Conflicting accounts given in the beating of a National Guardsmen in WA

[Selatius]

PARKLAND, Wash. -- Authorities are continuing to investigate a National Guardsman's claim that he was attacked earlier this week in Parkland and called "a baby killer."

A witness who came forward after the incident told KIRO 7 Eyewitness News a different story about what happened on Tuesday morning, but deputies said the witness later changed that story when they interviewed him.

The witness told police he saw several men in uniform beat a man in civilian clothes, but later changed his account to back the guardsman.

Investigators said the witness's stories were inconsistent with the guardsman's, and they are back to "square one" in the investigation.

http://www.kirotv.com/news/9765757/detail.html

OK, I smell something rotten in the state of Denmark.

[acmavm]

1. I always had some serious doubts.

[Selatius]

6. Where do you stand on this case?

Obviously, somebody is mistaken here.

Personally, I think a bunch of racist rightwingers, perhaps even goose-stepping Neo-Nazis, beat him up and then called him "babykiller" to smear leftists, their ideological enemy, at the same time. Two birds, one stone.

But if this witness' first account is true that this Guardsmen who was in civilian clothes was beaten by a bunch of fellow soldiers in uniform, it renders my argument moot.

[acmavm]

8. I think he's making it up. If he did get his ass kicked it was for

something else.

Did you know that all those stories that repukes like to tell about Viet Nam vets coming back and being spit on and called baby killers were bullshit? They were.

I think we have a guy here who wants to be a 'hero', a somebody. And get a little attention and sympathy at the same time. Be told what a great guy he is standing up to those dastardly left wing commie coward nazi sympthizing SOBs.

I think it is all a crock.

[Drum]

2. Amateurish dirty tricks.

The ineptitude of the GOP's henchmen is about the only thing that makes me feel safe anymore :shrug:

[MsKandice01]

3. Wait...what??

So, the witness tells the news one story, then the witness changes his story when talking to the police. However, the police say they are back to "square one"? How are they back to "square one" if they have a corroborating witness?

[Lerkfish]

5. reading between the lines, I think it means they don't find EITHER account

valid.

[acmavm]

9. Uh, how reliable is the guy if he's told two different stories. Is

that what you call corroboration?

[MsKandice01]

10. No, that's not what I call corroboration...

But I really wonder what happened in that police interview. I've thought this story was BS from day one and I'm wondering if there was some coercion involved.

[Warpy]

4. Most of us knew the story stank the day it was first released

Let's face it, this story about pacifists beating up a soldier just doesn't make any sense at all unless one is a brain dead Freeper.

My best guess is that either he dissed the wrong guy or his girlfriend and a great deal of alcohol was involved, or something else provoked a fight that he got the worst of.

The story he's telling is slander.

[Drum]

7. Filing a false report = a crime. No? n/t