MODERATORS' DISCUSSION of Pat Speer's claim that James Jenkins placed the wound at the top of the head.

[Sandy Larsen]

This thread is for forum moderator posts only. It is being made public for transparency proposes.

If you wish to make a correction or any other such thing, please do so by PM to the three moderators, Mark Knight, Sandy Larsen, and Ron Bulman.

Thank you.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

Mark,

If the only thing a person were to read about James Jenkins' placement of the large head wound was the description he gave of scalp being attached to bone fragments, then I would agree that it leaves the matter of the wound location up to interpretation.

Pat's interpretation of that description is that the wound was at the top of the head.

If that was all there is to it, I would have no problem at all for Pat to say that he believes Jenkins is placing the wound at the top of the head.

The problem is, Pat does not say that. Rather, he states it as fact that Jenkins placed the wound at the top of the head.

But it is worse for Pat than just that.

The fact is that James Jenkins has ALWAYS placed the large wound at the back of the head. Not the top. We have several instances of that, and so there can be no question. We have shown this to Pat and yet he continues to insist that Jenkins placed the wound on the top of the head.

The fact is, Jenkins has NEVER said the wound was on the top of the head. I asked Pat to give me one ... just one ... example of Jenkins saying the wound was on the top of the head. And he couldn't produce a thing!

Now, if Pat wants to believe that James Jenkins said that the wound was on the top of the head, that's his business. But I'll be damned if he thinks he can state that as a fact on this forum. It is against forum rules to post anything that is demonstrably false and I have every intention of enforcing that rule.

So if Pat wants to say that Jenkins placed the wound on the top of the head, he is going to have to stipulate that that is his interpretation or belief. Either that or be penalized.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

This has become increasingly important to me because it is looking more and more like Pat has knowingly used deceitful techniques to provide support for his theories. That is my opinion, of course. But what other conclusion can I come to when I show a person all the evidence, and they pretend like none of it exists? The only things they accept are ambiguous things that can be "interpreted" to mean whatever they want them to mean.