Sometimes the full explanation is not as good as the summary, and that may be the case here, but this one does leave you wondering:
NICEVILLE [Fla.] – A 24-year-old man told Niceville Police he was pulled from his bicycle and beaten by three males. A witness who was up in a tree corroborated part of the man’s story.
But we learn later that despite his elevated vantage point, the witness did not actually see the initial assault:
The witness told the officer he was up in a tree when he heard the alleged victim scream for help. He went out to the road and saw the man’s bike lying by mailboxes, and somebody grabbing the man. Then, three people ran away.
What we do not learn is why he was up in the tree to begin with.
I guess it's not relevant, but if so this is a good example of a fact you should either explain or leave out of your tale entirely. It's all anyone's going to care about until they get their question answered.
