`  :: Yeah ... duh.  None of this will be ``proven true`` until and unless there is a trial / conviction / evidence formally presented in court.  So, in the meanwhile ... we only post the favorable comments and leave out all the unfavorable ones ... correct?  And that is your definition of ``neutral`` - right?  And, by the way, I noticed that you did not answer my direct questions in the post immediately above.  So, let me reiterate the statements that you deleted:    ::*The fiancée said that the cops are framing Markoff. ::*The fiancée said that the cops are conspiring and trying to make money by telling lies about Markoff. ::*His lab partner called him ``very creepy``. ::*His lab partner said ``I am not in the least bit surprised that he would commit murder``.  :: So ... as for the above four statements ... none are defamatory; none have to be ``proven`` to be true (in fact, I doubt that they are contested at all); none of these are anonymous sources (in fact, they are directly attributed); none of these are leaked.  So, then, what's the problem?  The problem is that you simply do not like them, they paint your ``Saint Markoff`` in a bad light, and you unilaterally removed them.  So, for once and for all, please directly answer my questions ... as opposed to circumventing them with your crusade for Markoff and your tirade of all the ills in American media.  Neutral?  What a joke.  According to you, it's ``neutral`` only if you like it and it paints Markoff as a saint.  I'd like direct answers to my direct questions.  But I won't hold my breath.  Because  as in several posts above  when I make an irrefutable point, you simply do not reply.  (Two occasions above, at least, on this Talk Page.)  And ... once again ... your silence speaks for itself, when presented with such questions.   (  )`