The newspaper article says the student was eating a bag of cheese snacks, which is COMPLETELY different than a cheese sandwich!
It's just NYMAG's liberal fake news 'sandwich hating agenda' peeking out again.
Edit: I was trying to make a joke, but as a former assistant librarian I can tell you, there really is a difference between someone eating a sandwich, and someone thumbing through books with Cheetos fingers.
Maybe not 'inconsistent' so much as neglected to include the key details necessary to understand why Vidrine was acquitted (or, 'not indicted'). I mean, it's presented as a heinous murder. But yeah, you are right, after a second read there isn't major inconsistencies.
The “key detail” is Bachman was close to a traumatic, seemingly-random violent interaction in his youth. Whether it was cheese snacks or a cheese sandwich, and who attacked whom first, are largely irrelevant to the main story.
1. had i said key details to the main story, yes, i'd agree
2. see my comment below, where i point out that, indeed the players and events that unfolded here are only proximal to not directly in the scope of the story about Jamison.
3. I already admitted there wasnt major inconsistencies, whaddayawant from me. A formal retraction?
First, this is not a NYT article.
What do you think is inconsistent? The article tries to highlight the idea that ‘beheading’ was said rhetorically.