He said there were inconsistencies in Medina’s and his wife’s account of where he was the night of the fire. She was at home. Contacted by telephone on Tuesday, Medina said he would not comment about his whereabouts that night.
OK, that’s plus five points for legal defense, and plus five points for personal privacy, but minus several million for media impressions of a public figure. “Inconsistencies… he would not comment about his whereabouts…” implies to the reader that he was doing something he shouldn’t have been. And what, precisely, could the inconsistency (read: someone is lying to somebody) be?
There is a bar here in Eugene (and probably in many towns) called “The Office.” Presumably so that you can tell the wife, “Honey, I’m going to the office for a bit,” and then go have a couple of pints while she thinks you’re at work. I suppose it’s possible that the “inconsistency” in this case was on that level. But given my admitted prejudice against Texas in general and the Texas courts in particular, I can’t help wondering if there isn’t something more nefarious at work.
