This is a response I posted to an opinion piece yesterday. It is written in response to “Wendy,” the author, but it contains rebuttals of most of the points the naysayers bring up.
“Like gangs on land, punks on water don’t kill randomly. They kill for money, they kill for revenge, they kill when drug deals go bad - and they sometimes kill by accident as when a kid gets caught in the crossfire of a shootout between rivals. But they don’t just walk around town shooting people in the head. “
Really? What town does Wendy live in? I think I’ll move there.
The equivalent on land is driving around in a nice car...with the added dimension of the criminal desiring not only its monetary value, but also its utility to the thieves/pirates. Now...do “gangs” kill for vehicles? Ever heard of a carjacking?
I can see how a jetski, especially a “top of the line” model as described by the husband’s mother would be a valuable target for PIRATES. They are fast, they are quiet, they are nimble, they are fuel efficient, and they are hard to spot. One would be absolutely perfect for 3 men to use to rob the presumably well off Americans who live on the lake. So for those who keep asking “why would pirates rob people on jetskis,” the jetski alone could easily be the answer. If we had roving bands of land pirates working the nation’s interstate system, would you question why fast cars were being especially targeted? Would you say...no land pirate would ever target some guy in a corvette, I mean, it’s only a two seater.
“First, there is no evidence, other than Tiffany’s word, that her husband was even on the water at all, much less in a jet ski getting shot in the head.”
Nice. Wendy just called her a liar...based on Wendy’s word since she admits the lack of evidence. Very classy. Is the jetski missing? I’d say that’s certainly circumstantial evidence that her husband was on the water. It proves nothing, since any adult would hopefully be smart enough to dispose of the jetski...but disposing of the jetski brings up a whole new set of problems. But it is something that should interest the police and no doubt already has. I wonder, does Wendy know if the jetski is indeed missing?
“And if they DID do that in this case, which is possible in theory, it makes no sense that they managed such a precise execution in the skull of a man while he was zipping along on a jet ski, but somehow couldn’t even graze the jet ski of the guy’s wife even as she was stopped, as she said she was, trying to lift her husband’s body from the water.”
Strange things happen quite often when people start shooting at each other. Even stranger things happen if the people shooting happen to be skilled shooters. According to Tiffany, there were 3 boats attacking them. Wendy’s assumption it would take a “sharpshooter” to make the shot shows her ignorance. It would take a hell of a shot. Someone like a SEAL, who actually practices shooting from moving vessels at moving targets. If it isn’t something you have as part of your skillset, I’d wager my money on 3 to 12 drunk Mexican pirates making the shot before you did...only because they’d be firing wildly and be relying mostly on luck. Also, Tiffany claims that the pirates didn’t shoot at her, but came up to her and held (I believe) a pistol to her head. Some question why they wouldn’t kill her...without being crude about I’d suggest that a pirate/bandit/criminal would be inclined to capture a woman alive because he has other thoughts on her potential value.
“Maybe the pirates are sharpshooters — but they sure can’t be sharpshooters ONLY if they’re aiming at husbands. She says she doesn’t know why she was spared. That makes two of us — I mean — two million of us. Random killers don’t develop a conscience in the middle of an execution.”
This is some really bad reasoning. Perhaps they had a reason not to want to kill the young woman? Perhaps her husband was hit only because freakish things happen when men starting emptying rifles at other men? Two million of you? Nice. A former prosecutor executing the dreaded argumentum ad populum.
“It’s possible Tiffany is telling the truth, but as a matter of simple common sense it just doesn’t ring true. And while lots of people are in a justifiable anti-Mexico mindset for a host of reasons related to illegal immigration, drug cartels, etc., let’s not let a pretty little housewife exploit our political sentiments to dupe us into believing outright absurdities.”
Now nice of you to allow that Tiffany is telling the truth, Wendy. Wendy slips and reveals her true agenda here...she’s worried about bad press for Mexico and her beloved illegals.
“But the simple truth is, when a wife or husband dies or goes missing in suspicious circumstances, the spouse SHOULD be the key suspect because they’re almost always responsible. Unless and until they can be ruled out — they should be ruled in — and Tiffany Hartley has yet to be ruled out.”
I agree completely. But it isn’t your job, Wendy, as part of a for profit media conglomerate. Being paid to trash a woman who MIGHT have just lost her husband makes you a type of mercenary whore. That responsibility lies with the local officials. I find this opinion piece to be in poor taste, considering the admitted lack of evidence, and how recent the events in question were. It smacks of tabloidism.
I don’t have a dog in this fight other than the desire to correct what I see as logical fallacies. If Tiffany is responsible, she has to be one of the most psychotic criminals in history. There are a hell of a lot of ways to off your mate that don’t involve TV cameras, a witness, appeals to the POTUS, Mexican pirates, and jetskis. I’m inclined to believe her until further evidence presents itself because I know that criminals, let alone pirates, don’t live by our rules.
Good post...Tabloidism is what Wendy Murphy is all about. She had the three alleged rapists in the Duke rape case tried, convicted and practically sentenced until the victim was made out the liar she is.