Replies

I read the “here”. It said there was a claim that the two men “stated that day that ‘they wanted to shoot a mexican’”.

That is different than what I thought the claim was, that just Compean had said he wanted to “shoot mexicans”. I don’t know why I thought it was just compean, why it was “shoot mexicans” rather than “shoot a mexican”, why I thought it was a prior statement, and not a statement made on the day of the shooting.

I don’t know if the letter written that was at “here” accurately portrayed what was told, or whether what was told had not been accurately portrayed in whatever newspaper articles and posts I had read about it, or where I got the “shoot mexicans” rather than “shoot a mexican”.

Oh wait, I know where that last one came from. I’m just quoting what others wrote here.

But I see that my use of the word “joke” was the cause of your issue. I didn’t mean joke in that sense, nor would I have said so if I had been dealing with the statement from that letter, rather than the “shoot mexicans” statement I thought we were discussing.

Still, as I said before, this is a kind of pointless thing. YOu brought it up because I was faulting people here for attacking Sutton without evidence, and you complained that I wasn’t equally loud in complaining about the government’s actions to congress.

And frankly, I am still confused as to what is going on with the government stuff, but I don’t see how what is said to congress effected the trial, the conviction, or the appeal.

If there was testimony in the trial that is now know to be false, that would be an appealable item. Statements made to congress, while clearly important, are not appealable for the trial.

I was NOT the one who started making a comparison between these things, it was you asking me. I answered based on my opinion of the statement you gave me, not a detailed knowledge of the entirety of the letters from congressmen and testimony in congress. I haven’t followed, NOR DISCUSSED, the congressional aspect of this case in any detail, and when you asked I should have just turned down your invitation to compare them.

IN MY OPINION, I was less concerned about the damage to Compean’s reputation of someone claiming he had once said he “wanted to shoot mexicans” (that’s the quote I was asked to comment on, not the I presume real quote as given in the letter you now referenced), than the damage people HERE were doing to the reputations of a large group of people without evidence.

I should have just said they were both bad, and not tried to compare them like you did. I apologize for that.

If I was talking to a person who had just admitted they had accused compean of saying something he didn’t say, I would be attacking that person. But that person doesn’t seem to be on this thread.

I also think Hitler was a very bad man, in case my not attacking him could be taken by someone to mean I didn’t think he was evil.

Also there’s a lot of other evil people and evil things that I have not attacked here.