In saying that the candlelight vigil for Dede in Missoula on May 2nd took place before it became publicly known that Dede's accomplice had confessed that the two of them had engaged in garage-hopping (burglary) on multiple occasions prior to the April 27 shooting?
That simply isn't true. The kid said that
HE (the Ecuadoran kid) had been out doing it. Not
THEY.
Incorrect. The article clearly refers to "the boys" (plural), and, in that context, Ryan's disclosure of the contents of the Ecudoran student's statement-context can only be construed as meaning both the Ecuadoran student and Dede. Go back and read the article again.
...The first is a nonoperative strawman, since you made it up...
Incorrect. I faithfully relayed the content of the news article.
...to the second
>> "We hope that justice will be done to make it clear to everyone that an unarmed juvenile cannot be lawfully killed by a citizen in Montana simply because he has trespassed in a garage," said Julia Reinhardt, press spokeswoman for the German Consulate General in San Francisco. "It is for us a big concern." <<
Paragraph 4.
Which merely related the Consult's knowledge that Dede was trespassing.
That does NOT provide evidence that the Consul was aware on April 29 that Dede was engaged in burglary, and that he had engaged in such burglary (garage-hopping) multiple times in the recent past, accompanied by the Ecuadoran student.
Your challenge, several posts ago, was to strongly imply that the Consul had knowledge of the burglary act or intent, on April 29.
Given that the content of the Ecuadoran student's confession/statement did not become public knowledge until May 6, and given that there is no evidence in the statement by the Consul that he had knowledge of that fact, your use of that article, and your position that the Consul had such knowledge on April 29, is dismissed as unsubstantiated.
You can always revisit the issue, later, if you manage to dig-up something solid, to support your claim that the German Consul had knowledge of the burglary activities of Dede on April 29. Until that time, we must go with the evidence already extant in the public domain.
...First off it's not a 'confession'...
It's a sworn statement to the police, attesting that he and Dede engaged in such activity in the past, and that Dede was engaging in such at the time of the shooting, even though the Ecuadoran student held back, that time. Despite its legal nomenclature, it serves functionally as a confession, in discussion of the incident. Stop picking nits. It's beneath you.
...Robby Pazmino wasn't charged with a crime...
Entirely irrelevant, regarding whether or not such a statement/confession was made.
...Second, you keep insisting that his statements (there were two police interviews) are the only way the circumstances would have become public knowledge...
I insist upon no such thing.
I merely serve-up the earliest known public declaration on the subject.
If you have one that predates the defense attorney's (Ryan's) - and, more importantly for your and my purpose here - prior to either the April 29 German Consul's statement or the May 2 candlelight vigil - then, by all means, bring that forward.
In the absence of any other indications (which should be easy enough to find in most cases, on the Internet), we have little choice but to conclude that the participants in the candlelight vigil on May 2 had not yet obtained knowledge of Dede's burglary activities and history, and that the same probably applies to the German Consul as well, as early as April 29.
If you can prove that the information (Dede's criminal actvity, based upon the Ecuadoran student's statement/confession) was leaked earlier than the May 6 Ryan disclosure, feel free to present your evidence.
...which is interesting since a few minutes ago it was the defense attorney's statement that was the only way it could be known. In any case what you're trying to do is prove a negative so good luck on that...
I'm not trying to prove a negative.
I have proven a positive - that the earliest public release of information related to Dede's criminal (burglary) activity was made on May 6, after the candlelight vigil occurred.
If you can refute that proof of a positive, then, by all means, have at it.
...Police reports are "touched up"? Like airbrushing Playboy playmate photos?...
Our colleagues yesterday were right.
You DO move the goal-posts, whenever somebody gets close enough to score a point.
Disappointing.
If you have evidence that the Missoula, Montana police department, or the States Attorneys Office, have touched-up police reports, then, by all means, have at it.
That should go a long way towards getting the charges dropped against Kaarma before he even goes to trial.
There is no sane and rational reason to expect that police reports were sabotaged.
There is no sane and rational reason to expect that the Ecuadoran student's statement/confession was altered by police or other law enforcement, regarding Dede's criminal activities.
...Again it's not a "confession", the prior activities did not involve the deceased, and it was already known he was in the garage trespassing. That's never been in question...
Incorrect. The Ecuadoran student confessed that he and Dede had engage in such behaviors.
...I know when I'm being bullshat...
Pity you don't have the same filters for outbound traffic.
...A hairdresser isn't really a hairdresser (yes they are); he had been in there before (no he hadn't); nobody knew the circumstances (yes they did)....
The hairdresser has nothing to do with whether or not the Ecuadoran student confessed that he and Dede had engaged in criminal behaviors, nor does it lend any insight into the earliest date on which that confession became public knowledge (
in relation to the May 2 candlelight vigil).
...The USAToday article was dated April 29, already reporting the reaction of the German Consulate. The local newspaper had already printed the criminal complaint complete with all the details on
April 28 -- which I linked way back in post 207. It's the local paper; now you want me to prove nobody read the local paper?
I have read the Criminal Complain repeatedly myself, and without your link.
Go back and read it yourself.
Nowhere does that Complaint mention Dede's prior criminal (garage-hopping) behavior.
Nowhere does that Complaint mention that Dede was engaged in anything other than trespassing.
Nowhere does that Complaint mention the Ecuadoran Student's statement/confession.
Nowhere does that Complaint even mention the EXISTENCE of the Ecuadoran student.
Nowhere does that Complaint serve-up such information (about the Ecuadoran and Dede being engaged in burglary, then or earlier) prior to the May 2 vigil.
===================================
Gotcha...
It's such a small point...
I said that I had the impression that the folks in Missoula had no idea about Dede's criminal activity at the time of the May 2 candlelight vigil, and speculated that the vigil might have been canceled or far more poorly attended, had that knowledge been public at that time.
You asked me why I had that impression.
I gave you the news-making public disclosure of the Ecuadoran student's statement/confession, made public by the defense attorney on May 6.
You disagreed, and served-up an April 29 statement by the German Consul-General in San Francisco, as evidence that Dede's garage-hopping (burglary) past was known at the time of the May 2 candlelight vigil, if not earlier.
You disagreed, and served-up the Apirl 28 Criminal Complaint by the local States Attorney office, as evidence that Dede's garage-hopping (burglary) past was known by the town-folk of Missoula, at the time of the May 2 candlelight vigil, if not earlier.
I debunked both of your pieces of evidence as containing zero (0) information supporting your claim; indeed, neither proferred piece of evidence even MENTIONED that information.
You then began twisting and squriming and wildly speculating about fudged police reports and Playboy and other imagined information leaks that the folks in Missoula were privy to prior to the May 2 candlelight vigil, that the rest of the world was not privy to.
You tried to move the goal-posts.
You got caught.
You got called on it, too.
I win the sidebar.
You lose the sidebar.
Ordinarily, I would have dismissed the 'win' with a flick of the nostril and a wink of the eye, and moved on.
Ordinarily, I would not be un-gracious, and Lord-it-over an oftentimes worthy opponent, by feasting on such a small bite-sized and virtually meaningless 'win'.
You, however, were
sooooooo vested in trying to publicly prove yourself right at any cost and no matter how long it took, that, when the axe fell on this one, your disingenuous tactics and goal-post moving anctics inspired me to make a far bigger deal out of this 'win' than I would otherwise have done.
Try 'man-ing -up' next time, and just saying: "
Well, OK, yeah, you got me on that one, anyway - although it's small potatoes in the broader scheme of things, relative to this case."
Far less painful and time-consuming that way.
Not to mention less embarrassing, when you run out of wiggle-room.
But, given the heavy lifting that you made me do, over something so picayune and lightweight and unimportant as this...
You've just been pwned.
You lose.
I win.
Gotcha.
"Moving goalposts"?? You're moving the whole damned field.
