How differently we all read and interpret things - I believe MR's words above are saying exactly what you claim he falls short of saying.
It's called a lie of omission, or not telling the whole truth. Let's say I hired someone else to abscond with Dylan and hide him somewhere, keeping him alive, confined and in isolation. And part of that deal was that I was not to know where Dylan is so that I could "truthfully" make the statement that I have no idea where Dylan is. But obviously I would have had something to do with Dylan's disappearance, and would not
truthfully have been able to assert otherwise.
Something that is often misunderstood is that not wanting to accuse MR of anything without some real, concrete evidence does not necessarily make someone a MR supporter. I don't know the man for goodness sake. It just means it seems the right thing to afford him the same consideration and compassion directed towards Dylan's mum and other members of the maternal side of his family.
Okay, though I'm not sure how that relates to my post since I made no comments about anyone supporting (or not) MR. IMO Dylan's other family members have not made statements that are suspicious, contradictory and inflammatory and cause
me to raise my
personal suspicions about them. How you morph that into me being a "supporter" of one "side" of the family or another is unclear to me. I am a supporter of finding Dylan and bringing him home to his family. And please, you have no idea where my compassion levels are.
ETA: I actually do have compassion for both parents in Dylan's case. That just doesn't preclude me of also being suspicious of MR. As an illustration, just because the Dalai Lama can feel compassion for China's leaders doesn't mean he has to believe everything they say with respect to the autonomy of the Tibetan people.
I also believe that every time a comparison is made between how MR and ER have been treated, it has been interpreted as bashing ER - which is just not fair. So I am going to add here that every time we hear a statement or interview with ER, we do not expect her to keep reinforcing the fact that she didn't have anything to do with Dylan's disappearance - so I don't see why that should be expected of MR either. IMO he has stated this more than once, and for those who don't believe him I don't know why he should be expected to restate this over and over again only to be called a liar.
:moo:
Again I don't know what this had to do with the post I made. You seem to be reading an awful lot into what I typed. And since I made no comments in my post about statements ER has made, I think you are definitely reading way too much into what I typed.
ETA: I do think I see what you are saying here Catwhiskers. If I may paraphrase, I think you are asking why I do not dissect ER's words in the same way. While I may believe she is guilty of not always taking the high road in dealing with her ex husband, of reacting to his button-pushing, etc.,that does not make me suspicious of her involvement in Dylan's disappearance. But that's the only thing for which I can fault her. The same cannot be said for my opinion of MR's behavior and statements.
From
my POV it's pretty clear MR has not been truthful, and that makes me suspicious of him. He seems to parse his words very deliberately when confronted, and that makes me suspicious of him. He has still given no explanation as to why Dylan's phone went silent on Sunday night, and that makes me suspicious of him. Lather, rinse, repeat.