That’s a fine statement. I think some of the R/C supporters will argue with you though.
Of course, you seem to have missed the point of the post again.
My point is that Compean wasn’t going to tell us about THIS shooting. If not for Davila, we could all be sitting around and arguing, and you could say “Compean has never shot his gun at ALL, that we know of”.
You probably didn’t want to address that point. Suppose Davila didn’t come forward. So nobody knows about the Feb shooting.
Suppose Compean is still a BP agent, and shoots a suspect. There’s questions about the shoot, and for some reason it goes to a grand jury. Compean is called, and asked if he has ever used his gun before.
What do you think he would say? Would he say “I’ve never shot at a suspect before this shooting”? Or would he say “Well, back in February I shot at a suspect, but we didn’t report it”.
What do you THINK he would say? And if you think he would NOT confess to the February shooting, then doesn’t that suggest that if there were OTHER shootings, he wouldn’t tell us about them either?
My point being that, unlike but similar to someone’s earlier point that evidence of evidence being suppressed is hard to come by, taking Compean’s word as FACT in this matter is not rational.
So if I speculate that Compean did this before, using his testimony to refute that speculation isn’t much of a refutation — since he was going to hide THIS shooting, why would we think he wouldn’t lie about other shootings?
I never said my speculation was the truth, or even likely. But you can’t dismiss it as refuted by evidence.
I’m HAPPY to agree that there is no evidence to back it. But the evidence against it is weak.
The lack of evidence is why it is speculation, and not opinion.
I’m certain if I refuted your statement about sutton by saying “That’s false, because Sutton says it’s false”, the sutton-haters would laugh at me and tell me Sutton is a liar and can’t be trusted.
I’m just saying that there is a valid reason why Compean’s testimony that he never used his gun, by itself, isn’t strong evidence that he never used his gun.
Because he wasn’t going to tell us about this time he used his gun.
Charles, I can only conclude that your efforts at calling Compean a liar are some misguided attempt to smear the man and continue to keep this thread OFF TOPIC.
I also notice that of the four posts directed to you, you responded to only one post—twice.
Now... do you have ANY opinion on the subject matter of the appeal? Or are you just going to continue on with your scurrilous “speculation”?