Why would a serious publication take statements of the police at face value much less as evidence of anything? > It was "strongly implied" because no one was i

Why would a serious publication take statements of the police at face value much less as evidence of anything? > It was "strongly implied" because no one was in the driver's seat. Now there is evidence there was a driver, after an investigation. Why should they retract anything? A publication which does not retract or correct misinformation is a key part of the problem.