Herewith a link I tried to read and really couldn't tell whether it were my feather-duster mind or the complexity of the players ... but the article struck me as horribly scrambled. I couldn't tell whom was being accused of what and, assuming you could sort that out, who gave a shit and why?
Man accused of shooting down UN chief: ‘Sometimes you have to do things you don’t want to…’ Exclusive research reveals that a British-trained Belgian mercenary admitted the killing of Dag Hammarskjöld in 1961
I am more than willing to taste the critic's lash, but the whole matter is so interwoven with players and motives ... it seems that all that effort ought to amount to something, some revelation, some naked girl leaping out of an ornate cake. Instead, for this doofus, it feels like an advanced case of freshman-final-exam in which the freshman hasn't got a clue and just keeps pumping out more and more and more stuff.
Someone takes this stuff/adventure/revelation seriously. Who and why? The amount of space devoted ... the apparent seriousness of the players ... the romance ....
Beats the socks off me. Color me stupid.