This guy goes in with a premise and asks questions, good reporting. The person he is asking points out that the stories being referred to are third hand accounts claiming that Chris Kyle told these stories. After hearing that, and not disputing it, he continues as if those stories were validated as coming from Kyle. I think the lawsuit outcome would have been different in TX, but I also think it would have been different if Kyle were alive and taking part in the defense. A split decision tells me that Ventura did not make a strong enough case to convince the jury. The reporter ends, after being assured that Kyle never told such tall tales to this man who worked intimately with him for over a year, saying that in light of those two stories he will read the book but not know if he believes any of it. What? That would be like you reading what I wrote here and having someone tell you that I once said the sky is purple so you conclude that my interpretation that the reporter wanted to depict Kyle as a liar and would not present any other conclusion is not supported by evidence provided. https://youtube/watch?annotation_id=annotation_1364992087&feature=iv&src_vid=rJ4JqrE6REE&v=HRmXisj-NeQ
Posted on: Sun, 25 Jan 2015 12:52:59 +0000