(Wingham, North Huron, ON) — As the investigation into the Feb. 17 incident involving North Huron Deputy Reeve Kevin Falconer continues, serious questions are emerging about the reliability of statements made by witness Vic Hull.
Vic Hull’s version of events, published in a recent newspaper article, contains multiple contradictions, assumptions, and claims about events he was not in a position to observe.
Vic Hull Was Not Present At The Beginning
By Vic Hull’s own account, he was sitting in his truck and only looked up after the situation was already unfolding. This means Vic did not witness the beginning of the incident and cannot provide a direct account of what actually triggered the confrontation.
Yet portions of his statement read as if he had observed the entire sequence of events.
That alone raises serious concerns about how much of Hull’s account is direct observation versus speculation or second-hand information.
Claims About Blood Contradicted
Vic Hull claims Falconer’s face was “completely bloody…the second time was way worse.”
However, video and witness accounts indicate there was no visible blood after Falconer’s first fall. Hull was not present at that time.
If Hull arrived after Falconer was already on the ground the second time, then he could not have observed what Falconer looked like earlier in the incident.
This raises the question: how could Hull claim knowledge of events he did not witness?
The “Kick Him Again” Claim
Hull claims someone yelled “kick him again.”
Witnesses say no such statement was made.
If that phrase was never spoken, Hull’s statement falsely attributes violent intent to the crowd and dramatically alters how the public perceives the event.
Repeating Hearsay As Fact
Vic Hull also repeats Falconer’s claim that he had been kicked in the head.
Even if Falconer said that, Hull did not witness it.
That makes the statement hearsay, not evidence.
Adding further confusion, there was no mention that night of steel-toed boots or shoes, a detail that appeared later in Hull’s narrative.
Claims Vic Hull Could Not Possibly Know
Vic Hull also states that Stephen “Buck” Hill “has the video.”
But Vic Hull arrived after the incident was already underway and was not in a position to know whether Hill had been recording earlier, when any recording began, or what footage exists.
In other words, that claim is speculation presented as fact.
Location Confusion
Hull also places himself in the parking lot of the Wescast Community Complex, while the council meeting itself occurred on Frances Street.
That discrepancy raises additional questions about Hull’s understanding of where events were actually happening.
Emotional Language Instead of Observation
Vic Hull described people around Falconer as acting “like animals.”
That language is not neutral observation. It reflects an emotional interpretation of events rather than careful reporting of what was actually seen.
Witness credibility depends on clear, factual observations — not inflammatory descriptions.
Free Speech Misunderstood
Vic Hull also complained that he had been blocked from posting comments on the Buck & Jo’s Facebook page.
But freedom of speech does not mean anyone has the right to post whatever they want on someone else’s private platform.
Free speech protects the public’s ability to hold people in authority accountable — particularly elected officials and those exercising government power.
It does not give someone the right to post abuse or harassment on a privately run Facebook page.
Investigation Ongoing
The Falconer incident has since evolved into a serious matter involving allegations of assault, broken ribs, and potential Charter violations. Ontario’s Special Investigations Unit (SIU) is now reviewing the events surrounding that evening.
In a situation this serious, facts matter.
Witness statements that rely on speculation, assumptions, or hearsay can distort the public understanding of what actually happened.
At minimum, the contradictions in Vic Hull’s account make it difficult to treat his narrative as a reliable eyewitness description of the incident.
The truth of what happened will ultimately depend on video evidence, credible witness testimony, and the findings of investigators — not speculation or headlines.