My point is that a firsthand source is always more reliable for what the first-hand source said than a second- or third-hand source. For example, you are more likely to trust yourself as a source for things you said than you are to trust anyone else about things you said. Is this not a fact?
If a police affidavit is involved Excon would believe the cop before he believes himself.My point is that a firsthand source is always more reliable for what the first-hand source said than a second- or third-hand source. For example, you are more likely to trust yourself as a source for things you said than you are to trust anyone else about things you said. Is this not a fact?
And you have no point.
You are ridiculously trying to suggest that the witness is more credible now than a sworn statement of what he said before, and he simply isn't.
If a police affidavit is involved Excon would believe the cop before he believes himself.
N, that is where you are wrong in believing that.It isn't Allen's sworn statement, though. That's where you're wrong. That's where you will continue to be wrong (amongst other places). It's someone else's sworn statement.
:doh Besides being untrue, read the warning at 384.Good point. If a police officer swore to the fact that Excon said the lizard people are behind 9/11, Excon must believe that's what he said. I mean, the police would have no reason to lie.
Hell, I'll write an affidavit. I do so solemnly swear that Excon told me he believes the lizard people are behind 9/11. Therefore, Excon believes the lizard people are behind 9/11, since it is in a sworn statement.
:doh Besides being untrue, read the warning at 384.If a police affidavit is involved Excon would believe the cop before he believes himself.
N, that is where you are wrong in believing that.
How many times does it have to be repeated for it to sink in?
Again:
As you were already told.
All you are doing is purposely not recognizing what was said.Stop playing. You know who wrote it and the person is swearing to have that knowledge of what he said.
His words were already quoted in the article from the affidavit and you still fail to realize that it is a sworn statement based on his knowledge.
To suggest that is a lie is absurdly ridiculous.
And you still are ignoring the lack of credibility in what the supposed witness now says. iLOL :doh :lamo Any refutation by him means absolutely nothing at this point.
And it is hilarious that the guy is so stupid that he thinks he didn't speak to investigators. Only homocide. :doh
And yeah, he said homocide instead of homicide. iLOL
:doh Besides being untrue, read the warning at 384.
:doh Besides being untrue, read the warning at 384.
:doh Besides being untrue, read the warning at 384.
Can your superciliousness.Y'know the mods do their jobs pretty well, you constantly trying to warn people that they are picking on you is really quite unnecessary and sheds a quite a sissy light on you.
Do you or do you not understand that the person quoted what the witness said and swore to it?"The document, written by a Baltimore police investigator..."
So, Allen didn't write it. Allen isn't the one swearing or affirming to anything.
If they are someone else's words, that means it's not a direct quote from Allen.
Irrelevant argument.Are you saying you are a better judge of things you have said in the past than someone else than, say, I am? Even if I swear to it?
I am obviously being tongue-in-cheek. I obviously don't believe you said those things. But this illustrates the point perfectly - you should be considered the most trusted source of what you said over someone else. Had you provided a quote stating your belief in the lizard man conspiracy, I would have a leg to stand on... and if the affidavit was written and signed by Allen, YOU would have a leg to stand on.
Do you or do you not understand that the person quoted what the witness said and swore to it?
If you do not, there is something wrong.
Irrelevant argument.
The supposed witnesses current statements have no credibility.
What he told investigators as relaid to us, not just through the Commissioner, but through a sworn affidavit, has far more credibility.
This is you ignoring that his words were quoted in what the Officer swore.Do you understand that makes the affidavit a second-hand source, and as such is not quoting Allen? A quote is a first-hand account. The affidavit written by the officer is swearing to the officer's version of events, not Allen's.
This is you ignoring that his words were quoted in what the Officer swore.
It is also you ignoring that this affidavit, and what the Commissioner let us know the witness said, has far more credibility than what the witness now says.
idk if anyone has asked yet, but I am curious about how I could distinguish between the sounds of general banging about and the sounds of someone trying to injure themselves.
Is the sound of self-injury similar to the sound of grass?
He's getting quite good at assertion. That's probably because he practices so often.I brought that up ages ago, but luckily Excon pointed out that my thoughts were irrelevant and he had won whilst I had lost.
I don't think that self-injury is the kind of thing which has a well-known, distinctive sound.I think that you're precisely correct and there's no way the other man could have known what he was hearing. That's why it is so imperative to wait until the facts come in before you start acting like you know what happened.
However, I place no importance whatsoever on the witness. We don't know anything about him and he was only in the van for a few minutes. It's possible that he's given different stories about what happened - or the police lied about it or were mistaken about it. I don't know. But I have completely disregarded anything he said from the beginning. He probably did hear some banging, but it's definitely not enough for me to base any opinion on.
What do you find interesting about that?
He had no cause to lie to the authorities and nothing provided shows that.
His current statements do show a reason to lie. He himself voiced it.
Or are you unable to distinguish the difference between the two being made under different circumstances?
While it is possible to discern in various environments, we do not known how he said he knew, or even if he did say how he knew.idk if anyone has asked yet, but I am curious about how I could distinguish between the sounds of general banging about and the sounds of someone trying to injure themselves.
Still being dishonest I see. :dohMustachio;1064594450 said:I brought that up ages ago, but luckily Excon pointed out that my thoughts were irrelevant and he had won whilst I had lost.
You keep getting told yet refuse to understand.Gonzo Rodeo;1064594163 said:You are ignoring that this is what the officer says Allen says happened, not what Allen says happened.
Why you don't pay attention and keep arguing in circles will never be known.Gonzo Rodeo;1064594163 said:When asked to corroborate, Allen refuted the statement.
And again.He claims to have not said it in the first place.
Some piece of paper claims he said it.
A piece of paper he didn't write.
He's getting quite good at assertion. That's probably because he practices so often.
I don't think that self-injury is the kind of thing which has a well-known, distinctive sound.
I get why the statement has received the attention it has.
You keep getting told yet refuse to understand.
So all you do is necessitate the repeating of what you are ignoring.
His (the witness's) statement was included in the request for the warrant.
Still ignoring what was said and provided.All you have to do to put this point to rest is provide the quote in Allen's own words. Not the police officer's words attributed to Allen, but Allen's own words.
This applies to you. His words were quoted.Either way, you are displaying a sickening level of ignorance concerning the nature of sworn testimony, beginning at the very definition of what sworn testimony actually is
Still ignoring what was said and provided.
It appears that you don't understand what a quote is or are intentionally ignoring them.
His words were quoted.
This applies to you. His words were quoted.
This is again you ignoring that his words were provided in the documentation.Saying somebody said something is not a quote. That is called second-hand reporting.
The dictionary disagrees with you. Are you really going to argue against the dictionary?
This is again you ignoring that his words were provided in the documentation.
...an interesting premise you're starting with.While it is possible to discern [the sounds of general banging about from the sounds of someone trying to injure themselves] in various environments...
Either you can admit that it is possible, or you can not....an interesting premise you're starting with.
Around and around we go. Yay! :doh...but that documentation is not a quote. If it were a quote, you would be able to provide Allen's exact words as he said them. This you are unable to do.
You are similarly ignoring the actual quote he gave. You know, that statement of his that has "quotes" around it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?