Replies

The defenders are having trouble distinguishing the difference between "consistant with" and "shows that".

For example, my pencil is on the floor. That is consistant with my pencil rolling off my desk. It is also consistant with me dropping my pencil on the floor, my putting my pencil on the floor, and the pencil falling through a hole in my desk drawer.

So, knowing the fact that my pencil is on the floor, we can eliminate a few things -- for example, my pencil is not on my desk, and I did not leave it in someone else's room.

But the pencil does not prove that I dropped it, or that it rolled off the floor.

In fact, my pencil being on the floor SHOWS THAT I was unsuccessful in my attempt to make it stick into the ceiling.

Essentially, the bullet wound does not prove he was running away. That's all the report says. It is consistent with a person being hit while turning to one side. It's also consistent with a person running to one side, or running from side to side (for example, zig-zagging to avoid being hit by a crazy BP agent shooting at you when you tried to surrender but they tried to beat you up).

I also pointed out on another thread that a left-hander who wanted to really SHOOT a gun behind them would more likely turn to the RIGHT, not to the left, because pointing backwards is much easier by bending your elbow across your body, rather than stretching out your arm behind you on the same side. Go ahead and try it yourself to see.

Someone responded that it mattered "which foot you were on at the time you had to turn to shoot". Which almost sounded rational, until you realise to uncontroverted facts -- First, that the smuggler, IF he turned at all, did so on his OWN timing and volition, and therefore would turn the EASIER way. And Second, that NEITHER agent has said they were SHOT at, so in fact to believe the story you have to think a man who was running away without pursuit pulled out a gun, and pointed it backwards, with no intention of shooting it.