re: #629 Buck

Hmmm maybe I wasn’t clear enough. Let me repeat myself for the third time:

If you were the investigator, you would look at ALL the evidence, and you would get a sworn statement from all the witnesses and you would do everything you could to corroborate them.

I placed the word “all” in caps so that you would not misunderstand and thought I meant only some of the evidence. I then repeated the word all in reference to witness sworn statements.

Maybe I made a mistake when I didn’t use the word “all” again when I said “corroborate them”. Maybe you needed me to say “corroborate all of them”?

Otherwise I think you have asked the same question three times and got the same answer all three times.

And you’ve been about as clear as pigshit as to how you went from refuting witnesses to what paramedics did that night to what an investigator would do. Witnesses are unreliable and at least one has stated he saw no injuries, there’s nothing from paramedics in the way of reports or testimony that would indicate that Zimmerman was wounded at all, and the investigators were leading people by the nose to fit Zimmerman’s version of events.

So what exactly is to be refuted when all the evidence is in doubt?