What baffles me is how did this reporter get such a detailed understanding of what it is like to commit such a crime, without actually being there at the time of the crime. The story reads as though it were part of a novel; or as though the reporter was there and witnessed it himself.

And all this time, did the "Reporter" actually REPORT anything he saw to the proper authority. NOOOoooo! Fine citizens, these two! If you or I accompanied a criminal to a crime scene, remained at his side during the commission of the crime, and then helped conceal the crime and the identity of the perp; you can well bet, we'd be prosecuted, at least as an accessory. We'd end up in the slammer if we got caught doing that. Or would we be exempt - if only we had just taken notes!

So the question begs - Where does this media notion come from, that they are above the law. That they can directly observe criminal activity and then not act as witness later. Besides, just how any of this benefits the so-called "public's right to know" is beyond me. So what about the public's very real right to be secure in their persons and in their property. The media seems to forget about that public right.

So now it gets published , in the fancy prose of a novel. Maybe that so-called reporter should have his "Miranda" rights read to him, before he publishes any more seeming confessions.

More seriously, If the reporter actually did accompany a criminal during a crime; just how could this escapade have been arranged. Very likely, the mere attempt to arrange it, would have actually caused a criminal event that may not have happened otherwise.


Or maybe not!

Perhaps all the intimate fancy prose of a novel about "Jaber's" criminal experience, was just a big fat embellishment, and not what really happened at all. Is this guy real, or just a fictional character? You know - someone you might read about in the fiction section of the library.

Hell, the whole damn story just plain might have been all made up!

It would scarcely be the first time. . . . . .