[ad_1]
National review
The Times corrects the death toll of Agent Sicknick, sort of
A few days ago, the New York Times quietly “updated” its report, published more than a month earlier, claiming that Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick was killed by being hit with a fire extinguisher during the riot of January 6. According to the update, “New information has emerged regarding the death of Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick which calls into question the root cause of his death provided by officials close to the Capitol Police.” As I detailed in a column last week, what The Times calls “new information” began to emerge the same day the newspaper filed its report on January 8. That report was (and still is) titled, “Capitol Police Officer Dies of Injury in Pro-Trump Rampage.” It wasn’t the only Times report to date. There was another, titled “He dreamed of being a cop, then was killed by a pro-Trump mob,” in which the Times claimed: On Wednesday pro-Trump supporters attacked this citadel of democracy [i.e., the Capitol], overpowered Mr Sicknick, 42, and hit him on the head with a fire extinguisher, according to two law enforcement officials. With a bloody cut to the head, Mr Sicknick was rushed to hospital and placed on life support. He passed away Thursday evening. Yet as early as the morning of January 8, KHOU in Houston reported that Sicknick had died of a stroke. KHOU’s story made no mention of the officer being hit by a fire extinguisher. He claimed, however, that the stroke had occurred “on Capitol Hill during the riots”, and a caption under the officer’s photograph stated that he had died “from injuries sustained during the riot at the Capitol.” The title of KHOU’s story attributes the conclusion that a stroke was the cause of death to the leader of the Capitol Police Union, Gus Papathanasiou. The body of the story identified Papathanasiou as its source for what turned out to be the erroneous report that Sicknick died Thursday (the day after the riot); in fact, he was still on life support at the time and was pronounced dead Thursday night. My aforementioned column noted that Fox News’s Tucker Carlson (relying on a report from the Revolver News website) had just reported that Sicknick had not been taken to the hospital directly from the Capitol. On the contrary, not only did the officer return to the police headquarters; he had texted his brother a few hours after the siege stating that even though he had been “pepper sprayed twice” he was “in good shape”. Additionally, Carlson pointed to a CNN report on Feb. 2 that according to unidentified law enforcement officials, forensic scientists found no evidence of blunt trauma to Sicknick’s body and concluded that the story of the extinguisher was not true. To be clear, my goal in focusing on this story was not to break the news, much less to claim credit for The Times’ implicit acknowledgment that its original stories were fake. In addition to Tucker Carlson, Revolver News and KHOU, American Greatness’s Julie Kelly was also on this topic before me – and pointed out that I was duped. I focused on the story for two reasons. First, I am one of the analysts who relied wholeheartedly on the Times’ initial reports, inferring the conclusion that Sicknick had been “murdered” by the rioters – not a long logical leap if you credit the claim according to the rioters. which a policeman was beaten. above the head with a deadly object by rioters who intentionally and forcibly confronted the security forces. Julie Kelly criticized me yesterday for having ‘regurgitated’ the ‘account that Sicknick was murdered’, which I certainly did – even though I am not, as she describes it, a political expert on the ‘NeverTrump. Right ”. Because I repeated a very serious allegation that had not been supported by credible evidence from identifiable sources, I thought it was important to clarify, as it is in my power to do so. , that there are now immense reasons to doubt the original. reporting – while confessing (with a link to the column in which I included the ‘murder’ allegation) that I was as guilty as any other analyst or journalist who amplified the questionable narrative. Second, and more importantly, Agent Sicknick’s death became a building block in the House impeachment of former President Trump and the allegations made by the Democratic House impeachment officials who have been publicly filed in their preliminary brief on February 2. was already a substantial reason to question the extinguisher’s claim. Prosecutors have an obligation, rooted in due process and professional ethics, to reveal exculpatory evidence. This includes evidence that is inconsistent with the theory of guilt they put forward. Even if Sicknick’s death were causally linked to the riots, prosecutors would be forced to correct the case if it did not happen the way they expressly said it happened. House impeachment officials had not done this last week when NR published my column raising this issue, and to this day, although the impeachment trial is now over, we are still in the process. ignorance of the circumstances surrounding the tragic death of the officer at 42. Which brings us back to the original Times report. The “updated” version is, to put it mildly, confusing. First, he attributes to unidentified “authorities” the claim that Sicknick “died of injuries sustained“ while physically engaging ”with pro-Trump rioters. The Times goes on to describe Sicknick as “only the fourth member of the force to be killed in the line of duty since its founding two centuries ago.” This statement is published as if it were an established fact, without a source. But has it been established that Sicknick was “killed”? Has it been established that he died of injuries sustained while physically engaging with pro-Trump rioters? To my knowledge, this is not the case. And even the Times implicitly admits it’s not sure what it’s saying. A few paragraphs later, the same report now states: The circumstances surrounding Mr. Sicknick’s death were not immediately clear, and the Capitol Police only said he had “died as a result of injuries sustained while on duty” . It sounds very legal. “Supported while on duty” is not the same as “supported” while physically engaging “with pro-Trump rioters.” The Times goes on to acknowledge that “law enforcement officials initially said Mr. Sicknick was hit by a fire extinguisher”, but that “weeks later, police sources and investigators disagreed about whether he had been hit ”, and that a” (Unidentified, of course) said that “medical experts said [Sicknick] did not die of blunt trauma. The latest version of Capitol Police events appears to be: “He returned to his division office and collapsed. . . . He was taken to a local hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries. What injuries? We are not told. Although the Times further admits that “it is not known where Mr. Sicknick’s meeting with rioters took place,” the newspaper oddly adds that “photos and videos posted by a local reporter on the night of the chaos showed a man spraying a fire extinguisher outside the Senate. room, with a small number of police officers overlooking the area on a nearby staircase. Okay, so what? The Times does not say these officers included Sicknick, and the newspaper’s initial allegation – which became the official allegation of House impeachment officials – was that Sicknick was hit in the head with a fire extinguisher. In light of how the Times has confused things before, to the point of having to provide a not very edifying “update”, why assume that the photos and videos cited are relevant to Sicknick’s death? Meanwhile, the word “stroke” does not appear in the Times’ updated story. Does the newspaper ignore the report that Sicknick died of a stroke, even though that claim was attributed to a named person likely able to know – the leader of the Capitol Police Union? And what is the basis for the Times’ continuing claim that Sicknick died from injuries sustained while physically engaging with pro-Trump rioters? Of course, it is entirely possible – perhaps even probable – that this is true. But with no autopsy report, and with indications that Sicknick was able to return to his office after the siege, later told his brother he was in good shape despite being pepper sprayed and showing no signs of trauma. bluntly, why maintain this statement? After all, The Times updated her story because the story, as originally published, was misleading. And Democratic House officials – having based their claim only on the Times’ dubious claim about the fire extinguisher – essentially avoided the circumstances surrounding Sicknick’s death during their presentation at the impeachment trial. Regardless of whether the arraignment has already been brought, it is essential that we have an accurate account of what happened on January 6, including an accurate account of what happened to the ‘Agent Brian Sicknick. And since the indictment continued, we are also owed an explanation of why House officials failed to clarify the circumstances of Sicknick’s death after making an explosive allegation about how it s ‘happened.
[ad_2]
Source link