Let me try a different example.
When Pete Rose was first accused of gambling, he denied it.
When it was PROVEN that he gambled, he then came out and said “yes, I gambled, but NEVER on my own team”.
When he said that, there was no PROOF he had gambled on his own team.
And yet, many people are convinced he DID. Why? Because they don’t trust his statement. Why not? Because he had previously tried to hide his gambling altogether, and was only admitting to it because he was caught.
Once you are forced into admissions by evidence against you, further claims that this is “all there is” carry much less credibility, even if they happen to be true.
In this case, my speculation about why people didn’t care about the shooting wasn’t meant in ANY way to suggest Compean was additionally culpable for anything. I wasn’t trying to suggest he had a history which opposed him, or that he should be tried for other shootings. I was simply speculating as to why it is that LEOs hear shots fired and don’t run to the aid of their fellow LEOs.
If you think it helps Compean’s case to deny any prior shootings, that’s fine with me — I don’t think prior shootings would strengthen the case anyway, and there is NO EVIDENCE of prior shootings.
I’ll say this — for a group that engages in rampant speculation about all manner of happenings in this case, you all sure jump on anybody who speculates anything that isn’t to your liking. At least I labelled mine speculation, as opposed to trying to assert my made-up stuff as fact. (Davila’s 2nd arrest warrant, anybody?)
You’re trying to be sensible with a cult.