Hoggard: "I apologize to Dianne Bellamy-Small.  I no longer believe she leaked the RMA report to anyone."

I agree with Hoggard that DBS' refusal to join the polygraph circus was not in itself an indication that she was the leaker.

But how he makes the leap to "I no longer believe she leaked the RMA report to anyone" is not clear to me. Was his belief that she leaked based solely on the polygraph situation? Does he have exculpatory evidence that he has not yet shared?

Comments

[David Hoggard]

I simply decided to give her the benefit of the doubt. But I also decided to actually talk to her about it and ask some questions. (She still hasn't returned my call.)

While I have had some people I trust (and should know) insist that all of the circumsatantial evidence points to Bellamy-Small and no one else, I have other people I trust (and should know, too) insist that it was not her.

The hard evidence I have is the same as everyone else's - nada. So I decided to stop speculating and stop insinuating that I know anything concrete. I don't.

Innocent until proven guilty and all that.

[Ed Cone]

Right.

I try to stay away from words like "believe" in cases like this, where I don't know what to believe.

[Bubba]

"I have other people I trust (and should know, too) insist that it was not her."

How should they know? What do they know that causes them to insist it was not her?

If these things can be said, it would be a service to her for the particulars to be known.

[PotatoStew]

I think "believe" is ok in this case because of the way David actually used it. He said "I no longer believe she leaked the RMA report" rather than "I believe that she did not leak the report." A fine distinction, maybe, but an important one - at least that's the way I read it.