http://www.kansascity.com/news/nation/v-print/story/207044.html
Posted on Thu, Jul. 26, 2007
Bullet holes in Pat Tillman raised suspicions about his death, documents show
The Associated Press
SAN FRANCISCO | Army medical examiners were suspicious about the close proximity of the three bullet holes in Pat Tillman’s forehead, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press.
The examiners tried without success to get authorities to investigate whether the former NFL player’s death in Afghanistan amounted to a crime, the documents show.
“The medical evidence did not match up with the scenario as described,” a doctor who examined Tillman’s body after he was killed on the battlefield in Afghanistan in 2004 told investigators.
The doctors — whose names were blacked out — said the bullet holes were so close together it appeared the Army Ranger was cut down by an M-16 fired from a mere 10 yards or so away
2007-09-04 08:01:56 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Because the Army is claiming it was a friendly fire accident. Prior to that, they tried to use him as poster child for Army recruiting.
Pat Tillman was a Democrat that did not like Bush. Perhaps that is what got him killed, in any case we will never know the truth, whether this was a accident or a execution.
This was at such a close range, that it appears to me to be more like an execution.
2007-09-04 08:13:42 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
So lets look at the facts.
-They were in a firefight with the enemy
-US soldiers carry M-16s
-M-16s fire in 3 round bursts
-We know Tillman was killed by friendly fire
-During a firefight remembering exact series of events can be mistaken
OK, maybe I am missing something, your Peace Love and Pot is messing with you mind, because I have it figured out.
Tillman was in an enemy firefight, the soldiers for one reason or another were confused in the chaos, a solider fired a 3 round burst from is M-16 hit Tillman from 30 feet away in the head. While tragic not very sinister or complicated. Go smoke some weed with Scooby and Shaggy since the Scooby gang will not be needed on this one.
2007-09-04 08:59:43 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Funny how you accuse the media of ignoring this story then you use a couple different media outlets to back up your claim that the media ignores the story.
I don't think the media ignored the story, it's just that your late on the story. This has been discussed off and on since his death in 2004.
2007-09-04 08:18:26 · answer #3 · answered by labken1817 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The shame is in the public's acceptance and allowance of this "I don't recall" excuse. Leaders will try to get away with all kinds of things, but will continue to get away with them as long as they are permitted to. It may seem like a small thing...but when you start tallying the small things, the picture is big and ugly. And if the American public stands by and accepts these answers, then they certainly get the leadership they deserve!
2016-05-21 02:56:28 · answer #4 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because any speculation that he was killed at close range intentionally is just speculation until someone else comes out and confirms it. Since the people close to the incident aren't talking, then there's nothing more to talk about.
2007-09-04 08:08:09 · answer #5 · answered by Pfo 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The Military Industrial Complex (who owns all the major media outlets) have given orders not to disclose the facts.
Simple as that!
2007-09-04 08:13:37 · answer #6 · answered by jswnwv 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
It's been tried and tired. He was shot by an M-16 which is capable of firing in 3 round bursts; in other words he could have stood up and been shot by friendly fire (which he was killed by friendly fire).
2007-09-04 08:11:59 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Your posting to a media link with the story refutes your question.
2007-09-04 08:10:49 · answer #8 · answered by davidmi711 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋