Yay!
And around and around we go with you playing your silly game.
Wrong. You are the one assuming here.
I am pointing out that the author attributed the quote to the witness.
The author did. Period. That is not an assumption, but fact.
You can't get around that.
What I also did was acknowledge that the author may have badly worded his report, wrongly but still attributing the quote to the witness.
So even if you "were correct that it was only the Officer relaying what he was told, your interpretation of how it was written is still wrong."
Based on the information in the OP,
this is your assumption.
What we had was the author attributing the quote to the witness.
Holy ****. Still lost I see.
We have what has been attributed to him.
Not just what was in the affidavit, but by the Commissioner as well.
There is no indication that his
recorded statement or the information revealed from it was tainted by any reason to lie.
Wrong.
Especially in the light of him proffering reason why he is saying what he is now (a reason to lie | tainted).
That makes what he has said now far more suspect.
So lets show everybody how you like going in circles.
Everything above had already been addressed previously.
The most recent post that addresses all of it was made in post #544.
Excon;1064613045 said:
No. It doesn't say that at all.
The only correct interpretation of those words, because of the actual wording, paragraph construction and quotations, was that the author was quoting the prisoner's words.
The quotes were attributed to the witness. "His statements". Not anyone else's.
But of course you do not want to recognize that.
Your argument based on the information in the OP is 100% wrong, and it is you who can't get around that fact.
It wouldn't even matter if what you say turns out to be factual correct. Based on the wording, paragraph construction and quotations, the author was attributing the quotes to the witness.
I even acknowledged that it may have been badly written, but the attribution was still to the witness. Not anyone else.
1. Irrelevant argument in regards to whom the author attributed the quotes.
2. An assumption on your part which is not consistent with the way the article was written.
And as already pointed out, an Officer's sworn statement has far more credibility that the contrary statements the witness is now making. Just another thing that you can not get around.
[...]
The witness made it known why he was now saying what he was. It was to protect himself and that taints his denial.
Contrasted with what he said earlier having no reason shown that he could be making it up, one is far more believable than the other.
Whether you realize it or not, that is a clear distinction, which has nothing to do with anyone's skin color.
And as I previously said, "if that information is ever given to a jury they will have far more reason to trust it than anything he says now".
Absent information to the contrary, thinking otherwise is sheer lunacy.
But please, continue with your silly silly game.