Vielen Dank für ihre wohltuend abweichende Berichterstattung. Ich selbst war jahrelang von Sörings Unschuld überzeugt.davon überzeugt. Mittlerweile Schwanke ich sehr, nicht zuletzt aufgrund ihrer Berichterstattung. Mich würde Ihre Stellungnahme zu dem Leserbrief Chip Hardings zu ihrem FAZ Artikel interessieren. Die von Harding vorgebrachten Argumente sind meines Erachtens jedenfalls hörenswert. Für mich beispielsweise waren die Beobachtung über Sörings Verletzungen bei der Beerdigung von einigem Gewicht. Harding behauptet ja nun, dies sei keineswegs erwiesen.
But the bruise that Donald Harrington gave testimony about which he had observed on the side of Soering’s face was not noticed in the crowd of mourners at the funeral at Presbyterian cemetery, as Chip Harding states in his efforts at a rebuttal. Nor was the bruise scrutinized for merely a few seconds, as, again, Chip Harding speculates. He is misrepresenting the record of the case. The bruise was seen at Dr. and Mrs. Massie’s home during a large gathering there which they hosted for concerned friends, neighbors and shocked Haysom family members from as far away as Nova Scotia, New York state, and Florida. Further, from what I heard, Mr. Harrington was not the only person there who was closely studying Soering. Whether he talked with Mr. Harrington about this, I do not know. This man, whose name was Carrington, had been an athlete, knew what injuries from contact sports can look like, and had been a football referee. At one point he had officiated a Rose Bowl, I was told. (No mean feat.) He died before Soering was returned to the United States for trial.
My conclusion about Chip Harding is that he is not particularly good at the close reading of documents.
Harding also seems unaware that it was the testimony of Robert B. Hallett at the old Buckingham Court House some five years after the Haysom trial that secured the conviction of Mays Tate. What Hallett testified to on that occasion was that there was a circular stob as an element of the design of the sole of Tate’s shoe, a trainer, which identified this shoe, which Tate had unwisely kept, as being the same shoe that made the partial print in blood on the floor of the Stinson farmhouse. This was a crime that started in Charlottesville at a mobile home court to which Tate returned after the murders, by way of Lynchburg. It involved Tate’s grandmother, who lived there. It made big headlines in the Daily Progress here. In fact, E.M. Wright, the Buckingham Commonwealth’s Attorney, announced to the media even before the trial had begun that footprint evidence would win the case. And so it did! How in the world can Chip Harding keep on saying that Robert Hallett knew nothing about his job at all, was a complete nullity, when Hallett rides up practically into Harding’s own bailiwick like the Lone Ranger and solves the case right under his nose. And Harding doesn’t even notice! It’s like Chip Harding is some kind of Rip van Winkle.
Tolle mediale Propaganda! Da hat Herr Greulert ganze Arbeit geleistet.
Vielen Dank für ihre wohltuend abweichende Berichterstattung. Ich selbst war jahrelang von Sörings Unschuld überzeugt.davon überzeugt. Mittlerweile Schwanke ich sehr, nicht zuletzt aufgrund ihrer Berichterstattung. Mich würde Ihre Stellungnahme zu dem Leserbrief Chip Hardings zu ihrem FAZ Artikel interessieren. Die von Harding vorgebrachten Argumente sind meines Erachtens jedenfalls hörenswert. Für mich beispielsweise waren die Beobachtung über Sörings Verletzungen bei der Beerdigung von einigem Gewicht. Harding behauptet ja nun, dies sei keineswegs erwiesen.
But the bruise that Donald Harrington gave testimony about which he had observed on the side of Soering’s face was not noticed in the crowd of mourners at the funeral at Presbyterian cemetery, as Chip Harding states in his efforts at a rebuttal. Nor was the bruise scrutinized for merely a few seconds, as, again, Chip Harding speculates. He is misrepresenting the record of the case. The bruise was seen at Dr. and Mrs. Massie’s home during a large gathering there which they hosted for concerned friends, neighbors and shocked Haysom family members from as far away as Nova Scotia, New York state, and Florida. Further, from what I heard, Mr. Harrington was not the only person there who was closely studying Soering. Whether he talked with Mr. Harrington about this, I do not know. This man, whose name was Carrington, had been an athlete, knew what injuries from contact sports can look like, and had been a football referee. At one point he had officiated a Rose Bowl, I was told. (No mean feat.) He died before Soering was returned to the United States for trial.
My conclusion about Chip Harding is that he is not particularly good at the close reading of documents.
Harding also seems unaware that it was the testimony of Robert B. Hallett at the old Buckingham Court House some five years after the Haysom trial that secured the conviction of Mays Tate. What Hallett testified to on that occasion was that there was a circular stob as an element of the design of the sole of Tate’s shoe, a trainer, which identified this shoe, which Tate had unwisely kept, as being the same shoe that made the partial print in blood on the floor of the Stinson farmhouse. This was a crime that started in Charlottesville at a mobile home court to which Tate returned after the murders, by way of Lynchburg. It involved Tate’s grandmother, who lived there. It made big headlines in the Daily Progress here. In fact, E.M. Wright, the Buckingham Commonwealth’s Attorney, announced to the media even before the trial had begun that footprint evidence would win the case. And so it did! How in the world can Chip Harding keep on saying that Robert Hallett knew nothing about his job at all, was a complete nullity, when Hallett rides up practically into Harding’s own bailiwick like the Lone Ranger and solves the case right under his nose. And Harding doesn’t even notice! It’s like Chip Harding is some kind of Rip van Winkle.
Sorry, mein Kommentar bezog sich auf dem ProSieben-Beitrag im anderen Post.