Board Thread:False Info and Speculative Discussion/@comment-25176701-20150818031151/@comment-19728717-20150824034023

LadyX wrote: My entire point is that Scott didn't give Stiles the benefit of the doubt when determining whether Theos story was true though!? Before even talking to Stiles he had his mind made up that Stiles had betrayed him and his moral code without getting his side of the story, or competently facilitating getting the story. Stiles is naturally a jumpy jittery person, remaining silent the way he did is a deliberate act to make people squirm, and then asked a rhetorical question. I hated it when my parents did it. He put Stiles on the defensive before saying a word, because he thought he knew the story already. yeah, but stiles didnt defend himself at ALL. all he said was, "he was going to kill my dad." thats it. he didn't say "he was going to kill me." or "scott, i tried to save him."(cause he did, trying to pull out the rod.)

if he said, "he was going to kill me," scott would've felt something deeper. his best friend. brother. dead. it would've stirred emotions, possibly making it easier for him to forgive stiles and understand. stiles saying "he was going to kill my dad," isn't as deep to scott. scott's dad was absent most of his life. it wouldn't stike him as hard.

the conversation would've went a completly different route if stiles mentioned that he tried to save donovan. scott would've of back tracked and said something like, "stiles, you beat him in the head... repeatedly." and bOOM. the truth would come out, and they would turn against theo.

don't blame scott, honestly, he's being pulled in so many directions. the only one who's not pulling him anywhere, is theo. making easier for scott to believe him.