• Welcome to BradleyFans.com! Visitors are welcome, but we encourage you to sign up and register as a member. It's free and takes only a few seconds. Just click on the link to Register at the top right of the page, and follow instructions. If you have any problems or questions, click on the link at the bottom right of the page to Contact Us.

For the media haters ...

Aagain I ask....
ESPN says:
"accused him of cutting her lip as he tried to get her to leave"

so how come everyone else knows this version of the story, and yet the local media still has not gotten it right....
 
tornado said:
Aagain I ask....
ESPN says:
"accused him of cutting her lip as he tried to get her to leave"

so how come everyone else knows this version of the story, and yet the local media still has not gotten it right....
Click to expand...

Will Franklin's testimony to police, printed in Wednesday's PJS:
"They tussled by the doorway and both went to the floor," Franklin said. "When they got up, Ruffin pushed her out the door and she hit her mouth on the edge of the door frame."
 
scouter...this version is actually avaiolable as far back as Saturday, from a quote given by a Peoria Police spokesperson...
the fact that the PJS mentions it as part of WF's testimony, and it only appears five days later, and they independently question WF's testimony are all exactly what I am talking about.

Note this...
as early as Sun AM this version was attributed to police spokesperson:
http://www.sj-r.com/Sports/stories/25816.asp

On Monday, the PJS, in response to a Freedom of Information request, got the police report, so they surely knew of the statement by eyewitness Will Franklin, but no mention of it by the PJS either Monday or Tuesday, and not until Wed. morning's edition did it get mentioned.
And why do they still refer to Will Franklin as "a possible eyewitness" when they already had the police report clearly stating that Frankling was an eyewitness
http://www2.pjstar.com/index.php?wessler/s.

Plus several references also suggested that WF's testimony should be viewed with skepticism.
 
tornado said:
scouter...this version is actually avaiolable as far back as Saturday, from a quote given by a Peoria Police spokesperson...
the fact that the PJS mentions it as part of WF's testimony, and it only appears five days later, and they independently question WF's testimony are all exactly what I am talking about.

Note this...
as early as Sun AM this version was attributed to police spokesperson:
http://www.sj-r.com/Sports/stories/25816.asp

On Monday, the PJS, in response to a Freedom of Information request, got the police report, so they surely knew of the statement by eyewitness Will Franklin, but no mention of it by the PJS either Monday or Tuesday, and not until Wed. morning's edition did it get mentioned.
And why do they still refer to Will Franklin as "a possible eyewitness" when they already had the police report clearly stating that Frankling was an eyewitness
http://www2.pjstar.com/index.php?wessler/s.

Plus several references also suggested that WF's testimony should be viewed with skepticism.
Click to expand...

I really can't answer all of those questions for the PJS, tornado. I'm sure you'd agree they'd be better addressed to Kirk Wessler, who had first-hand knowledge of the paper's "investigation." I'm sure he would be more than willing to answer them all for you.

Anyway, back to your original response, your assessment that the local media "still has not gotten it right" is incorrect based on what we saw in Wednesday's story.
 
Then we obviously differ on what they got right.
Will Franklin IS an eyewitness, and there isn't one person who has yet suggested to the contrary, not even the accuser.
Why then the term "possible eyewitness"?
Why the suggestions that Franklin's viewpoint is suspect because of who he is?
 
tornado said:
Then we obviously differ on what they got right.
Will Franklin IS an eyewitness, and there isn't one person who has yet suggested to the contrary, not even the accuser.
Why then the term "possible eyewitness"?
Why the suggestions that Franklin's viewpoint is suspect because of who he is?
Click to expand...

The context of the sentence where that term is used makes it sound like the PJS didn't have the police report yet, and therefore didn't know for sure that Franklin was an eyewitness. I don't think it implies that they don't believe Franklin's testimony or that he wasn't there IMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top