Yeah, I don't get it either. Well, I think I get it, but I hope to god that's not what LLL's thinking.
No no no, we go after her family next, then everyone she has ever sat on a committee with or exchanged goods or services with.
If the link above is indeed to her Twitter journal, are Twitterers really documenting their lives that obsessively to mention, "searching for a bank of america to avoid ATM fees," then, "I'm on the wrong side of pittsburgh," right before being mugged? It's an honest question; with the exception of Michael Bay, it's a technology I have not previously explored. You all are right; it really doesn't matter. In either case, real or fake, it is the result of classical derangement of one person, not affiliated in either way with a political campaign.
Yeah! <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_sarYH0z948&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_sarYH0z948&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
This might be the dumbest fake story basso has posted this week.....or else this chick mysteriously liveblogged her attack SIGNS POINT TO FAKE http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/1023083twitter1.html
I'm sure glad nobody overreacted to a fake make up job and story... How freaking stupid are people? A 'B' was carved in her face? WTF? That red 'B' didn't even break the skin...if it was a knife it is one of the dullest ones in existence. Oh, and nice black eye...she must be one of the special folks that don't swell when they get one... It's amazing how much you want to believe because you're simply a member of a certain political party...that's what's really disgusting...
You know I don't really subscribe to either party but I agree with this statement as it has been shown repeatedly by BOTH sides in this thread tonight.
It doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I suspect the cops will unravel her story pretty quickly. Thugs who jack people at ATM's aren't politically inclined. Certainly not enough to take the time to carve someone up because of a bumper sticker. And if they were jacked up enough to take the time to carve someone up they probably would have drawn a hell of a lot of blood doing it. That must have been the dullest knife ever.
Whether it happened or not, here's the last word: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/23/mccain.sticker/index.html The campaign of Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama responded to the report with a statement saying, "Our thoughts and prayers are with the young woman for her to make a speedy recovery, and we hope that the person who perpetrated this crime is swiftly apprehended and brought to justice." Done. End of story. Move back to the issues. Nothing more to see here.
IF she is lying that will probably be the case. Right now its a reported attack and it is being investigated. 30+ years as a cop 17 of which were spent as a homicide investigator has told me over the years just because you think you know something you generally don't. It all depends on the mindset of that particular violator. Some people are just more screwed up than others and are prone to bizarre behavior while perpetrating a crime. Depends. ATM robberies are just as much spur of the moment crimes as they are premeditated. Spur of the moment violators will often find tools of a crime that are that are available to them in their general vicinity at the time they commit the crime. She could have simply been attacked with a dull piece of metal that the supposed attacker found before committing the crime that resembled a knife blade. As for the appearance of the B being backward the explanation for that can being angle of attack. As easily as the mirror explanation is it can also be explained that he scratched the B into her face while facing her from above her head while she lay on the ground. That would effectively produce the mirror effect. Look I am not trying to bust anyone's balls here but not one of you in this thread knows what happened. Not one of you. Yes she could be lying but she could just as easily be telling the truth. You know there is a line from one of Steven Segal's cheesy movies that is a pretty good bit of advice. I used to give it to fledgling investigators. That line is "Assumption is the mother of all fu@!ups" (self censoring here). There is no easier way to get burned than to start blindly assuming things. Which is being done in spades in this thread. As for me I am going to believe she is telling the truth. If it is found out in the course of the followup investigation that she is lying I wholeheartedly expect her to be charged with the appropriate crime and suffer the consequences. Until then I am going to give her the benefit of the doubt.
What the heck does the "B" stand for? Does it stand for "Black"? If the robber wanted to support Obama, why wouldn't he have engraved an "O" on her cheek? If I had done it, I would have engraved "Change we can believe in!" or "Yes we can!" but I haven't had that opportunity as yet.
It seems to me, in our legal system, the burden of proof is on the accuser. True, there is evidence of an assault, but the wounds could just have easily been self-inflicted as been inflicted by an assailant. In this case, I don't see any proof that these wounds were inflicted by an attacker. Quite the opposite: the backwards "B" hints very strongly that the wound might have been created while looking in a mirror, though the upside-down theory is till very possible. Also, the fact that she refused medical attention means there is no concrete evidence about the wound itself. This is rather suspicious behavior, IMHO. Further, there is no proof that the "B" was carved for the reason she says it was. Perhaps "B" is the assailants initial. Or perhaps it was the assailant's way of branding her a "b!tch", etc. Again, we have nothing to go by except her testimony, and that does not prove the face carving was politically motivated. In fact, as a McCain supporter, on could surmise she has a strong motive to assign political blame to her opponent where none may exist. With all due respect to your many years in public service, rcoleman15, I would imagine as a criminal investigator you are more willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the accuser. Personally, I'll wait to hear more facts about this case. Based on the philosophy that "assumption is the mother of all fu@!ups" (which I totally agree with, by the way), it would seem to me to be just as dangerous to assume that she's telling the truth as to assume that she's lying.
The Chronicle picked up this story, the chic's from texas http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6075388.html
