” You know, when you have a witness the news fabulists @ The Washington Post having a conveniently anonymous sockpuppet saying an officer of the Bandidos shot him point blank, believing the news fabulists is probably not going to get you very far.
Notice that your use of “witness” was horribly inaccurate, Boogie. :)”
They cited a source that wished to remain anonymous. That is not an unusual practice in journalism. Certainly, that is cause to take the story with a grain of salt, but the story matches what is in the indictments, which is based on the videos, and there are no other witness reports yet available which contradict it.
So, based on that, we have no concrete reason to believe this statement is false. Simply dismissing the testimony out of hand because of the nature of the source isn’t sensible. It seems you do not like the story he is telling, because it contradicts your preconcieved notions, but that is not good enough reason to dismiss the source.
“Show me the autopsy wounds!”
You’ll see them, in good time, just like any other trial. I really can’t wait until that day when all the evidence comes out because I have a feeling a bunch of FReepers are going to be doing the backstroke at lightning speed.
**crickets** on the other dead guys, of course...