Curious Hair wrote:
After it came out that the girl he raped was only there to keep him from raping her soon-to-pass-out friend?
?
You simpletons are so easily manipulated it would almost be comical if it wasn't so pathetic.
Let me give you a lesson in critical thinking regarding the so called evidence in that article.
The article states that the accusuer only went to Kane's house to accompany a friend.
This is based on 3 sources...
Source 1: A friend of the accuser who wasn't even there that night.
Source 2 and 3: A law enforcement official and an attorney who are
familiar with the case.
Let's take a closer look at those sources. We can skip #1 cause even I can assume that you people aren't stupid enough to buy that as a legit source.
Now on to #2 and #3. THe writer describes those two in the same sentence as being familiar with the case. What does that mean, to be familiar with the case? It sure doesn't mean the same thing as being CONNECTED to the case. As we know there are only 2 lawyers in the world that are connected with this case, Cambria and the attorney for the accusuer. So who is this attorney source then? Just some lawyer walking down the street in Buffalo who was around for an interview? As for the law enforcement official, if he was a legit source he wouldn't be grouped with the lawyer and given the same level of familiarity by the writer. he would be listed as an official closely connected to the investigation. For all we know he's just some cop walking down the street who was grabbed for an interview.
Neither one of those "sources" have firsthand knowledge of the case If they did surely the author would've said that since it would obviously give the sources more credibility. Instead he gives them the vague qualifier of being familiar with the case. You know who else is familiar with the case and is an attorney? Me. And probably 1000s of others too. You guys reading this? Also familiar with the case.
All 3 "sources" are a joke and yet you morons are falling for it like the rubes you are.
Then the article goes into full anti-Kane smear mode by interviewing friends and co-workers of the accuser to talk about how great she is.
And oh yea, last but not least, the writer wants you to know that Kane's SC party sucked.
There was an article earlier from this paper smearing the accuser, obviously they took a lot of heat for that and this is clearly the rebuttal piece in an attempt to balance the smear scales.
Nothing to see here, please disperse
_________________
LTG wrote:
Trae Young will be a bust. Book It!