User talk:Reigapogil5510

The detective says to the suspect, "The first thing I learned on the job, know what it was? How to spot a murderer. Let's say you arrest three guys for the exact same killing. Put them all in jail overnight. The subsequent morning, whoever is sleeping is your man. If you're guilty, you know you're caught, you get some rest - let your guard down, you comply with?"

When the entire Larry Craig fiasco came out, I believed back to...

The movie 'The Usual Suspects' has a great interrogation scene.

The detective says to the suspect, "The first factor I discovered on the job, know what it was? How to spot a murderer. Let's say you arrest three guys for the exact same killing. Place them all in jail overnight. The next morning, whoever is sleeping is your man. If you're guilty, you know you happen to be caught, you get some rest - let your guard down, you stick to?"

When the whole Larry Craig fiasco came out, I believed back to that scene.

For a while, this story was all the media was reporting on. Larry Craig, senator from Idaho, was arrested after an officer investigating lewd conduct was tapped on the foot, allegedly, apparently, by Mr. Craig.

Craig pled guilty to a misdemeanor on August 8th immediately after paying $500 in fines.

And later, when it came to light, a spokesperson for Craig stated it was a large "misunderstanding".

Huh? A misunderstanding. But he pled guilty. Why would he do that?

Craig later mentioned, "I must have had the advice TM of counsel in resolving this matter. In hindsight, I ought to not have pled guilty. I was trying to handle this matter myself swiftly and expeditiously."

This is exactly where I see incongruity with Mr. Craig:

1. Innocent people do not plead guilty. Innocent folks place up a fight if they are wrongly accused.

two. Mr. Craig did not call for his lawyer. The very first thing any person does--guilty and innocent--is get in touch with an lawyer. The quickest and most expeditious way to handle a legal issue is to get represented.

3. Craig stated, "I am not gay - nor have I ever been gay." This sounds like he believes it is achievable to have been gay and then turn into ungay. It really is waffling.

Lastly, but possibly the most incongruous of all:

four. He didn't right away tell his wife! Now, if I had been arrested for something as preposterous as this, I'd go straight property to my wife and inform her, "Listen to what occurred to me today. You happen to be not going to think this."

Then Senator Craig decided that the media was to blame.

It really is all since of the Idaho Statesman. They've been "relentlessly and viciously" harassing him.

The media is generally an exceptional villain because they do get so a lot incorrect, so it is a pretty secure bet as far as scapegoats go. Regrettably, Mr. Craig has a "background" and his anger does not seem really righteous.

Now appear at this scenario in terms of persuasion: No matter whether the allegations are accurate or false, how would you have framed the story under these conditions?

Did his incongruity give him away? And what can he do to unframe himself?