I wonder if Occupy Wall Street watched the 60 Minutes report.

Why wasn't the media reporting on Congressional insider trading long ago? This wasn't exactly a secret.

Thank you. You've made my point. There is apparently no scholarship to substantiate some of the author's claims. We already know that slavery and states' rights were both issues -- there is nothing new about this. The argument has always been over which was more important to which group. The premise of Gifford's article is that Hollywood oversimplifies the Civil War. But what conflict has Hollywood not oversimplified? It produces what it thinks audiences want. And until audiences demand "nuance", gray areas, subtlety, historical truth, that will continue to be the case. Mr. Gifford knows this, of course. He's really trying to sell us some proprietary information. He remembers certain family conversations during which it was said that slavery was "a non-issue" -- and that Sherman, Grant and Lincoln thought so too. So he offers that as substantive proof that people at the top, i.e. many more people than his family members, thought "slavery was a non-issue" too. Good anecdote -- bad conclusion, lousy history.

The fact that Confederate soldiers in a Hollywood movie look well-fed instead of starving, in contradiction to an eyewitness account, is simply disingenuous. The fact that loony Andy Rooney disavows that black soldiers fought for the Confederacy, in contradiction to an eyewitness account, is not exactly an indictment.

I'm also a little curious about another claim. If the author had great-uncles who fought in the Civil War, they would have had to be born in 1851 at the very latest. That's 160 years ago. I think at the very least he ought to explain how this is possible.

If I wanted to write a feature screenplay using this article's perspective on the Civil War -- who would I contact for more information? Are there any books or articles which would confirm any of this article's statements? Are there historians or history professors who can?

Thanks Miss Marple. Unfortunately, I can't access the video, as it is apparently only viewable in Canada.

The police decided on their own not to publicize the previous attacks because they "feared causing alarm"? Were the police not motivated because the victims were single women? Why doesn't the public demand to know why they adopted this policy and who signed off on it? Shouldn't the mayors of Tweed and Belleville be asked if they knew about this and condoned it? And the media, why aren't they asking any questions? All those reporters live blogging during the hearing ... surely they would have noticed that some very strange events occurred that left a lot of unanswered questions ... a "failure to connect the dots". I find it very strange that this man broke into so many homes, was in them for quite a while, and was never caught. Did he have an accomplice waiting outside ready to call him on a cell phone if anyone showed up? If I were a professional burglar I would want to know what his secret is. I also find it strange that he took as many as 40 pieces of underwear from some of the occupants -- who never noticed anything missing. Canadians must own a lot of underwear!

Thanks for your response. It is revealing that you describe what the police did as "destroying the floors" -- as opposed to accidentally causing damage in the course of gathering evidence: removing evidence from its hiding place, putting it in boxes and carrying the boxes outside. Why do you assume the damage was wllfully or negligently -- and not accidentally -- inflicted? Why has the extent of the damage not been made public, so that we could know that it was more than just the usual scuff marks, scratches, etc. etc. -- and thus worth $3000.? Maybe you have some inside information that the rest of us don't know?

The search of the Williams home took place in the same time period that Williams was being questioned, during the course of which he confessed and told the police exactly where to find the evidence in his Ottawa home. Are you suggesting that because he hadn't yet actually pleaded guilty that "innocent until proven guilty" applies in this instance and that therefore the police legally owe his wife $3000., which they would not have owed her had this happened after a guilty plea?

Here's an analogy. I'm sure you've seen car chases on TV. Let's say the cops damage a fleeing bank robbery suspect's car in the course of chasing him down. They find the money in the car and arrest him. Then his wife shows up and demands reimbursement for the damages inflicted by the police on the couple's only car. The police agree to pay her. Don't you think there might be public outrage if word got out about that .. (both in Canada and the U.S.)?

But the real question that this $3000. taxpayer-owed floor damage raises is this. Do the Ottawa police not carry liability and property damage insurance?

I'm writing from the U.S., and I'm absolutely flabbergasted by what I've read about this case, beyond the murders themselves. For example:

1. Russell Williams' wife demanded $3000. for damage to the floor of their Ottawa house which occured during the removal of evidence involved in 2 1st degree murders. Why did the police AGREE to this demand? Is there a precedent for this? Is there something in Canadian law that makes police liable for damages incurred during the gathering of evidence in a criminal case?

2. Mary Elizabeth Harriman was a co-owner and co-occupant of a house in which evidence from 2 1st degree murders and 2 sexual assaults was found. Was she ever questioned by the police? If not, why not?

3. After Williams' 1st sexual assault did the Tweed and/or Belleville police ever warn residents of that part of rural Ontario that a sexual predator was operating in the area and advise them to take precautionary measures such as locking doors, getting alarm systems, guard dogs, etc. Were flyers ever posted? Notices in local papers? Signs in shopping centers? Did they do anything like this after the 2nd sexual assault? After the murder of Marie-France Comeau?

I think the police have some explaining to do.

I wonder if all those who think Mrs. Williams deserves to keep the assets -- just because she knew nothing about her husband's depravity -- would feel the same way if the murder victims had not been single childless women. What if they had been (married or single) women with children? Men with children? Single men or women caring for elderly parents? I.e. breadwinners with the same limited means as those he killed and terrorized. What if his crime had been an economic one such as fraud or embezzlement? In none of those scenarios would anyone think her concern about her financial future should supersede the right of the living victims of her husband's crimes to have a financial future. But those 2 poor women left only siblings, parents, boyfriends, and friends. Were their lives less valuable?

Denmark, Sweden, and Finland may be smartest European countries, but they're also the most boring.