During a Town Hall event, Joe Biden was asked by Lester Holt if Mr. Biden personally called President Donald Trump to wish him well during a recent medical crisis. Here are the exact words which were said:
Holt: “I know you offered your good wishes to the President and the First Lady. Did you pick up the phone? Did you call the President?”
Biden: “No. I… I… I did… I inquired whether I should do that and it was… and it was uh… the decision was that would probably be intrusive, but I’m truly happy that if he appears to be if things are really moving along like he said and particularly the First Lady as well, I, I, I’m very happy for them.”
Mr. Biden answered by stating he “inquired” of someone other than Mr. Biden as to what course of action Mr. Biden should take upon hearing President Trump was ill.
“whether I should do that” – Mr. Biden suggested a course of action to the decision maker. The word “that” is a distancer, pushing the referenced item away from the speaker, indicating Mr. Biden was not fond of “that”. Most likely, “that” refers to phoning President Trump and/or offering good wishes, but we cannot be absolutely sure as Mr. Biden does not define the reference.
“and it was… and it was uh…” – Mr. Biden stammered as he struggled to complete the sentence with a phrasing he was internally rejecting. Most likely, Mr. Biden was about to say, “it was decided”, but determined to discard this phrasing and replace it with “the decision was”. The new phrase is not any better as both phrases indicate someone other than Mr. Biden made this decision.
“the decision was” – this phrase tells us Mr. Biden did not make this decision. This decision was made by someone other than Mr. Biden.
“that would probably be intrusive” – the word “that” is again used, apparently referencing the same course action as referenced by “that” in the previous sentence. It seems as if phoning the President and/or offering good wishes was deemed by someone with power over Mr. Biden as “intrusive”, although we do not know to whom such actions would be “intrusive”. The word “probably” indicates this was a very weak reason as “probably” is a word which weakens the word it references, in this case “intrusive”. It is “probably” “intrusive”, but maybe not intrusive at all.
Mr. Biden appears to answer the question of whether he personally phoned President Trump by stating Mr. Biden had to ask permission of someone else to do so and permission was denied due to the reason calling or good wishing might possibly be construed by someone as intrusive. However, this is not what Mr. Biden actually said. The reality is Mr. Biden said the “decision was that would probably be intrusive”, entirely omitting what was decided about calling the President. Reaching a determination an action may be intrusive does not indicate if a decision was made about taking the action.
There are a lot of conclusions which could be drawn from the language employed by Mr. Biden. Here are a few:
Mr. Biden must ask permission before taking an action as part of his own campaign. Mr. Biden is not the ultimate decision maker of his campaign. Someone other than Mr. Biden is making decisions for Mr. Biden.
Mr. Biden did not want to call or offer good wishes to President Trump.
Whoever is making decisions for the Biden campaign did not want Mr. Biden to call or offer good wishes to President Trump.
On Friday, August 12, 2016, former President of the United States Clinton made remarks concerning a lack of public faith in the veracity of Hillary Clinton due to a large number of outright lies she told the public on numerous occasions associated with her lack of judgement handling confidential information.
Former President Clinton: “First of all, the FBI director said when he testified before Congress, he had to amend his previous day’s statement that she had never received any emails that were classified. They saw two little notes with a ‘C’ on it — this is the biggest load of bull I ever heard — that were about telephone calls that she needed to make and the State Department typically puts a little ‘C’ on it to discourage people from discussing it in public in the event the secretary of state, whoever it is, doesn’t make a phone call.”
There are many indications of fabrication and deceit in this statement.
“First of all” – indicates there will be multiple points and the point the speaker is about to make is the most important point.
“the FBI director said” – this is the most important point. Someone other than Hillary Clinton made a statement more important than anything Hillary Clinton said or did.
Notice the most important thing the speaker needs to tell us is not a denial Hillary Clinton lied to the public. The lies of Hillary Clinton are an accepted fact by the speaker. Hillary Clinton lied. No argument there from either side.
“that she had never received any emails that were classified” – the speaker wants to make it clear to everyone Hillary Clinton did receive classified emails. The emails in question were “classified”, no doubt about it.
“this is the biggest load of bull I ever heard” – the entire statement hinges on this phrase which tells the acute listener the entire statement is “the biggest load of bull I ever heard”, especially the next part. It is physiologically difficult to tell a fabrication and one of the defense mechanisms of the mind is to insert truth, such as “this is the biggest load of bull I ever heard”. The speaker is correct, he is telling bull and he expects you to buy it.
The rest of the statement is a crude attempt to minimize the importance of a document marked “classified”. Perhaps the listeners will believe government officials marked only three emails out of tens of thousands “classified” because they contained simple return phone call information.
It is interesting former President Clinton, who spent most of an hour in private on a plane with the Attorney General just prior to the statements of the FBI Director, has such detailed information on the contents of classified emails, information which does not seem to be generally known by the media.
It is also interesting former President Clinton changes the number of classified emails with markings from the FBI Director’s statement of “three” to “two”. Apparently, losing emails runs in the Clinton family.
“But Comey reported that, of the tens of thousands of emails investigators reviewed, 113 individual emails contained classified information, and three of them bore markings signifying their classification status. Eight email threads contained top-secret information, the highest level of classification, 36 contained secret information, and the remaining eight contained confidential information.”
If the remarks of former President Clinton were the only statements about this issue known by a listener, a reasonable conclusion might be Hillary Clinton was only irresponsible with two emails. In this case, we have the benefit of other sources of information, so we know the truth to be well over one hundred classified emails were mishandled.
Former President Clinton assures us with this statement Hillary Clinton lied to the public on numerous occasions in the recent past.
Former President Clinton assures us with this statement he personally is not above lying if it suits his purposes.
Former President Clinton assures us with this statement, although he is an accomplished liar, he is no better at hiding his lies now than when he occupied the White House.
On August 9, 2016, Donald Trump made remarks which included the words “Second Amendment”. Many media outlets reported Donald Trump incited violence with these remarks. We will examine the words of Donald Trump.
You can hear a discussion about what Donald Trump may or may not have meant in the video. The discussion lacks an analysis of the actual words and references interpretations many times. Interpretation may vary, but the words Donald Trump spoke do not.
Donald Trump: “If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do folks. Though the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don’t know.”
The words of Donald Trump contain no words or references of violence.
There are only two phrases which are open to interpretation:
“maybe there is” – Donald Trump suggests there may be a route open to stop an attack on the Second Amendment by Hillary Clinton. The route is interpreted by liberal media as violence.
“Second Amendment people” – this is the phrase which the liberal media uses to justify their interpretation of violence because the Second Amendment is a constitutional guarantee citizens have the right to bear arms. The liberal media equates this right with violence.
If we replaced the word “Second” with the word “First” or “Fifth”, would the liberal media have printed headlines claiming Donald Trump was inciting violence. Why isn’t the First Amendment, the right to free speech, equated with violence? Doesn’t a lot of violence break out at rallies in which opposed sides are vociferously utilizing their right to free speech? Why isn’t violence associated with the Fifth Amendment, the right to remain silent, when we are all aware violent criminals use this right to escape justice?
Only by equating “Second Amendment people” with murderers capable of gunning down a candidate for President of the United States of America can the words of Donald Trump be interpreted as a call to violence.
The liberal media equates “Second Amendment people” with killers.
If you believe the Second Amendment is, or people who support the Second Amendment are, to be equated with violence, you should seriously reconsider your viewpoint. Our founding fathers were intelligent and talented agents of democracy who understood deeply the absolute necessity for each of our guaranteed constitutional rights. An attack upon any right is an attack upon all. Freedom is defined in our society by our Bill of Rights. Freedom is not violence.
Freedom is not free. Each right comes with a price, just as all our rights were and continue each day to be bought with the blood of our brothers and sisters. The price of free speech is tolerating verbal and written attacks upon our other rights. The price of the right to bear arms is the acceptance of the maxim with great power comes great responsibility.
Practice your rights as a responsible citizen. Vote!
On August 5th, 2016, Hillary Clinton remarked at length when asked a question about the truthfulness of multiple statements she has made to the American public regarding the FBI investigation into her use of unsecured email servers for sensitive and classified information exchange.
Hillary Clinton: “And I have said during the interview and many other occasions over the past months, that what I told the FBI, which he said was truthful, is consistent with what I have said publicly. So, I may have short-circuited it and for that, I, you know, will try to clarify because I think, you know, Chris Wallace and I were probably talking past each other because of course, he could only talk to what I had told the FBI and I appreciated that.”
“And I have said during the interview and many other occasions over the past months, that” – What is about to be said has been said many times, yet the use of the word “that” indicates a distancing from the next statement. Although what is about to be said has been said many times, the speaker is uncomfortable repeating here. Words are chosen by the brain and transmitted to the tongue in microseconds, a feat surpassing the swiftest of computers. Lying requires a conscious interruption of this process in order to replace truth with fiction. This process causes physical symptoms, the measurement of which is the basis of polygraph testing. These physical symptoms are uncomfortable. The discomfort, both psychological and physical, created by the process of lying is reflected in the choice of words. “That” is a common signpost of discomfort, which often indicates a lie is to follow.0
“the past months” – this phrase limits the statement to a specific time frame. What was said during this time frame does not match what was said at other times. Limitations are often inserted by liars to ease the discomfort of the lie.
“that what I told the FBI” – whatever was told to the FBI has a degree of discomfort attached to it, there is something about it the speaker does not like, perhaps the fact she had to tell it to the FBI. This is an odd phrasing because of the word “what” which is an extra and unneeded word which starts a lengthy convoluted wording which could have been “I told the FBI the truth”. When someone uses more than the minimum phrasing, the odds the statement is untruthful rise in direct proportion to the amount of extra words.
“which he said was truthful” – who is he? The listener is led to believe the “he” is the FBI Director, but the speaker does not identify “he”. Never assume to whom or what a pronoun refers. Someone said “what I told the FBI… was truthful”. This is not a statement “what I told the FBI” is the truth. In fact, this is a carefully worded statement to avoid directly stating if “what I told the FBI” is the truth. Tellers of truth do not avoid the truth, they do not side-step the truth. “He” is stating the words were truthful, but the speaker is not.
“So, I may have short-circuited it and for that, I, you know” – What? “Short-circuited”? To what does “it” refer”? The truth? “So, I may have short-circuited” the truth. When someone short-circuits the truth, they circumvent the truth, the circle around the truth, they case the truth to malfunction. These are all euphemisms for lying. This is a statement by the speaker she lied, although there is a softening by the use of the word “may”. She may have lied. Maybe. You decide. She doesn’t know if she lied or if she told the truth. She claims she cannot distinguish between lies and truth.
“and for that, I, you know” – to what does “that” refer? We know whatever it is, the speaker wishes to distance themselves from it. We are left to assume “that” refers to the speaker lying. For lying, the speaker is, “you know”. The phrase “you know” is a verbal suggestion the listener already knows what the speaker will say and since the listener knows and is still listening, the listener agrees with what is about to be said, if you are still listening, you must agree with what is about to be said because “you know”.
“will try to clarify because I think, you know” – The speaker will attempt to “clarify” the lie. The speaker told an unclear lie. You know she told an unclear lie and you knew she was going to try to “clarify”, just as “you know” and implicitly agree with what will be said next. The speaker thinks “you know” this… of course you do… and you agree. You are in the “know”.
“Chris Wallace and I were probably talking past each other” – the use of the word “probably” indicates the speaker is not declaring she and Wallace were “talking past each other”, but possibly they were and even though she was there and a participant and she doesn’t believe they talked past each other (if she did, she wouldn’t need to insert “probably”), maybe you should. “Probably” you should believe what she is saying because for some reason, if you do, it is best for the speaker.
“because of course, he could only talk to what I had told the FBI” – “of course” is equivalent to “you know”, a verbal assault on the independence of the thoughts of the listener.
“he could only talk to what I had told the FBI” – why was Chris Wallace limited to “only”? Did Wallace and Clinton have an agreement as to what questions could be asked during this interview? Is this a limitation Wallace imposed upon himself or one imposed by Clinton? How could any self-respecting journalist or honest candidate for president place public statements made by the candidate off-limits for any interview? This appears to be a statement of collusion between Chris Wallace and Hillary Clinton which would bring the impartiality of the press in this interview into question and open a larger question of who else at the network may be involved in such agreements. How can Chris Wallace “talk to what” he was not present to witness?
“and I appreciated that” – what did the speaker appreciate? The fact Wallace “could only talk to”? The fact Wallace agreed he “could only talk to”?
Fact check – this is what Wallace said during the interview:
“After a long investigation, FBI Director James Comey said none of those things that you told the American public were true.”
Wallace “talks to” the statements Hillary Clinton made to the American public, but Clinton states he “could only talk to what I had told the FBI”. Lies upon lies upon lies until even the speaker is unable to keep the truth straight.
“he could only talk to what I had told the FBI” – the “he” which seemed to refer to Wallace as only Wallace is named in the statement, refers to the FBI Director, who “could only talk to what I had told the FBI”. Whether the FBI Director was required to only talk to what Clinton told the FBI is debatable, but he did repeatedly decline to answer questions about the truthfulness of Clinton to the American public. This is what Clinton appreciated, as he could have made a statement she did lie because she clearly did just within this one short segment of a much longer series of remarks.
What have we learned?
We have learned the discomfort of lying makes even presidential candidates insert a multitude of unneeded additional wording into what would be short simple statements if they were truth.
We have learned Hillary Clinton was relieved by the words of the FBI Director because she knew in her heart his statements could have been devastating.
We have learned multiple lies can be packed into two sentences.
Michael B. Lancaster, 21, was arrested and charged with reckless homicide after he shot his roomate in the back. The fact he shot her is not in dispute, he killed her by shooting her from behind when she thought she could trust him.
What did Stephen McGowan, Lancaster’s defense attorney have to say?
“It’s a very unfortunate situation. It’s terrible what happened.” – True statements, however, the defense attorney casts blame for the incident aside by referring to it as “a very unfortunate situation”. Is cold blooded murder a “situation”?
“There was no fight going on.” – Although we might have believed the statement “There was no fight”, by adding the two words “going on”, we now know something was going on, something the defense attorney does not want to characterize as a “fight”. What was going on? An argument, a disagreement, a difference of opinion? Whatever was “going on” ended in the death of 18-year-old Olivia Stull.
“There was no illegal activity.” – Hmmm… typically murder is an illegal activity. Typically, discharging a firearm in a dwelling without cause is illegal. We also know from the previous statement something was going on and now the defense attorney wants us to know the something he denied in the previous statement was not “illegal”.
“It was my understanding they were about to paint a room together.” – The phrasing of this statement clues us in these two were not “about to paint a room together” because the defense attorney carefully adds the words “it is my understanding”, meaning there is no veracity to this statement whatsoever. However, by including the statement at all, we know the defense attorney wants us to believe the two were about to participate in a sane normal activity. In the expereience of most painters, starting work on a room rarely leads to death by gunshot.
“They were a close couple.” – This is a true statement. In fact, the two were so close, Lancaster put the barrel of the gun right up against her back as he pulled the trigger. Note carefully how the defense attorney describes two roomates as a “couple”. Were they a couple or were they roomates?
If you watch the video, note carefully how the language the liberal media uses describes the man who put a gun in a young girl’s back and shot her as a victim because he claims he didn’t know the gun was loaded.
What have we learned?
1. Defense attorneys lie openly in court by obscuring truth.
2. Defense attorneys attempt to manipulate others through their choice of language and by making sweeping unproven statements like “There was no illegal activity going on”.
3. The media is willing to cast judgments prior to all the facts being in or a court making a decision in a blatant attempt to sway the public to the media’s point of view. Note carefully how reporters make statements like Lansford did not know the gun was loaded. This is a distortion of the facts, which are Landford CLAIMS he did not know the gun was loaded. None of us, neither the media nor media consumers, can ever know what Lansford did or did not know. What we do know is a young girl is dead, Lansford placed a gun in her back and pulled the trigger, and a gun owner is responsible for his gun at all times and most especially when it is in their hands.
Gary Goddard, Hollywood producer, and Bryan Singer, Hollywood director, are being sued by multiple parties for underage sexual abuse.
The first lawsuit was filed a few weeks ago with a second added within the past week. Both suits claim Gary Goddard and Bryan Singer used their influence, power, and cocaine to take sexual advantage of teenage males.
“The allegations made against Mr. Goddard are vehemently denied and will be vigorously defended at any trial of these matters and Mr. Goddard is entirely confident that he will be fully vindicated.”
“The allegations” “are vehemently denied” – Who denies the allegations? The attorneys issued the statement, but the statement does not state the attorneys themselves deny the allegations, only that the allegations are “denied”, probably by Mr. Goddard. The denial is sensitive to whoever is denying because their denial is being done “vehemently”.
“Will be vigorously defended at any trial of these matters” – Who will “vigorously” defend? What will they defend”? If we reread the statement carefully, we realize the statment is a compound sentence which we can reduce to two sentences:
“The allegations are vehemently denied”
and
“The allegations will be vigorously defended at any trial of these matters”
In other words, the “allegations” will be “vigorously defended” by the plaintiffs who brought the allegations forward. Most readers probably read this section quickly and believed it stated Mr. Goddard’s attorneys would be defending his denial of the allegations, but this is very specifically what they DO NOT say. Attorneys make their living using words. They do not inadvertently use words incorrectly, especially for public statements intended for print. Why have Mr. Goddard’s attorneys not promised publicly to defend him?
“Mr. Goddard is entirely confident that he will be fully vindicated.” – The use of the extra word “entirely” shows Mr. Goddard’s confidence is sensitive, either to Mr. Goddard or his attorneys. The use of the extra word “fully” indicates sensitivity to “vindicated”. For the attorneys, there are levels of vindication, ranging from “fully” to less so.
Also note, although Mr. Goddard “is entirely confident”, his attorneys do not appear to share his confidence as they make no statements about their own confidence in their ability to defend their client. Mr. Goddard is confident, his attorneys not so much.
We have learned Mr. Goddard’s attorneys’ choice of words outside the courtroom, if mirrored inside the courtroom, may find Mr. Goddard far from “vindicated” should these charges come to trial.
His attorney, Donald “Chick” Foret, made a public statement:
“We have every confidence that they will get to exactly what happened, the truth of the matter.”
Please note, this statement is not a denial his client raped the high school student. There is “truth”, something happened, it may or may not be rape, but we can’t tell from this statement.
“I’m not going to really talk about the facts, but I’ll tell you this: There was not a rape that happened that night.”
The most important phrase in the above statement is “I’m not going to really talk about the facts”. This means the rest of the statement is not “facts”. The rest of the statement is fiction. The speaker blatantly tells us all of his statements are fiction, they are not “the facts”.
“There was not a rape that happened that night” – because the previous phrase told us all other statements are untrue, this statement is false. The opposite is true. There was a rape that happened that night.
“This young man was an honors student at West Jefferson High School. He lived in an honors dorm at Tulane. He’s majoring in engineering. He’s a fine young man.”
Please note, the above statement does not deny the allegations of rape. It is a description of the defendant, but not necessarily a true description because “I’m not going to really talk about the facts”.
“His statement will always be the same and we’re looking forward to working with the DA’s Office to try to get this case refused and move on with his life.”
Again, no denial of guilt. The defendant’s statement “will always be the same”. This is true. The defendant gave a statement and it is recorded and will always be the same, even when they present it in court. Did the statement deny guilt? We don’t know.
“We’re looking forward to working with the DA’s Office to try to get this case refused” – True statement. The defense attorney is looking forward to getting the case refused. This doesn’t mean the case will be refused, just that the defense attorney really hopes it will be. The defense attorney does not look forward to the charges being preferred and going to court to defend his client. Also note, the defense attorney does not look forward to proving his client’s innocence.
What did we learn? If you hire a defense attorney who makes inane statements like this to the press on your behalf, get a new attorney.
Director Bryan Singer made a public statement today about a lawsuit filed by Michael F. Egan III, who claims Mr. Singer sexually abused Mr. Egan approximately 15 years ago.
Mr Singer states: “The allegations against me are outrageous, vicious and completely false. I do not want these fictitious claims to divert ANY attention from X-Men: Days of Future Past. This fantastic film is a labor of love and one of the greatest experiences of my career. So, out of respect to all of the extraordinary contributions from the incredibly talented actors and crew involved, I’ve decided not to participate in the upcoming media events for the film. However, I promise when this situation is over, the facts will show this to be the sick twisted shake down it is. I want to thank fans, friends and family for all their amazing and overwhelming support.”
“The allegations against me are outrageous, vicious and completely false.” – The best denial is always a simple and explicit statement, such as “I am not guilty of the allegations”. Whenever a denial includes extraneous language, we should be on guard the denial is false. In this instance, the extraneous words are “outrageous”, “vicious”, and “completely”. These words do not make the denial stronger. A careful listener should ask themselves why these extraneous words are included. There is a physiological response to lying which makes it difficult for most people to easily tell a falsehood, so one strategy to make a lie easier to tell is to include a bit of truth.
These allegations are certainly “outrageous”, but the level of outrageousness does not effect the validity of the allegations. The word “outrageous” is intended to make the listener agree the allegations are false because the listener agrees with the first part of the statement, the allegations are “outrageous”.
Are these allegations “vicious”? To Mr. Singer, they are “vicious”, but again, this is not a denial of the allegations, simply Mr. Singer’s opinion of them, whether true or false. Why does Mr. Singer believe these allegations are “vicious”? There is an implication of a more than casual relationship between Mr. Singer and the plaintiff.
When the main word of a denial, “false”, is attached to an extraneous word, “completely”, the listener must ask themselves why the speaker felt the need to define “false”. Can something be “partially false” or “incompletely false”? No, it either is or is not “false”. The use of extraneous words is a sign of discomfort with the word “false” on the part of the speaker.
“However, I promise when this situation is over, the facts will show this to be the sick twisted shake down it is.”
The use of the word “this” indicates the “situation” is very close to Mr. Singer. “That” would have pushed the “situation” away from the speaker. Instead, Mr. Singer positions the “situation” as close to himself, he is comfortable with it, it is his “situation”. The word “situation” does not address the validity of the allegations.
“sick twisted shake down” – A “shake down” is defined as “the act of taking something (such as money) from someone by using threats or deception”. The words “sick” and “twisted” indicate Mr. Singer is concerned with this “shake down”. Is this really a “shake down”? No, it is a lawsuit. A “shake down” is illegal. A lawsuit is legal. Mr. Singer is attempting to color the lawsuit as an illegal act to detract credibility from the allegations. However, “sick twisted shake down” is not a denial of the allegations.
Perhaps most interesting is most of the statement is about Mr. Singer’s current film project, which has nothing to do with this lawsuit. Mr. Singer is very concerned over the performance of his current film at the box office, but not as much with denying the allegations in a believable manner.
What have we learned? We have learned when accused in a public forum of sexual abuse or other crime, the best course of action is to keep your own mouth shut and allow your attorneys to make your public statements, unless you really did not do it, then you may make a clear and concise statement of your innocence without reference to unrelated matters.
Ronald Stolberg is currently on trial for murder in the asphyxiation death of his 54 year old wife. His defense attorney, William Hedrick, claims his 49 year old client merely attempted to subdue his wife during a late night argument, but accidentally killed her and didn’t realize she was no longer alive even though he walked over her dead body to report to work the following morning. You can read more here:
William Hendrick – “Ronald Stolberg made a mistake. He wasn’t trained in how to subdue someone and was trying to keep his wife from hurting herself.”
“Ronald Stolberg made a mistake” – Was the mistake killing his wife or reporting to work while leaving her body to rot on his floor while he pretended nothing was wrong? Or was the mistake calling his mother later in the day to finally admit to someone what he had done?
“was trying to keep his wife from hurting herself” – Really? By preventing her from breathing? For an excessive amount of time?
William Hendrick – “There was more going on here than someone murdering his wife. Yes, Ronald tried to subdue his wife, to restrain her. His attempts to restrain her failed immensely.”
“There was more going on here than someone murdering his wife.” – What else was going on? If the defense is claiming the defendant was trying “to subdue”, why does the defense attorney state here “murdering his wife”? This is significant because it shows us the defense attorney believes “murdering” was “going on here”, not subduing. The defendant may have been attempting to subdue his wife to ease the murder, but subduing was not the primary act.
“Yes, Ronald tried to subdue his wife” – Yes, Ronald did try “to subdue his wife” as he murdered her. We know this because the defense attorney just told us Ronald was engaged in “murdering his wife”.
“His attempts to restrain her failed immensely.” – But his attempts to murder her were a complete success. An objective observer might note the efforts at restraint were a complete success as Ronald was able to restrain his wife long enough to prevent her from breathing until she died, at which point restraint was no longer necessary.
What have we learned?
We have learned there is more going on here than a worthy defense based on truth as the defense attorney blames the dead woman for her own murder because she caused his client to fail “immensely” at his attempts to restrain her.
In an earlier article, we examined statements by his defense attorney, Daniel Fultz, who claimed reasonable doubt existed in the case and theorizing the 14 year old son of the murdered family was caught in the middle of a killing frenzy by his client, who then killed the boy in self-defense.
Yet, the blood evidence and boy’s body indicated more than 50 blows with a tire iron, bringing into doubt any statement about “self-defense” from a grown man in the prime of his life who greatly outweighed the boy.
What did the defense attorney have to say about the fact the boy was so severely beaten he most likely could not move throughout most of his final ordeal in relation to his claim his client killed the boy in self-defense?
Daniel Fultz, defense attorney: “That fact that someone hit him repeatedly is problematic. It can’t be denied.”
“Problematic” – for whom is the “fact” “problematic”? For the defense attorney and his client since their “theory” doesn’t fit the facts of the case.
“That fact” – the word “that” indicates the defense attorney is uncomfortable with the “fact” and wishes to distance it from himself, probably because it causes him problems. This is also a verbal attempt to minimize the “fact”, which does not agree with his stated theory.
“someone hit him” – We all know who “someone” is because even the defense’s theory places the tire iron in the defendant’s hand, who admitted to hitting the boy severely enough to kill him.
“It can’t be denied” – This is a true statement. Unlike defense theories about reasonable doubt, facts cannot be “denied”. This is the reason the “fact” is “problematic”.
What have we learned?
We have learned reasonable doubt does not hide the truth.
Bull Stopper Stops Bull 