Replies

But the police say they don't know either, yet he claims he CAN point it out. I have to assume he hasn't yet done so

I think you're confusing tow things. The discrepancy is that he talked with the police at the hospital, when he called them from the scene. That could be as easy to explain as 'I'm going to the hospital; meet me there.

The other problem is he doesn't know which of two adjacent section roads the incident happened on. If he's not real familiar with the area, that could happen. He said that before, he was driving around, trying to get his throughts straight before; and after, he was probably dazed. If I were going to fake something like this, I'd have a confederate give me a few bruises; then we'd both drive to the spot, him in a pickup to leave the right tire tracks; then I'd head off to the hospital; and my story would be rehearsed.

I'd credit the theory that he got beat up for some other reason, and decided to add the details about ID; or that while the thugs were laying into him, one said "ain't you the egghead prof on the news?" but I don't believe the incident was a premeditated fake.

I don't see what I'm confusing. The police maintain in their report that the location is unknown. He says he can (but won't) point it out.

So again, the two facts I see are: the police don't know the location, but he claims he can point it out.

That is very bizarre and he sounds like a nutjob.

Well, I think I have been confusing those two things, and I've just now realized that. I don't know if I need more coffee or less. I read the thing three times before catching that distinction, and you're right about my confusion.

But here, I think we need to be careful about assuming facts not in evidence:

The other problem is he doesn't know which of two adjacent section roads the incident happened on.

He SAYS he doesn't know.

I need more information. Either his story will hold up over time, or it won't.

I don't think we can dismiss the possibility that unbeknownst to him, his political allies might have done to him to further "the cause." There's not a damn bit of evidence to that effect, but I don't consider it impossible. Both sides are very irritated about the whole ID debate in KS.

BTW, I'm not on either side. I'm Catholic, so I don't have any issues trying to square evolution with a 6000-year-old earth, nor do I insist on trying to PROVE God created the earth in six literal or figurative days. It's a matter of faith, and I believe He created the earth over a period of time the ancients described in an allegorical six days, and that "evolution" is the way we have come to understand the process He used.