The American Spectator wonders, “Where is the third gunman?” – and I’m with them. What was it those dogs were searching for?
I’ve waited day upon day to see the surveillance video from the parking lot and hallway cameras. The facility has liability for its patients and employees. Even if the conference room had no cameras, there should be a lot of video from other parts of the property. Where is it?
That video – that plus traffic-camera video from the streets – could be assembled into a very compelling narrative: This is what did happen, in verifiable sequence, and, accordingly, nothing else was happening in those places at those times. The FBI says, “Who are you going to believe, the FBI or your lyin’ eyes?” That’s an easier proposition to sell when your eyes have seen nothing to put the FBI’s testimony into doubt.
Am I being cynical? I don’t want to be. And yet, if someone drew in the breath to speak, he had an agenda, which may be unknown to you. This is universally true, the iron law of all testimony: It is necessarily misleading in the sense that you are being led to the speaker’s point of view and away from your own. This may be benign, and it need not be nefarious in intent even if not. But it is always so. Testimony is inherently misleading.
And when we are being told what is so but not being shown what must be many minutes, altogether, of apposite surveillance footage, I want to start sniffing around for rats.
I HATE this. I want to think they can tell the truth in a crisis. But the TV ‘news’ is aswarm with front-porch videos right now. We know there is insurance-liability video of this massacre – at least of the entry and escape. Where is it?