Now, does this story have legs?
I don't think that is what the questioning was. I think it was DU trolling (see related thread). Consider the following
Point 1: Purlock was accused of "doing this before". Doing what before? What he did before was stand in a rally with his family with a Bush/Cheney sign (or equivalent). I've been posting on this forum for almost 4 years, does that make my current posts suspicious?
Point 2: This accusation is worded in such a way that we are supposed to believe that this was a setup. But the statement is typical DU/liberal innuendo, using a seemingly innocent statement to imply a lie.
Point 3: To say a person shown in profile (the union thug) is the same as a person shown face on (the son) is the height of folly - and false accusation. Especially since none of us have seen these people before. All we have are the same two pictures - family portrait and rally photo.
Point 4: It is my understanding that the rally was in the area in which Purlock lived, and thus others who knew him and his family could be expected to be in attendence. It thus makes no sense for him to try to fool those around him, as they would know his son.
Point 5: Add to which the son in question was elsewhere, in the service.
Point 6: Note the meaness in the black woman behind him - she certainly is in sympathy with the thug. So too are most of the others. Only the son to the right is glaring at the thug.
Point 7: Of course I would expect such logic to be beyond the cranial capabilities of most DU lurkers. Thus those who first called Purlock's actions a hoax should themselves be questioned as a potential hoax.