anything.
Per MNI: < Therefore your reasoning doesn't devalidate my objection to the interview's outcome. > From an objective, analytical standpoint, I completely agree.
If we are going to attempt to solve this crime, and, as WE agreed in terms of Jim Barrett's suggestion, attempt to see if it works with the assumption that "Jim did it," while understandably difficult for Jeff, for us to accomplish anything, we must be emotionally detached and objective in the approach. |
