In order to fully understand OP explaintion of events, we also have to take him at his word and not superimposed what we think he meant. It is his statement and so should not be interpreted IMO
Feeling ambivalent about what you say, here. Absolutely we should listen carefully to his testimony, certainly compare it to the case facts, other people's testimony, his initial official statements, and "process" before rushing to judge. But we certainly can, within the overall case context, not as cherry-picking, look at how he says what he says, that is, look at how he uses language. That kind of analysis is a good tool if not a scientific one. And I do think we can, without prejudice, look at the sub-text of what he says, especially since we aren't a jury and not giving expert testimony. The main problem I have is that he has revised over time many crucial aspects as compared with his initial and I thought at the time fairly thorough statement. Yet, your admonition is one I will take to heart.