California Shootings Elliot Rodger Conspiracy.

originally posted by: Psynic

originally posted by: captaintyinknots
a reply to: Psynic
Actually, there would be plenty of reason to take the carpet. its forensic evidence. Its a piece of the puzzle. Its also very standard.

Please, enlighten me?

Why did the police need to remove ALL the carpet with blood on it?

ALL the carpeting? How did you get that from this:

Police had removed a 6-by-5-foot piece of carpeting in the bedroom the roommates shared.

if the entire place only had a 6 by 5 piece of carpeting, it must have been a VERY small apartment.

Again, why the need to distort the truth?

originally posted by: captaintyinknots

originally posted by: Psynic

originally posted by: captaintyinknots
a reply to: Psynic
Actually, there would be plenty of reason to take the carpet. its forensic evidence. Its a piece of the puzzle. Its also very standard.

Please, enlighten me?

Why did the police need to remove ALL the carpet with blood on it?

ALL the carpeting? How did you get that from this:

Police had removed a 6-by-5-foot piece of carpeting in the bedroom the roommates shared.

if the entire place only had a 6 by 5 piece of carpeting, it must have been a VERY small apartment.

Again, why the need to distort the truth?

I wrote "all the carpeting with blood on it" not "all the carpeting".

Are you not able to see the difference?

originally posted by: Psynic

originally posted by: captaintyinknots

originally posted by: Psynic

originally posted by: captaintyinknots
a reply to: Psynic
Actually, there would be plenty of reason to take the carpet. its forensic evidence. Its a piece of the puzzle. Its also very standard.

Please, enlighten me?

Why did the police need to remove ALL the carpet with blood on it?

ALL the carpeting? How did you get that from this:

Police had removed a 6-by-5-foot piece of carpeting in the bedroom the roommates shared.

if the entire place only had a 6 by 5 piece of carpeting, it must have been a VERY small apartment.

Again, why the need to distort the truth?

I wrote "all the carpeting with blood on it" not "all the carpeting".

Are you not able to see the difference?

i still fail to see how you got that from what was written. It says a 6 by 5 piece of carpeting. Not all the carpeting, and not all the carpeting with blood stains.

so, again, why the need to distort?

a reply to: Psynic
I see what you are saying, and agree with you. They are removing evidence that proves a crime did not take place. It's like the lying Las Vegas cops who changed their story about one of the "dead" cops getting off a shot inside of CiCi's Pizza. They later changed that to no shots were fired by either "dead" cop. Why? Because if he had gotten off a shot, there would be evidence of that inside CiCi's Pizza in the form of a bullet hole somewhere. In the rush to present themselves as something more than pizza scarfing, incompetent cops, they lied in the 1st version hoping to inflate the public's opinion of them. Then they realized they messed up, and changed the story.

originally posted by: captaintyinknots

originally posted by: Psynic

originally posted by: captaintyinknots

originally posted by: Psynic

originally posted by: captaintyinknots
a reply to: Psynic
Actually, there would be plenty of reason to take the carpet. its forensic evidence. Its a piece of the puzzle. Its also very standard.

Please, enlighten me?

Why did the police need to remove ALL the carpet with blood on it?

ALL the carpeting? How did you get that from this:

Police had removed a 6-by-5-foot piece of carpeting in the bedroom the roommates shared.

if the entire place only had a 6 by 5 piece of carpeting, it must have been a VERY small apartment.

Again, why the need to distort the truth?

I wrote "all the carpeting with blood on it" not "all the carpeting".

Are you not able to see the difference?

i still fail to see how you got that from what was written. It says a 6 by 5 piece of carpeting. Not all the carpeting, and not all the carpeting with blood stains.

so, again, why the need to distort?

Three times now you have accused me of distorting the facts.

I finally realize where your confusion lies.

The police removed "a piece of carpeting".

That means they cut a chunk out of the middle of the broadloom.

It doesn't mean the police removed a carpet.

So to repeat, there is no need for ALL the bloodstained broadloom to be removed unless one was trying to either conceal the location of the murder or give the appearance of a murder where none existed or wished no evidence to remain that could be tested for DNA.

Your apology is accepted.

originally posted by: Mikeultra
a reply to: Psynic
I see what you are saying, and agree with you. They are removing evidence that proves a crime did not take place. It's like the lying Las Vegas cops who changed their story about one of the "dead" cops getting off a shot inside of CiCi's Pizza. They later changed that to no shots were fired by either "dead" cop. Why? Because if he had gotten off a shot, there would be evidence of that inside CiCi's Pizza in the form of a bullet hole somewhere. In the rush to present themselves as something more than pizza scarfing, incompetent cops, they lied in the 1st version hoping to inflate the public's opinion of them. Then they realized they messed up, and changed the story.

Thanks, I was becoming rather frustrated by the repeated accusations.

I guess some people furnish their bedrooms with chunks of carpeting.

originally posted by: RKWWWW
They removed the carpet. It's evidence. That's their job.

The cops didn't remove the blood-stained carpeting at Columbine:


Why would they feel the need to do this in that apartment? I do hope they release the autopsy reports of these apartment victims.

originally posted by: starviego

originally posted by: RKWWWW
They removed the carpet. It's evidence. That's their job.

The cops didn't remove the blood-stained carpeting at Columbine:


Why would they feel the need to do this in that apartment? I do hope they release the autopsy reports of these apartment victims.

The fact is you don't know enough about crime scene investigations to understand why one crime scene might be handled differently than another crime scene. You can, in your ignorance, speculate all you want, but don't make the mistake of thinking you are uncovering a conspiracy just because you cannot reconcile what you see with your limited knowledge.

a reply to: RKWWWW

EVS.

The point is, it is DEFINITELY NOT the duty of the police to remove all evidence of a crime having been committed.

Or to remove carpeting to hide the fact that there was no blood there in the first place.

ewn.co.za...

originally posted by: Psynic
a reply to: RKWWWW

EVS.

The point is, it is DEFINITELY NOT the duty of the police to remove all evidence of a crime having been committed.

Or to remove carpeting to hide the fact that there was no blood there in the first place.

What!? Cops routinely remove evidence from crime scenes. How do you think the evidence get's into the courtroom? There have been trials where large pieces of the crime scene were removed and reconstructed in the court room, walls, doors, windows, even entire automobiles.

seattletimes.com...

ewn.co.za...

originally posted by: RKWWWW

originally posted by: Psynic
a reply to: RKWWWW

EVS.

The point is, it is DEFINITELY NOT the duty of the police to remove all evidence of a crime having been committed.

Or to remove carpeting to hide the fact that there was no blood there in the first place.

What!? Cops routinely remove evidence from crime scenes. How do you think the evidence get's into the courtroom? There have been trials where large pieces of the crime scene were removed and reconstructed in the court room, walls, doors, windows, even entire automobiles.

seattletimes.com...

Are you enjoying this?

Does being obtuse titillate you in some way?

Do you get some pleasure from simply misquoting people?

There is no evidentiary requirement that every piece of carpet with a single drop of blood be removed from a crime scene when there should be pints of it spread over the whole room.

The police didn't remove any of the blood from the floor of the variety store where the shooting took place.

Stop trying to bully people with your limited forensic knowledge.

originally posted by: Psynic

originally posted by: RKWWWW

originally posted by: Psynic
a reply to: RKWWWW

EVS.

The point is, it is DEFINITELY NOT the duty of the police to remove all evidence of a crime having been committed.

Or to remove carpeting to hide the fact that there was no blood there in the first place.

What!? Cops routinely remove evidence from crime scenes. How do you think the evidence get's into the courtroom? There have been trials where large pieces of the crime scene were removed and reconstructed in the court room, walls, doors, windows, even entire automobiles.

seattletimes.com...

Are you enjoying this?

Does being obtuse titillate you in some way?

Do you get some pleasure from simply misquoting people?

There is no evidentiary requirement that every piece of carpet with a single drop of blood be removed from a crime seen when there should be pints of it spread over the whole room.

The police didn't remove any of the blood from the floor of the variety store where the shooting took place.

Stop trying to bully people with your limited forensic knowledge.

No need to get snarky.

How do you know that "every piece of carpet with a single drop of blood be removed from a crime"? Specifically how do you know that was the case? What information are you privy to that would allow you to make that statement?

How do you know that cops didn't take blood samples off the floor in the store? How would you know how the crime scene in the store was processed?

a reply to: Psynic

Three times now you have accused me of distorting the facts.

And this will be the fourth....

The police removed "a piece of carpeting". That means they cut a chunk out of the middle of the broadloom. It doesn't mean the police removed a carpet. So to repeat, there is no need for ALL the bloodstained broadloom to be removed unless one was trying to either conceal the location of the murder or give the appearance of a murder where none existed or wished no evidence to remain that could be tested for DNA.

Either quote for me, directly from the source, where is claims the police removed ALL of anything, or admit that you are, in fact, distorting the facts. Its pretty simple really. Rather than continue to repeat things that the article DOESNT SAY, just quote it for us. Thanks in advance.

Your apology is accepted.

Im sorry that I wont accept distorted 'facts' just because you say so.

a reply to: Psynic

There is no evidentiary requirement that every piece of carpet with a single drop of blood be removed from a crime scene when there should be pints of it spread over the whole room.

And this will be the fifth time....

Please, again, show me ANYTHING that claims the cops removed every piece of carpet with a single drop of blood on it. It clearly states that a 6 by 5 piece of carpet was removed. Thats it.

You all are just flat out making things up at this point.
If you need to misrepresent what was said to fit your narrative, then your narrative doesnt hold a whole lot of water.

originally posted by: Psynic
a reply to: RKWWWW



Or to remove carpeting to hide the fact that there was no blood there in the first place.

Let's leave aside the fact you seem to want it both ways ------- 1) the cops removed "every piece of carpet with a single drop of blood ", 2) the cops removed the carpeting "to hide the fact that there was no blood there in the first place". Lets look at the convoluted statement you made as quoted above: Crime scene investigators don't go to locations where crimes were NOT committed and remove parts of the crime scene just so they can claim that NO crime was committed at the scene. If I wanted to prove to you that my living room was not a crime scene I wouldn't cut out and remove pieces of carpet in my living room. I would simply let you examine my living room. After all, if no crime was committed, why would I want to alter the room?

originally posted by: RKWWWW

originally posted by: Psynic
a reply to: RKWWWW



Or to remove carpeting to hide the fact that there was no blood there in the first place.

Let's leave aside the fact you seem to want it both ways ------- 1) the cops removed "every piece of carpet with a single drop of blood ", 2) the cops removed the carpeting "to hide the fact that there was no blood there in the first place". Lets look at the convoluted statement you made as quoted above: Crime scene investigators don't go to locations where crimes were NOT committed and remove parts of the crime scene just so they can claim that NO crime was committed at the scene. If I wanted to prove to you that my living room was not a crime scene I wouldn't cut out and remove pieces of carpet in my living room. I would simply let you examine my living room. After all, if no crime was committed, why would I want to alter the room?

There is nothing "convoluted" about my statement:

"Or to remove carpeting to hide the fact that there was no blood there in the first place".

I don't know what you find so difficult to comprehend.

There was no blood on the walls or ceiling and the police removed a six foot long by five feet wide piece of carpeting.

They didn't remove a "sample" of the blood stained carpet, they removed 6' X 5' of it.

originally posted by: Psynic

originally posted by: RKWWWW

originally posted by: Psynic
a reply to: RKWWWW



Or to remove carpeting to hide the fact that there was no blood there in the first place.

Let's leave aside the fact you seem to want it both ways ------- 1) the cops removed "every piece of carpet with a single drop of blood ", 2) the cops removed the carpeting "to hide the fact that there was no blood there in the first place". Lets look at the convoluted statement you made as quoted above: Crime scene investigators don't go to locations where crimes were NOT committed and remove parts of the crime scene just so they can claim that NO crime was committed at the scene. If I wanted to prove to you that my living room was not a crime scene I wouldn't cut out and remove pieces of carpet in my living room. I would simply let you examine my living room. After all, if no crime was committed, why would I want to alter the room?

There was no blood on the walls or ceiling and the police removed a six foot long by five feet wide piece of carpeting.

How do you know there was no blood on the walls or the ceiling?

originally posted by: RKWWWW

originally posted by: Psynic

originally posted by: RKWWWW

originally posted by: Psynic
a reply to: RKWWWW



Or to remove carpeting to hide the fact that there was no blood there in the first place.

Let's leave aside the fact you seem to want it both ways ------- 1) the cops removed "every piece of carpet with a single drop of blood ", 2) the cops removed the carpeting "to hide the fact that there was no blood there in the first place". Lets look at the convoluted statement you made as quoted above: Crime scene investigators don't go to locations where crimes were NOT committed and remove parts of the crime scene just so they can claim that NO crime was committed at the scene. If I wanted to prove to you that my living room was not a crime scene I wouldn't cut out and remove pieces of carpet in my living room. I would simply let you examine my living room. After all, if no crime was committed, why would I want to alter the room?

There was no blood on the walls or ceiling and the police removed a six foot long by five feet wide piece of carpeting.

How do you know there was no blood on the walls or the ceiling?

I don't know. But the parents claimed, "There was no blood on the walls or ceiling".

originally posted by: Moresby

originally posted by: RKWWWW

originally posted by: Psynic

originally posted by: RKWWWW

originally posted by: Psynic
a reply to: RKWWWW



Or to remove carpeting to hide the fact that there was no blood there in the first place.

Let's leave aside the fact you seem to want it both ways ------- 1) the cops removed "every piece of carpet with a single drop of blood ", 2) the cops removed the carpeting "to hide the fact that there was no blood there in the first place". Lets look at the convoluted statement you made as quoted above: Crime scene investigators don't go to locations where crimes were NOT committed and remove parts of the crime scene just so they can claim that NO crime was committed at the scene. If I wanted to prove to you that my living room was not a crime scene I wouldn't cut out and remove pieces of carpet in my living room. I would simply let you examine my living room. After all, if no crime was committed, why would I want to alter the room?

There was no blood on the walls or ceiling and the police removed a six foot long by five feet wide piece of carpeting.

How do you know there was no blood on the walls or the ceiling?

I don't know. But the parents claimed, "There was no blood on the walls or ceiling".

Wow. You put quote marks around There was no blood on the walls or ceiling as if you were quoting actual words uttered by the parents. Nice.

So because the parents allegedly said there was no blood on the walls or ceiling you launch into speculation the crime scene was tampered with? Let's say for the sake of argument they said that. Are these distraught parents experienced at evaluating a crime scene? Did the spray luminol and look for fine traces of blood? Can you say for certain that the crime scene was preserved exactly the way it was when the police were finished processing the crime scene.

I see no objectivity on your part.

It does appear that the issue of the apartment crime scene has touched some kind of nerve. It's resulted in some tag-team debunking efforts. And some mysterious drive-by starring for those efforts.

It is a strange part of the case. And, absent the so-called "manifesto", it would look even stranger.