I don’t condone domestic violence and I’m sure Charlie Sheen is not the nicest of guys when under the influence of drugs and alcohol but why spend three pages on a simple case of two people getting drunk early in the morning and getting in fight. It happens all the time and some of them get arrested and end up in jail but most of them sober up and get on with life.
So why spend such an inordinate amount of attention on Charlie Sheens alleged attack on his wife especially when it turns out said wife does not want to cooperate with a police investigation because it turns out that she may have attacked Charlie Sheen instead?
Well, what makes it so interesting is the end of said article. In it they give a timeline about Charlie Sheen’s history of “disturbing and deviant” behaviour. Such as hiring prostitutes, getting drunk and coked out, having to enter rehab and going back on drugs and having tumultuous relations (all as far as I’m concerned personal issues and while a famous person might have to live with scrutiny not something in which C.S. deviates from say 60% of all male rich celebrities and as such not very interesting other than say on a gossip site) but then at the very end of said article out of the blue and having absolutely nothing to do with the subject of the article it states that Charlie Sheen has stated that the 911 attack looked like a controlled demolition and is a 911 truth advocate.
Heuh? He is but what does that have to do with the issue of matrimonial discord?
Not only that typing the title of the article which was first published in the Independent no less shows up 133.000 times and it appears that this article is published in newspapers all over the globe.
They must be getting mighty worried if the only response to a famous someone asking legitimate and unanswered questions about the events of 911 is to splatter his personal failures all over the mainstream media and connect them with his 911 truth activism.