For anyone who watched the news12 special, (and I'm looking for verification on this) I think the news12 interview with Hackett in the car revealed another lie. It is the same interview that has been around for a long time but they played more of the interview; specifically they aired a statement that came before the "I never saw her" statement. He says,
"I returned some calls".
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't his original statement "I never called them".
The news12 anchor in the special later goes on to say that Hackett said "he never called them". If that is the case, and I
think it is, then his statements evolved like this...
1. "I never called them"
2. "I returned some calls"
3. "I called them, but i was requested to and I didn't say that I treated her"
If he did in fact say statement 1, then that turned out to be a lie.
From his letter to 48 hours, we know that statement 2 is a lie (they didn't call him first, hence he did not "return some calls".
Past behavior is not a perfect predictor of the future, but I'm inclined to believe that we will find out that statement 3 contains a lie as well. ... The truth is coming out in the wash
Once we verify statement 1, we will have 3 statements, enough to detect a pattern. To me the pattern reveals that initially he didn't want us to know he called them at all, then he had to acknowledge that he called them
but doesn't want us to know that he initiated the calls. Finally, he arrives at having to say he initiated the phone calls "but only after Pak and Diaz requested", as per 48hrs letter.
Why is it so important to him that he didn't call? Why is it so important that we think he didn't initiate the calls? Why does he now want us to believe that he only initiated because someone asked?
If "he called to help", it wouldn't have ever mattered if he called, or if he initiated the calls out of the blue, or if he initiated the calls after being asked to call...
a web of lies always gets sticky .... he's looking tangled up to me.