My issue is with the Facebook messages. How difficult is it to get a warrant to search his messages? Why didn't they just do that and close the case if everything checks out?
My issue is with the Facebook messages. How difficult is it to get a warrant to search his messages? Why didn't they just do that and close the case if everything checks out?
Jonathan Gault wrote:
moose lake wrote:
See, when you ask for specific answers to questions like this their conspiracy theories tend not to hold up. So I wouldn't expect to get very many direct answers.
I don't think of it as a conspiracy theory.
Here are the facts:
1) David Torrence received death threats during the summer of 2016.
2) David Torrence died in August 2017, and the medical examiner wrote it was her opinion that he drowned.
3) David Torrence was a healthy, 31-year-old man who knew how to swim, and no one seems to know what caused him to drown.
Is #1 relevant to #2 and #3? I would argue that it is relevant information. It doesn't mean he was murdered, but it was worth reporting.
And I agree with Weldon: based on the evidence, it seems to me the most likely scenario is that it was a natural death. I'd still want to know what was in those Facebook messages, though.
Proof you are a bozo. There is no story here but way to manufacture controversy
rojo wrote:
the gentleman wrote:
Does anyone see how preposterous this is? Is it good journalism to reveal that there were death threats about David Torrence? Yes. That is mostly all Jon Gault did. Mostly.
.
False.
1)Jon got the toxicology and autopsy unlike anyone else.
2) He talked to doctors all over the globe to see that that meant.
3) He talked to Torrence's mom about it. She revealed she was unhappy about it and revealed the death threats so he followed up on that and talked to Magness, Cook and a few others.
4) He talked to the Police.
So yeah, he did no work.
Those reports are fairly standard. Not hard to get. He just email them to people to get their thoughts. Again not earth shattering. Same with emailing parent/police.
I guess you and Jon think you deserve a pat on the back for doing what most real journalists do day in and day out.
He did nothing special
They can discuss issues as long as it's not Reebok/Fox/Knight or coming on and issuing Pro Publica info the brothers Johnson ripped to shreds only to do the "this must be someone in the know....reach out to us at daddysboys@letsrun.com. But letting everyone go wild discussing this case like it's making a murderer is a-ok.
pellagrino wrote:
They can discuss issues as long as it's not Reebok/Fox/Knight or coming on and issuing Pro Publica info the brothers Johnson ripped to shreds only to do the "this must be someone in the know....reach out to us at
daddysboys@letsrun.com. But letting everyone go wild discussing this case like it's making a murderer is a-ok.
Exactly. Any good work done by this story is undermined by this murder conspiracy that is being pushed from the top down.
Gault, you're not doing yourself any favors by coming on these boards and pushing it, either, especially if you want to be taken seriously as a journalist, which I think that you do, and should be. As long as you stick to the facts.
But I also understand that it's hard to go against the editorial standards set by your bosses. Weldon and Robert should hire an Editor-in-Chief that has years of hard-nosed journalism experience to work in tandem with Jon, and who has final decision in the content of the stories and how they are publicized.
Why would David Torrence be practicing free-divining techniques? Or prolonged underwater breath holding?
Not just wow... wrote:
Why would David Torrence be practicing free-divining techniques? Or prolonged underwater breath holding?
It's a thing. Not an advisable thing if you are swimming by yourself.
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=3066330https://www.livestrong.com/article/548808-can-holding-your-breath-under-water-increase-your-running-ability/a thing- wrote:
Not just wow... wrote:
Why would David Torrence be practicing free-divining techniques? Or prolonged underwater breath holding?
It's a thing. Not an advisable thing if you are swimming by yourself.
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=3066330https://www.livestrong.com/article/548808-can-holding-your-breath-under-water-increase-your-running-ability/
I find it hard to believe DT would underwater breath holding. Make no sense.
rojo wrote:
In terms of next steps, we definitely are going to to start by reaching out to lawyers to ask them for their legal opinion on this. If you are a lawyer and have an opinion email us at
letsrun@letsrun.com.
The one thing that I think needs to be done is his facebook account needs to be searched by law enforcement for death threats.
What other next steps do you all think we need to take?
Facebook simply requires a court order to give the family member access to the account. This does not have to be done by the police, you don’t need a warrant. Just have the mother go see a lawyer to go get her the court order. It’s not that complicated. Why didn’t she just do this she’s ago? She doesn’t need to sue anyone or anything weird, it’s just a simple application to court for an order compelling Facebook to give her access. Facebook is only covering their own butt re liability (breach of privacy) by requiring a court order. It’s normal and everyone just asks for a court order before handing over private information.
Once she has access if she finds any threats she can then take those to the police to follow up.
All of this seems to be a waste of time and needless upsetting speculation. Accepting the death of a loved one is hard, this is all making it worse.I wouldn’t bother with this, but if this is what she really needs for closure, just go see a lawyer.
wejo wrote:
meddling kids wrote:
Jon is not well-served by the editorial feeding frenzy Weldon and Robert attempt to create around his solid reporting.
I'm curious what you mean by this? Are you upset w some of decisions made with article or with this thread and how it's presented on homepage?
The gentleman above articulated this more eloquently than I likely will, but since you asked, Weldon:
Jon did some good work on a short timeline to report this story. I'm well aware of how long the full police report has been available, and Jon covered significant ground following up with identified witnesses, family members and medical experts.
You still have questions. The appropriate course at this point would be to apply the available tools of journalism (research, FOIA requests, cultivated sources, follow-up interviews, etc.) to those questions. Instead, the editorial approach-- which, in my opinion, undercuts Jon's work-- is to push those questions to your message board for speculation and armchair quarterbacking by anonymous posters. Essentially, crowd-sourcing a closed death investigation because you doubt the conclusion. Given the nature of the message boards, those conversations would likely happen anyway, but you and Robert don't need to be in here fanning the flames and stirring the baser instincts of your audience.
Crowd-sourcing may deliver some answers, perhaps even correct ones, but the public speculative approach, in a milieu lacking editorial constraint, can also create unintended collateral damage. Just ask the innocent individuals incorrectly identified in the Boston Marathon bombing investigation.
Dig into the questions as responsible journalists.
Jon sought the counsel of medical experts on the heart question and came back with solid, professional quotes, but you've got Robert on here asking for free legal advice via email.
It feels shoddy, loose and disorganized, on the heels of a mostly well-reported initial story.
meddling kids wrote:
The gentleman above articulated this more eloquently than I likely will, but since you asked, Weldon:
Jon did some good work on a short timeline to report this story. I'm well aware of how long the full police report has been available, and Jon covered significant ground following up with identified witnesses, family members and medical experts.
You still have questions. The appropriate course at this point would be to apply the available tools of journalism (research, FOIA requests, cultivated sources, follow-up interviews, etc.) to those questions. Instead, the editorial approach-- which, in my opinion, undercuts Jon's work-- is to push those questions to your message board for speculation and armchair quarterbacking by anonymous posters. Essentially, crowd-sourcing a closed death investigation because you doubt the conclusion. Given the nature of the message boards, those conversations would likely happen anyway, but you and Robert don't need to be in here fanning the flames and stirring the baser instincts of your audience.
Crowd-sourcing may deliver some answers, perhaps even correct ones, but the public speculative approach, in a milieu lacking editorial constraint, can also create unintended collateral damage. Just ask the innocent individuals incorrectly identified in the Boston Marathon bombing investigation.
Dig into the questions as responsible journalists.
Jon sought the counsel of medical experts on the heart question and came back with solid, professional quotes, but you've got Robert on here asking for free legal advice via email.
It feels shoddy, loose and disorganized, on the heels of a mostly well-reported initial story.
You must really hate the Internet, since everything in the news now ends up in crowdsourced speculation on the Internet.
Oh for the good old days when public expression was limited to the letters to the editor that newspapers chose to print!
“Here are the facts:
1) David Torrence received death threats during the summer of 2016.”
This is not a fact.
Why did David Torrence run for Peru? Why the change in nationality?
meddling kids wrote:
You still have questions. The appropriate course at this point would be to apply the available tools of journalism (research, FOIA requests, cultivated sources, follow-up interviews, etc.) to those questions. Instead, the editorial approach-- which, in my opinion, undercuts Jon's work-- is to push those questions to your message board for speculation and armchair quarterbacking by anonymous posters. Essentially, crowd-sourcing a closed death investigation because you doubt the conclusion. Given the nature of the message boards, those conversations would likely happen anyway, but you and Robert don't need to be in here fanning the flames and stirring the baser instincts of your audience.
I always say tone is lost in text messages/ on the internet. Maybe that's what has happened here.
We "doubt like the conclusion?" and are "fanning the flames."
What are you talking about?
You think because I posted a personal opinion on the messageboard that I think his facebook should be searched that that means I "doubt the conclusion" and am "fanning the flames?"
No. It doesn't mean that - it can't mean former that as I don't believe that.
Maybe I should have put in my first post that I think he almost certainly died of natural causes. But 17 minute later in my second post I wrote, "I agree things still point to a freak natural death."
Nuance is a lost art these days. If I say, "I really feel for David's mom. To lose a son at 31 and no have all the answers has to be devastating. I think it's unacceptable they didn't get a warrant to search David's facebook account," that doesn't mean "That I think the conclusion of the Police is wrong".
I think you quite honestly were the one who was reading a lot into it.
I'm reposting my first post below so you can see there honestly is nothing in it about doubting the conclusion or fanning the flames.
rojo wrote:
While not a lawyer, I 100% thought the same thing you did in terms of probable cause. How can there not be probable cause for a search warrant of his facebook account when he multiple people have said that Torrence told them he received a death threat via facebook. Isn't making a death threat itself a crime?
In terms of next steps, we definitely are going to to start by reaching out to lawyers to ask them for their legal opinion on this. If you are a lawyer and have an opinion email us at
letsrun@letsrun.com.
The one thing that I think needs to be done is his facebook account needs to be searched by law enforcement for death threats.
What other next steps do you all think we need to take?
If I was writing it again, I"d combine it with my second post which I started by saying, "Using your logic, like Weldon, I agree that he most likely died of some freak heart thing."
rojo wrote:
You think because I posted a personal opinion on the messageboard that I think his facebook should be searched that that means I "doubt the conclusion" and am "fanning the flames?"
I think that because you posted a personal opinion on a message board discussing an article your site reported, you sacrifice a certain amount of editorial impartiality.
rojo wrote:
Isn't making a death threat itself a crime?
I'm not entirely sure. If you aren't either, there's research or consultation with a lawyer who specializes in that area. Floating it rhetorically here introduces a degree of doubt regarding the thoroughness, methodology or outcome of the investigation. It might feel like an innocent question, but it's not a neutral question.
rojo wrote:
If Torrence was murdered, I would think there would only be two ways.
1) Someone forceably drowning him but you'd think that would be next to impossible to drown/strangle a 31-year old man at a pool at an apartment complex without someone hearing it or there being signs of a struggle on his body.
2) Some sort of poisoning/roofing of him that caused him to drown. Does anyone know if a standard autopsy looks for poison/roofies? Like would every medical examiner find that in a normal autopsy/toxicology report or would one have to think ahead of time that murder was a real option before looking into it?
It should be noted that Jama Aden has made a career off of putting various substances in the bodies of individuals that evade detection by authorities. He and his entourage seem to be world-class in that business.
he was offed wrote:
I'm convinced. And meanwhile Aden and co. skate by when we all know in our heart of hearts they're dopers. torrence also mighta had some dirt on Lagat, who knows. and he certainly wasn't a Makh Daddy fan. lotta bad stuff goin on here
From a very close source to DT, he did have dirt on Lagat!
Lagat had his issues in 2002, but the dirt comes from the OT's in 2008 and beyond.
It-Never-Ends 99 wrote:
he was offed wrote:
I'm convinced. And meanwhile Aden and co. skate by when we all know in our heart of hearts they're dopers. torrence also mighta had some dirt on Lagat, who knows. and he certainly wasn't a Makh Daddy fan. lotta bad stuff goin on here
From a very close source to DT, he did have dirt on Lagat!
Lagat had his issues in 2002, but the dirt comes from the OT's in 2008 and beyond.
I hope this comes out finally. It has been a long time coming.
This is far fetched regarding Torrence but not impossible.
1 - 2 Russian Olympic doping whistleblowers were found dead from "heart complications" within the same week. It is in the movie Icarus and you can do a Google search to see the sources.
2 - How would this situation turned out in Eugene if Nike and Capriotti crossed paths with Mackey outside of the stadium:
(editor's note: link changed to the LRC story that broke the news above)
3 - Jama's career is essentially ruined and he is high up with Qatar royalty. It never made sense he got out of jail so quickly.
4- In 2006 a Nike employee Llewellyn Starks (also currently an employee, he's referenced in the above article as well) sent this massage guy to the hospital after a severe beating for being a whistleblower regarding the Gatlin case.
http://projects.registerguard.com/csp/cms/sites/web/news/cityregion/7122674-41/story.csp
If you put previous examples with the fact that Torrence had received death threats, turns up shows up dead in a pool on a Monday morning, I think his family is reasonable to suggest it is worth investigating more.
Jakob Ingebrigtsen has a 1989 Ferrari 348 GTB and he's just put in paperwork to upgrade it
Strava thinks the London Marathon times improved 12 minutes last year thanks to supershoes
Is there a rule against attaching a helium balloon to yourself while running a road race?
NAU women have no excuse - they should win it all at 2024 NCAA XC
Mark Coogan says that if you could only do 3 workouts as a 1500m runner you should do these
How rare is it to run a sub 5 minute mile AND bench press 225?
Move over Mark Coogan, Rojo and John Kellogg share their 3 favorite mile workouts