Reader Comments
Updated Aug. 7 Anthrax suspect's lawyer: Kappa obsession is not proof
Published: Wednesday, August 6th, 2008
Though investigators have named Bruce Ivins the sole actor in the 2001 anthrax attacks and declared the case solved, Ivins' lawyer emphasized Thursday that there is no evidence proving Ivins' alleged obsession with the Kappa Kappa Gamma sorority led him ...(back to the article)
The opinions expressed here are those of the individual commenters and do not necessarily represent the views of The Daily Princetonian Publishing Company, Inc. We do not take responsibility for the opinions, facts, or claims presented by individual commenters, and reserve the right to moderate or delete inappropriate comments.
If Fango Fett died for Barack Obama's and John McCains sins, where does that leave Paris Hilton?
50 milligrams of codeine didn't Ivins, so I guess that the FBI had to go in there and kill him, since he didn't take the paranoiac hint from them to kill himself and close out the case against the White House and the CIA. He dragged it out and put himself in therapy and started running his mouth. Things started going bad for the cleanup crew and the sweepers from the CIA came in and made it look like a suicide. CASE CLOSED, NOT☻
the article does say that the Palmer Square POST OFFICE had traces and that the mailbox was at Nassau and Bank streets, "straight facts"
basically i just don't the fact that the letters were mailed from princeton has anything to do with the fact that kkg has an office in a building down the street and around the corner from the mailbox. there are also closer mailboxes.
In point of fact the mailbox removed from town by the authorities was NOT at Palmer Square as reported above (and perhaps lifted from the AP story). It was located on Nassau Street at Bank Street, opposite University Place.
I agree that "plagiarism" might not be the right word, but is there anything new in this article? It seems like putting up a link to the AP story with a short summary, followed by something more in-depth with original reporting, might have been a better option.
The article makes no claim to originality so the charge of plagiarism is unfounded. The Prince's critics need to learn to keep their powder dry.
Pton 09, the Prince definitely did not beat the AP. I read the AP article last night a couple hours before seeing this pop up here.
Is this really plagiarism or did the Prince beat the AP? It says this story was published on Monday August 4th, but the AP story is out Tuesday August 5th. Maybe the AP is "plagiarizing" the prince
Not only plagiarism but terrible plagiarism. I've never seen so many blended sentences become run-ons.