“The officer in the training exercise that killed Officer Tipping has the same name as the officer in Tipping’s report, but they are not sure if it is the same person.”
Talk about grasping for incongruities… The article even mentioned it was, so why the misrepresentation from your end? Why present a view of moral skepticism for the accused on the one hand, while falsifying evidence for the accusers on the other?
“The name of one of the officers accused of rape ‘seems to correlate with one of the officers that was at the bicycle training,’ said Gage.”
“Gage could not confirm that the officer accused of rape was the officer directly engaged in the training exercise with Tipping. But he said 'our investigation indicates that yes, it was.' "
“Seems to correlate”
“Could not confirm”
“Indicates”
The two may indeed be the same person, but a fair reading is that they are presently unsure.
“The officer in the training exercise that killed Officer Tipping has the same name as the officer in Tipping’s report, but they are not sure if it is the same person.”
Talk about grasping for incongruities… The article even mentioned it was, so why the misrepresentation from your end? Why present a view of moral skepticism for the accused on the one hand, while falsifying evidence for the accusers on the other?