You seem like one of those “all things to all men” kind of guys to me; in fact, if I didn’t know better I might be tempted to think you’re another incarnation of Doug and Doug on one of their “skylarking” expeditions. They’re such clever guys.
Nevertheless, since you appear intimately familiar with the court records, P & P’s policy & procedure, Sitler’s automobile, and even the Christ Church seating arrangement, I’m wondering if you could please account for the contradiction between the implications of two of your statements?
On Friday, May 4, you wrote,
“I’m sure if the court was not aware of the “trophy website” then, they are now.”
But on Saturday, May 12, you wrote,
“I would note that even Mr Sitler was responsible enough to stand in open court and apologize for his actions. Yes, it may very well have been self serving of him to do so, but nonetheless he did apologize.”
In the former instance, you seemed almost dismissive about the so-called “trophy website.” However, in the latter you placed great weight on Mr. Sitler’s public act of taking responsibility, whatever may have motivated him.
This is important because the “trophy website” contained photographs of Sitler’s victims from the states of West Virginia and Washington, and Bill Thompson has confirmed that Sitler failed to own it prior to its discovery. So if you believe that Sitler “was responsible enough to stand in open court and apologize for his actions,” then why do you believe the scope of his responsibility didn’t include full disclosure?
Thanks,
Bob Herodotus
