From everything I’ve read/seen about those events, your entire narrative is false. Completely false.
Not that Carl can’t speak for himself, but as far as the evidence presented at trial in all those cases……..he is completely accurate.
So, I suppose the question is, why/where are you reading/seeing so much that ignores the actual evidence presented at trial? Note that Carl referenced actual witness testimony, and actual surveillance video in those examples.
I have no idea how two people living in the same nation end up with completely different stories of events
I could not agree with you more.
Intrigues because, well, there has to be some serious weirdness going on for the differences to be so stark.
Agreed again. There are agitprop sources on both sides, and even in the mainstream media at times, that seem to present punditry as reporting. Hence my comment about relying on actual evidence. We’ve reached the point in this country where we can’t trust anyone’s interpretation of information — — we have to go back and look at the actual data.