Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Viewing Single Post From: "He was up on the bridge"
mycal

Craig Ranke CIT
Nov 25 2008, 01:30 PM
A very important clue as to whether or not Lloyde is deliberately lying was spelled out in the presentation yet has been ignored in the subsequent discussion so far.

After being invited into Lloyde's home to conduct our follow-up interview, while I was setting up the camera, Lloyde first told me about his neighbor who took pictures of his cab and the pole on 9/11.

At this point our interview had not started and nothing was said about Lloyde's location or the north side evidence yet.

Lloyde let it slip that his neighbor was "up on the bridge" when he took pictures of the cab and the pole!

This is absolutely critical because it proves that he KNEW his location on the bridge minutes before our interview started where he would ultimately and steadfastly deny this very fact that he just admitted.

Once the camera was on him and the interview started he must have remembered that he was supposed to shift his location to the north side.

Frankly, this is proof enough that Lloyde wasn't simply confused as he continued to deny his location on the bridge DESPITE the photographic evidence I showed him AND that we later obtained from his neighbor further confirming what Lloyde actually already said when the encounter first began......

Posted Image


"He was up on the bridge."




Come on Craig you are smarter than this. If Lloyd was working for the gov, he would not still be entertaining you 7yrs later. He would never have talked to you in the first place. He has not destroyed the car, he has allowed you too look at it, at will, and you still have no proof that a pole did not hit his car. You use every error or memory loss statement that he makes to say he's lying. He is not a tape recorder. He is human. Human beings could not tell exactly what happened 30mins ago verbatim. Why is he expected to be consistent 7 yrs later? Have you ever been in a courtroom? Witnesses give many statements to the police at different times. The trial could be just 3mo later and they still have to have their previous testimony read back to them to refresh their memories. Lagasse has made mistakes and said different things at different times. You don't hold him to the same standards. Should he be convicted of making false statements or obstruction of justice? You have convicted this old man of murder and you have not shown one shred of proof. You have a personal feeling and that is all. If you have enough evidence to make the statement that he is guilty, then you have enough evidence to expose his lies to the rest of the world. Put up or shut up.
Offline Profile Quote Post
"He was up on the bridge" · Pentagon