It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

California Shootings Elliot Rodger Conspiracy.

page: 46
72
<< 43  44  45    47 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 04:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Moresby
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.
"tag team debunking efforts". I love it. When you cant counter the argument, try to discredit the person making it.

There is not "debunking" going on here. There is calling out of outright lies and misrepresentations of the truth. The claims being made are, at most, baseless conjecture, or, more likely, intentional misrepresentations of the truth.

That you would try to spin this and make it about the people pointing out the fact that the claims being made by posters are not backed by ANYTHING is certainly curious....




posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 05:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: captaintyinknots

originally posted by: Moresby
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.
"tag team debunking efforts". I love it. When you cant counter the argument, try to discredit the person making it.

There is not "debunking" going on here. There is calling out of outright lies and misrepresentations of the truth. The claims being made are, at most, baseless conjecture, or, more likely, intentional misrepresentations of the truth.

That you would try to spin this and make it about the people pointing out the fact that the claims being made by posters are not backed by ANYTHING is certainly curious....


I don't know what that's all about.

But I do know the parents found the crime scene bizarre. And it caused them to question Elliot Rodger's role.

"How did one boy do this?" one of the parents asked.

Then right after these notions enter the thread. In trot a couple of debunkers, using thread clogging tactics to obfuscate these facts.

But the parent's question is a good one:

"How did one boy do this?"

The police have yet to offer an answer. And, given the parent's description of the crime scene, a fairly detailed answer is required.



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 05:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Moresby

originally posted by: captaintyinknots

originally posted by: Moresby
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.
"tag team debunking efforts". I love it. When you cant counter the argument, try to discredit the person making it.

There is not "debunking" going on here. There is calling out of outright lies and misrepresentations of the truth. The claims being made are, at most, baseless conjecture, or, more likely, intentional misrepresentations of the truth.

That you would try to spin this and make it about the people pointing out the fact that the claims being made by posters are not backed by ANYTHING is certainly curious....


I don't know what that's all about.

But I do know the parents found the crime scene bizarre. And it caused them to question Elliot Rodger's role.

"How did one boy do this?" one of the parents asked.

Then right after these notions enter the thread. In trot a couple of debunkers, using thread clogging tactics to obfuscate these facts.

But the parent's question is a good one:

"How did one boy do this?"

The police have yet to offer an answer. And, given the parent's description of the crime scene, a fairly detailed answer is required.






Why do we need answers? No one has proven any misconduct on the part of those who conducted the crime scene investigation at the apartment.
edit on 23-6-2014 by RKWWWW because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 05:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: RKWWWW

originally posted by: Moresby

originally posted by: captaintyinknots

originally posted by: Moresby
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.
"tag team debunking efforts". I love it. When you cant counter the argument, try to discredit the person making it.

There is not "debunking" going on here. There is calling out of outright lies and misrepresentations of the truth. The claims being made are, at most, baseless conjecture, or, more likely, intentional misrepresentations of the truth.

That you would try to spin this and make it about the people pointing out the fact that the claims being made by posters are not backed by ANYTHING is certainly curious....


I don't know what that's all about.

But I do know the parents found the crime scene bizarre. And it caused them to question Elliot Rodger's role.

"How did one boy do this?" one of the parents asked.

Then right after these notions enter the thread. In trot a couple of debunkers, using thread clogging tactics to obfuscate these facts.

But the parent's question is a good one:

"How did one boy do this?"

The police have yet to offer an answer. And, given the parent's description of the crime scene, a fairly detailed answer is required.






Why do we need answers. You've not pointed out any misconduct on the part of those who conducted the crime scene investigation.


This is classic thread-clogging. You know that isn't an appropriate question. Obviously, cops do an investigation to provide answers on how a crime occurred. Just a page ago you seemed to be lauding their brilliant investigative technique.

The important point remains:

The parents saw the crime scene. They thought it was bizarre. There didn't seem to be enough blood. The murders seemed to be committed in too small an area(s). It forced one of them to ask the question:

"How did one boy do this?"

This wasn't a conspiracy theorist asking this question. Nor some anonymous blogger who'd never been near the scene. This was the parent of one of the victims who said this after visiting the crime scene. He saw what they showed him and said:

"How did one boy do this?"

A question the cops still haven't answered. They've made all kinds of supposition-based statements about Rodger's actions elsewhere. But not there.

"How did one boy do this?

They haven't answered that question. Not privately to the parents. Or publicly to the press.
edit on 23-6-2014 by Moresby because: He had something else to say.



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 06:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Moresby

originally posted by: RKWWWW

originally posted by: Moresby

originally posted by: captaintyinknots

originally posted by: Moresby
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.
"tag team debunking efforts". I love it. When you cant counter the argument, try to discredit the person making it.

There is not "debunking" going on here. There is calling out of outright lies and misrepresentations of the truth. The claims being made are, at most, baseless conjecture, or, more likely, intentional misrepresentations of the truth.

That you would try to spin this and make it about the people pointing out the fact that the claims being made by posters are not backed by ANYTHING is certainly curious....


I don't know what that's all about.

But I do know the parents found the crime scene bizarre. And it caused them to question Elliot Rodger's role.

"How did one boy do this?" one of the parents asked.

Then right after these notions enter the thread. In trot a couple of debunkers, using thread clogging tactics to obfuscate these facts.

But the parent's question is a good one:

"How did one boy do this?"

The police have yet to offer an answer. And, given the parent's description of the crime scene, a fairly detailed answer is required.






Why do we need answers. You've not pointed out any misconduct on the part of those who conducted the crime scene investigation.


This is classic thread-clogging. You know that isn't an appropriate question. Obviously, cops do an investigation to provide answers on how a crime occurred. Just a page ago you seemed to be lauding their brilliant investigative technique.

The important point remains:

The parents saw the crime scene. They thought it was bizarre. There didn't seem to be enough blood. The murders seemed to be committed in too small an area(s). It forced one of them to ask the question:

"How did one boy do this?"

This wasn't a conspiracy theorist asking this question. Nor some anonymous blogger who'd never been near the scene. This was the parent of one of the victims who said this after visiting the crime scene. He saw what they showed him and said:

"How did one boy do this?"

A question the cops still haven't answered. They've made all kinds of supposition-based statements about Rodger's actions elsewhere. But not there.

"How did one boy do this?

They haven't answered that question. Not privately to the parents. Or publicly to the press.


Does that seem like a reasonable way to evaluate the integrity of a crime scene investigation? To let the emotionaly wrought, bereaved parents of the victim walk through the crime scene after the the investigation has been conducted and observe their reactions?
edit on 23-6-2014 by RKWWWW because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 06:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: RKWWWW

originally posted by: Moresby

originally posted by: RKWWWW

originally posted by: Moresby

originally posted by: captaintyinknots

originally posted by: Moresby
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.
"tag team debunking efforts". I love it. When you cant counter the argument, try to discredit the person making it.

There is not "debunking" going on here. There is calling out of outright lies and misrepresentations of the truth. The claims being made are, at most, baseless conjecture, or, more likely, intentional misrepresentations of the truth.

That you would try to spin this and make it about the people pointing out the fact that the claims being made by posters are not backed by ANYTHING is certainly curious....


I don't know what that's all about.

But I do know the parents found the crime scene bizarre. And it caused them to question Elliot Rodger's role.

"How did one boy do this?" one of the parents asked.

Then right after these notions enter the thread. In trot a couple of debunkers, using thread clogging tactics to obfuscate these facts.

But the parent's question is a good one:

"How did one boy do this?"

The police have yet to offer an answer. And, given the parent's description of the crime scene, a fairly detailed answer is required.






Why do we need answers. You've not pointed out any misconduct on the part of those who conducted the crime scene investigation.


This is classic thread-clogging. You know that isn't an appropriate question. Obviously, cops do an investigation to provide answers on how a crime occurred. Just a page ago you seemed to be lauding their brilliant investigative technique.

The important point remains:

The parents saw the crime scene. They thought it was bizarre. There didn't seem to be enough blood. The murders seemed to be committed in too small an area(s). It forced one of them to ask the question:

"How did one boy do this?"

This wasn't a conspiracy theorist asking this question. Nor some anonymous blogger who'd never been near the scene. This was the parent of one of the victims who said this after visiting the crime scene. He saw what they showed him and said:

"How did one boy do this?"

A question the cops still haven't answered. They've made all kinds of supposition-based statements about Rodger's actions elsewhere. But not there.

"How did one boy do this?

They haven't answered that question. Not privately to the parents. Or publicly to the press.


Does that seem like a reasonable way to evaluate the integrity of a crime scene investigation? To let the emotionaly wrought, bereaved parents of the victim walk through the crime scene after the the investigation has been conducted and observe their reactions?


Non-responsive.

Have the police adequately explained the events?

"How did one boy do this?"

It's interesting how when the victims families make political statements the official story crowd all rush to their defense. When they ask hard questions? Not so much.



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 06:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Moresby

originally posted by: RKWWWW

originally posted by: Moresby

originally posted by: RKWWWW

originally posted by: Moresby

originally posted by: captaintyinknots

originally posted by: Moresby
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.
"tag team debunking efforts". I love it. When you cant counter the argument, try to discredit the person making it.

There is not "debunking" going on here. There is calling out of outright lies and misrepresentations of the truth. The claims being made are, at most, baseless conjecture, or, more likely, intentional misrepresentations of the truth.

That you would try to spin this and make it about the people pointing out the fact that the claims being made by posters are not backed by ANYTHING is certainly curious....


I don't know what that's all about.

But I do know the parents found the crime scene bizarre. And it caused them to question Elliot Rodger's role.

"How did one boy do this?" one of the parents asked.

Then right after these notions enter the thread. In trot a couple of debunkers, using thread clogging tactics to obfuscate these facts.

But the parent's question is a good one:

"How did one boy do this?"

The police have yet to offer an answer. And, given the parent's description of the crime scene, a fairly detailed answer is required.






Why do we need answers. You've not pointed out any misconduct on the part of those who conducted the crime scene investigation.


This is classic thread-clogging. You know that isn't an appropriate question. Obviously, cops do an investigation to provide answers on how a crime occurred. Just a page ago you seemed to be lauding their brilliant investigative technique.

The important point remains:

The parents saw the crime scene. They thought it was bizarre. There didn't seem to be enough blood. The murders seemed to be committed in too small an area(s). It forced one of them to ask the question:

"How did one boy do this?"

This wasn't a conspiracy theorist asking this question. Nor some anonymous blogger who'd never been near the scene. This was the parent of one of the victims who said this after visiting the crime scene. He saw what they showed him and said:

"How did one boy do this?"

A question the cops still haven't answered. They've made all kinds of supposition-based statements about Rodger's actions elsewhere. But not there.

"How did one boy do this?

They haven't answered that question. Not privately to the parents. Or publicly to the press.


Does that seem like a reasonable way to evaluate the integrity of a crime scene investigation? To let the emotionaly wrought, bereaved parents of the victim walk through the crime scene after the the investigation has been conducted and observe their reactions?


Non-responsive.

Have the police adequately explained the events?

"How did one boy do this?"

It's interesting how when the victims families make political statements the official story crowd all rush to their defense. When they ask hard questions? Not so much.




The boy who lived upstairs also said he could not figure out how he would not have heard some noise but he heard nothing.



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 06:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Moresby

originally posted by: RKWWWW

originally posted by: Moresby

originally posted by: RKWWWW

originally posted by: Moresby

originally posted by: captaintyinknots

originally posted by: Moresby
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.
"tag team debunking efforts". I love it. When you cant counter the argument, try to discredit the person making it.

There is not "debunking" going on here. There is calling out of outright lies and misrepresentations of the truth. The claims being made are, at most, baseless conjecture, or, more likely, intentional misrepresentations of the truth.

That you would try to spin this and make it about the people pointing out the fact that the claims being made by posters are not backed by ANYTHING is certainly curious....


I don't know what that's all about.

But I do know the parents found the crime scene bizarre. And it caused them to question Elliot Rodger's role.

"How did one boy do this?" one of the parents asked.

Then right after these notions enter the thread. In trot a couple of debunkers, using thread clogging tactics to obfuscate these facts.

But the parent's question is a good one:

"How did one boy do this?"

The police have yet to offer an answer. And, given the parent's description of the crime scene, a fairly detailed answer is required.






Why do we need answers. You've not pointed out any misconduct on the part of those who conducted the crime scene investigation.


This is classic thread-clogging. You know that isn't an appropriate question. Obviously, cops do an investigation to provide answers on how a crime occurred. Just a page ago you seemed to be lauding their brilliant investigative technique.

The important point remains:

The parents saw the crime scene. They thought it was bizarre. There didn't seem to be enough blood. The murders seemed to be committed in too small an area(s). It forced one of them to ask the question:

"How did one boy do this?"

This wasn't a conspiracy theorist asking this question. Nor some anonymous blogger who'd never been near the scene. This was the parent of one of the victims who said this after visiting the crime scene. He saw what they showed him and said:

"How did one boy do this?"

A question the cops still haven't answered. They've made all kinds of supposition-based statements about Rodger's actions elsewhere. But not there.

"How did one boy do this?

They haven't answered that question. Not privately to the parents. Or publicly to the press.


Does that seem like a reasonable way to evaluate the integrity of a crime scene investigation? To let the emotionaly wrought, bereaved parents of the victim walk through the crime scene after the the investigation has been conducted and observe their reactions?


Non-responsive.

Have the police adequately explained the events?

"How did one boy do this?"

It's interesting how when the victims families make political statements the official story crowd all rush to their defense. When they ask hard questions? Not so much.




Are the police required to make public responses to every speculation about a criminal case?

Police reports are public record. Have you read it? . That's what someone who was genuinely concerned about the apartment crime scene would do.



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 06:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Char-Lee

originally posted by: Moresby

originally posted by: RKWWWW

originally posted by: Moresby

originally posted by: RKWWWW

originally posted by: Moresby

originally posted by: captaintyinknots

originally posted by: Moresby
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.
"tag team debunking efforts". I love it. When you cant counter the argument, try to discredit the person making it.

There is not "debunking" going on here. There is calling out of outright lies and misrepresentations of the truth. The claims being made are, at most, baseless conjecture, or, more likely, intentional misrepresentations of the truth.

That you would try to spin this and make it about the people pointing out the fact that the claims being made by posters are not backed by ANYTHING is certainly curious....


I don't know what that's all about.

But I do know the parents found the crime scene bizarre. And it caused them to question Elliot Rodger's role.

"How did one boy do this?" one of the parents asked.

Then right after these notions enter the thread. In trot a couple of debunkers, using thread clogging tactics to obfuscate these facts.

But the parent's question is a good one:

"How did one boy do this?"

The police have yet to offer an answer. And, given the parent's description of the crime scene, a fairly detailed answer is required.






Why do we need answers. You've not pointed out any misconduct on the part of those who conducted the crime scene investigation.


This is classic thread-clogging. You know that isn't an appropriate question. Obviously, cops do an investigation to provide answers on how a crime occurred. Just a page ago you seemed to be lauding their brilliant investigative technique.

The important point remains:

The parents saw the crime scene. They thought it was bizarre. There didn't seem to be enough blood. The murders seemed to be committed in too small an area(s). It forced one of them to ask the question:

"How did one boy do this?"

This wasn't a conspiracy theorist asking this question. Nor some anonymous blogger who'd never been near the scene. This was the parent of one of the victims who said this after visiting the crime scene. He saw what they showed him and said:

"How did one boy do this?"

A question the cops still haven't answered. They've made all kinds of supposition-based statements about Rodger's actions elsewhere. But not there.

"How did one boy do this?

They haven't answered that question. Not privately to the parents. Or publicly to the press.


Does that seem like a reasonable way to evaluate the integrity of a crime scene investigation? To let the emotionaly wrought, bereaved parents of the victim walk through the crime scene after the the investigation has been conducted and observe their reactions?


Non-responsive.

Have the police adequately explained the events?

"How did one boy do this?"

It's interesting how when the victims families make political statements the official story crowd all rush to their defense. When they ask hard questions? Not so much.




The boy who lived upstairs also said he could not figure out how he would not have heard some noise but he heard nothing.


The police interviewed him and concluded he couldn't have heard it.



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 06:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Moresby




"How did one boy do this?" This wasn't a conspiracy theorist asking this question. Nor some anonymous blogger who'd never been near the scene. This was the parent of one of the victims who said this after visiting the crime scene. He saw what they showed him and said: "How did one boy do this?"
If you'll take a second, this has nothing to do with any claim ive made. There is a difference between asking this question, and making claims such as "the police took every inch of carpet that had blood on it" or "the police removed the carpet to cover something up".

Tell me you see the difference....one is a legitimate question. The other two are baseless conjecture molded to fit a certain narrative.

That said, Im not too convinced the parents would know what a multiple-murder crime scene should look like. Movies and tv would have people believe they'd be ankle deep in blood in such a situation. When the reality is much less gory, most of the time.

I think its a legitimate question they ask. But their asking it does not count as evidence of a conspiracy.
edit on 23-6-2014 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 06:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Moresby




It's interesting how when the victims families make political statements the official story crowd all rush to their defense. When they ask hard questions? Not so much.
I see you're continuing with the attempt to turn this conversation on those questioning false narratives then to answering the questions. Why is this? Why is it that none of you who seem convinced that there is a conspiracy cant simply stick to actual, legitimate debate and facts? I wonder.....

You should have a look through my posting history before making silly claims like this. It doesnt help your case, and shows that you are willing to make up what you want to try and make a point.

Strawman is the term.



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 06:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: RKWWWW

originally posted by: Char-Lee

originally posted by: Moresby

originally posted by: RKWWWW

originally posted by: Moresby

originally posted by: RKWWWW

originally posted by: Moresby

originally posted by: captaintyinknots

originally posted by: Moresby
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.
"tag team debunking efforts". I love it. When you cant counter the argument, try to discredit the person making it.

There is not "debunking" going on here. There is calling out of outright lies and misrepresentations of the truth. The claims being made are, at most, baseless conjecture, or, more likely, intentional misrepresentations of the truth.

That you would try to spin this and make it about the people pointing out the fact that the claims being made by posters are not backed by ANYTHING is certainly curious....


I don't know what that's all about.

But I do know the parents found the crime scene bizarre. And it caused them to question Elliot Rodger's role.

"How did one boy do this?" one of the parents asked.

Then right after these notions enter the thread. In trot a couple of debunkers, using thread clogging tactics to obfuscate these facts.

But the parent's question is a good one:

"How did one boy do this?"

The police have yet to offer an answer. And, given the parent's description of the crime scene, a fairly detailed answer is required.






Why do we need answers. You've not pointed out any misconduct on the part of those who conducted the crime scene investigation.


This is classic thread-clogging. You know that isn't an appropriate question. Obviously, cops do an investigation to provide answers on how a crime occurred. Just a page ago you seemed to be lauding their brilliant investigative technique.

The important point remains:

The parents saw the crime scene. They thought it was bizarre. There didn't seem to be enough blood. The murders seemed to be committed in too small an area(s). It forced one of them to ask the question:

"How did one boy do this?"

This wasn't a conspiracy theorist asking this question. Nor some anonymous blogger who'd never been near the scene. This was the parent of one of the victims who said this after visiting the crime scene. He saw what they showed him and said:

"How did one boy do this?"

A question the cops still haven't answered. They've made all kinds of supposition-based statements about Rodger's actions elsewhere. But not there.

"How did one boy do this?

They haven't answered that question. Not privately to the parents. Or publicly to the press.


Does that seem like a reasonable way to evaluate the integrity of a crime scene investigation? To let the emotionaly wrought, bereaved parents of the victim walk through the crime scene after the the investigation has been conducted and observe their reactions?


Non-responsive.

Have the police adequately explained the events?

"How did one boy do this?"

It's interesting how when the victims families make political statements the official story crowd all rush to their defense. When they ask hard questions? Not so much.




The boy who lived upstairs also said he could not figure out how he would not have heard some noise but he heard nothing.


The police interviewed him and concluded he couldn't have heard it.


Yes well he said lives there and said he should have heard it...I have not seen the police info but I would think he should know if he can normally hear what happens in the apartment below him or not.



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 07:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Char-Lee

originally posted by: RKWWWW

originally posted by: Char-Lee

originally posted by: Moresby

originally posted by: RKWWWW

originally posted by: Moresby

originally posted by: RKWWWW

originally posted by: Moresby

originally posted by: captaintyinknots

originally posted by: Moresby
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.
"tag team debunking efforts". I love it. When you cant counter the argument, try to discredit the person making it.

There is not "debunking" going on here. There is calling out of outright lies and misrepresentations of the truth. The claims being made are, at most, baseless conjecture, or, more likely, intentional misrepresentations of the truth.

That you would try to spin this and make it about the people pointing out the fact that the claims being made by posters are not backed by ANYTHING is certainly curious....


I don't know what that's all about.

But I do know the parents found the crime scene bizarre. And it caused them to question Elliot Rodger's role.

"How did one boy do this?" one of the parents asked.

Then right after these notions enter the thread. In trot a couple of debunkers, using thread clogging tactics to obfuscate these facts.

But the parent's question is a good one:

"How did one boy do this?"

The police have yet to offer an answer. And, given the parent's description of the crime scene, a fairly detailed answer is required.






Why do we need answers. You've not pointed out any misconduct on the part of those who conducted the crime scene investigation.


This is classic thread-clogging. You know that isn't an appropriate question. Obviously, cops do an investigation to provide answers on how a crime occurred. Just a page ago you seemed to be lauding their brilliant investigative technique.

The important point remains:

The parents saw the crime scene. They thought it was bizarre. There didn't seem to be enough blood. The murders seemed to be committed in too small an area(s). It forced one of them to ask the question:

"How did one boy do this?"

This wasn't a conspiracy theorist asking this question. Nor some anonymous blogger who'd never been near the scene. This was the parent of one of the victims who said this after visiting the crime scene. He saw what they showed him and said:

"How did one boy do this?"

A question the cops still haven't answered. They've made all kinds of supposition-based statements about Rodger's actions elsewhere. But not there.

"How did one boy do this?

They haven't answered that question. Not privately to the parents. Or publicly to the press.


Does that seem like a reasonable way to evaluate the integrity of a crime scene investigation? To let the emotionaly wrought, bereaved parents of the victim walk through the crime scene after the the investigation has been conducted and observe their reactions?


Non-responsive.

Have the police adequately explained the events?

"How did one boy do this?"

It's interesting how when the victims families make political statements the official story crowd all rush to their defense. When they ask hard questions? Not so much.




The boy who lived upstairs also said he could not figure out how he would not have heard some noise but he heard nothing.


The police interviewed him and concluded he couldn't have heard it.


Yes well he said lives there and said he should have heard it...I have not seen the police info but I would think he should know if he can normally hear what happens in the apartment below him or not.


The police said he was almost legally deaf.



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 07:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Char-Lee

originally posted by: RKWWWW

originally posted by: Char-Lee

originally posted by: Moresby

originally posted by: RKWWWW

originally posted by: Moresby

originally posted by: RKWWWW

originally posted by: Moresby

originally posted by: captaintyinknots

originally posted by: Moresby
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.
"tag team debunking efforts". I love it. When you cant counter the argument, try to discredit the person making it.

There is not "debunking" going on here. There is calling out of outright lies and misrepresentations of the truth. The claims being made are, at most, baseless conjecture, or, more likely, intentional misrepresentations of the truth.

That you would try to spin this and make it about the people pointing out the fact that the claims being made by posters are not backed by ANYTHING is certainly curious....


I don't know what that's all about.

But I do know the parents found the crime scene bizarre. And it caused them to question Elliot Rodger's role.

"How did one boy do this?" one of the parents asked.

Then right after these notions enter the thread. In trot a couple of debunkers, using thread clogging tactics to obfuscate these facts.

But the parent's question is a good one:

"How did one boy do this?"

The police have yet to offer an answer. And, given the parent's description of the crime scene, a fairly detailed answer is required.






Why do we need answers. You've not pointed out any misconduct on the part of those who conducted the crime scene investigation.


This is classic thread-clogging. You know that isn't an appropriate question. Obviously, cops do an investigation to provide answers on how a crime occurred. Just a page ago you seemed to be lauding their brilliant investigative technique.

The important point remains:

The parents saw the crime scene. They thought it was bizarre. There didn't seem to be enough blood. The murders seemed to be committed in too small an area(s). It forced one of them to ask the question:

"How did one boy do this?"

This wasn't a conspiracy theorist asking this question. Nor some anonymous blogger who'd never been near the scene. This was the parent of one of the victims who said this after visiting the crime scene. He saw what they showed him and said:

"How did one boy do this?"

A question the cops still haven't answered. They've made all kinds of supposition-based statements about Rodger's actions elsewhere. But not there.

"How did one boy do this?

They haven't answered that question. Not privately to the parents. Or publicly to the press.


Does that seem like a reasonable way to evaluate the integrity of a crime scene investigation? To let the emotionaly wrought, bereaved parents of the victim walk through the crime scene after the the investigation has been conducted and observe their reactions?


Non-responsive.

Have the police adequately explained the events?

"How did one boy do this?"

It's interesting how when the victims families make political statements the official story crowd all rush to their defense. When they ask hard questions? Not so much.




The boy who lived upstairs also said he could not figure out how he would not have heard some noise but he heard nothing.


The police interviewed him and concluded he couldn't have heard it.


Yes well he said lives there and said he should have heard it...I have not seen the police info but I would think he should know if he can normally hear what happens in the apartment below him or not.


Yes. One would think.

It's also curious that the police lied several times about their response time. And finally claimed they didn't know when they had responded.

There are a lot of questions that need to be answered.



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 07:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Moresby

originally posted by: Char-Lee

originally posted by: RKWWWW

originally posted by: Char-Lee

originally posted by: Moresby

originally posted by: RKWWWW

originally posted by: Moresby

originally posted by: RKWWWW

originally posted by: Moresby

originally posted by: captaintyinknots

originally posted by: Moresby
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.
"tag team debunking efforts". I love it. When you cant counter the argument, try to discredit the person making it.

There is not "debunking" going on here. There is calling out of outright lies and misrepresentations of the truth. The claims being made are, at most, baseless conjecture, or, more likely, intentional misrepresentations of the truth.

That you would try to spin this and make it about the people pointing out the fact that the claims being made by posters are not backed by ANYTHING is certainly curious....


I don't know what that's all about.

But I do know the parents found the crime scene bizarre. And it caused them to question Elliot Rodger's role.

"How did one boy do this?" one of the parents asked.

Then right after these notions enter the thread. In trot a couple of debunkers, using thread clogging tactics to obfuscate these facts.

But the parent's question is a good one:

"How did one boy do this?"

The police have yet to offer an answer. And, given the parent's description of the crime scene, a fairly detailed answer is required.






Why do we need answers. You've not pointed out any misconduct on the part of those who conducted the crime scene investigation.


This is classic thread-clogging. You know that isn't an appropriate question. Obviously, cops do an investigation to provide answers on how a crime occurred. Just a page ago you seemed to be lauding their brilliant investigative technique.

The important point remains:

The parents saw the crime scene. They thought it was bizarre. There didn't seem to be enough blood. The murders seemed to be committed in too small an area(s). It forced one of them to ask the question:

"How did one boy do this?"

This wasn't a conspiracy theorist asking this question. Nor some anonymous blogger who'd never been near the scene. This was the parent of one of the victims who said this after visiting the crime scene. He saw what they showed him and said:

"How did one boy do this?"

A question the cops still haven't answered. They've made all kinds of supposition-based statements about Rodger's actions elsewhere. But not there.

"How did one boy do this?

They haven't answered that question. Not privately to the parents. Or publicly to the press.


Does that seem like a reasonable way to evaluate the integrity of a crime scene investigation? To let the emotionaly wrought, bereaved parents of the victim walk through the crime scene after the the investigation has been conducted and observe their reactions?


Non-responsive.

Have the police adequately explained the events?

"How did one boy do this?"

It's interesting how when the victims families make political statements the official story crowd all rush to their defense. When they ask hard questions? Not so much.




The boy who lived upstairs also said he could not figure out how he would not have heard some noise but he heard nothing.


The police interviewed him and concluded he couldn't have heard it.


Yes well he said lives there and said he should have heard it...I have not seen the police info but I would think he should know if he can normally hear what happens in the apartment below him or not.




It's also curious that the police lied several times about their response time. And finally claimed they didn't know when they had responded.


That makes no sense. Dispatch and response times are time stamped in the system.



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 08:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: RKWWWW

originally posted by: Moresby

originally posted by: Char-Lee

originally posted by: RKWWWW

originally posted by: Char-Lee

originally posted by: Moresby

originally posted by: RKWWWW

originally posted by: Moresby

originally posted by: RKWWWW

originally posted by: Moresby

originally posted by: captaintyinknots

originally posted by: Moresby
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.
"tag team debunking efforts". I love it. When you cant counter the argument, try to discredit the person making it.

There is not "debunking" going on here. There is calling out of outright lies and misrepresentations of the truth. The claims being made are, at most, baseless conjecture, or, more likely, intentional misrepresentations of the truth.

That you would try to spin this and make it about the people pointing out the fact that the claims being made by posters are not backed by ANYTHING is certainly curious....


I don't know what that's all about.

But I do know the parents found the crime scene bizarre. And it caused them to question Elliot Rodger's role.

"How did one boy do this?" one of the parents asked.

Then right after these notions enter the thread. In trot a couple of debunkers, using thread clogging tactics to obfuscate these facts.

But the parent's question is a good one:

"How did one boy do this?"

The police have yet to offer an answer. And, given the parent's description of the crime scene, a fairly detailed answer is required.






Why do we need answers. You've not pointed out any misconduct on the part of those who conducted the crime scene investigation.


This is classic thread-clogging. You know that isn't an appropriate question. Obviously, cops do an investigation to provide answers on how a crime occurred. Just a page ago you seemed to be lauding their brilliant investigative technique.

The important point remains:

The parents saw the crime scene. They thought it was bizarre. There didn't seem to be enough blood. The murders seemed to be committed in too small an area(s). It forced one of them to ask the question:

"How did one boy do this?"

This wasn't a conspiracy theorist asking this question. Nor some anonymous blogger who'd never been near the scene. This was the parent of one of the victims who said this after visiting the crime scene. He saw what they showed him and said:

"How did one boy do this?"

A question the cops still haven't answered. They've made all kinds of supposition-based statements about Rodger's actions elsewhere. But not there.

"How did one boy do this?

They haven't answered that question. Not privately to the parents. Or publicly to the press.


Does that seem like a reasonable way to evaluate the integrity of a crime scene investigation? To let the emotionaly wrought, bereaved parents of the victim walk through the crime scene after the the investigation has been conducted and observe their reactions?


Non-responsive.

Have the police adequately explained the events?

"How did one boy do this?"

It's interesting how when the victims families make political statements the official story crowd all rush to their defense. When they ask hard questions? Not so much.




The boy who lived upstairs also said he could not figure out how he would not have heard some noise but he heard nothing.


The police interviewed him and concluded he couldn't have heard it.


Yes well he said lives there and said he should have heard it...I have not seen the police info but I would think he should know if he can normally hear what happens in the apartment below him or not.




It's also curious that the police lied several times about their response time. And finally claimed they didn't know when they had responded.


That makes no sense. Dispatch and response times are time stamped in the system.


So you have questions for the police as well:


The parents said the apartment manager called 911 on the evening of May 23 after receiving a copy of the manifesto, in which Rodger said he planned to start by killing his roommates, and asked deputies to come to the complex. But the manager said no one entered the apartment until well after midnight, the parents said.

Hoover, the sheriff's department spokeswoman, would not say when deputies ultimately entered the apartment, saying, "There were a lot of moving parts that evening; there was a lot to consider when responding to the location."

When the families met privately with Brown on the Monday after the rampage, they asked about the response time. The parents said at first he said "within an hour." When pressed, they said, he finally acknowledged that he wasn't sure.


Source.

Strangely, this section was in the original AP story. But it was subsequently cut. It took me awhile to find an source that still had the original section.
edit on 23-6-2014 by Moresby because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 08:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Moresby

originally posted by: RKWWWW

originally posted by: Moresby

originally posted by: Char-Lee

originally posted by: RKWWWW

originally posted by: Char-Lee

originally posted by: Moresby

originally posted by: RKWWWW

originally posted by: Moresby

originally posted by: RKWWWW

originally posted by: Moresby

originally posted by: captaintyinknots

originally posted by: Moresby
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.
"tag team debunking efforts". I love it. When you cant counter the argument, try to discredit the person making it.

There is not "debunking" going on here. There is calling out of outright lies and misrepresentations of the truth. The claims being made are, at most, baseless conjecture, or, more likely, intentional misrepresentations of the truth.

That you would try to spin this and make it about the people pointing out the fact that the claims being made by posters are not backed by ANYTHING is certainly curious....


I don't know what that's all about.

But I do know the parents found the crime scene bizarre. And it caused them to question Elliot Rodger's role.

"How did one boy do this?" one of the parents asked.

Then right after these notions enter the thread. In trot a couple of debunkers, using thread clogging tactics to obfuscate these facts.

But the parent's question is a good one:

"How did one boy do this?"

The police have yet to offer an answer. And, given the parent's description of the crime scene, a fairly detailed answer is required.






Why do we need answers. You've not pointed out any misconduct on the part of those who conducted the crime scene investigation.


This is classic thread-clogging. You know that isn't an appropriate question. Obviously, cops do an investigation to provide answers on how a crime occurred. Just a page ago you seemed to be lauding their brilliant investigative technique.

The important point remains:

The parents saw the crime scene. They thought it was bizarre. There didn't seem to be enough blood. The murders seemed to be committed in too small an area(s). It forced one of them to ask the question:

"How did one boy do this?"

This wasn't a conspiracy theorist asking this question. Nor some anonymous blogger who'd never been near the scene. This was the parent of one of the victims who said this after visiting the crime scene. He saw what they showed him and said:

"How did one boy do this?"

A question the cops still haven't answered. They've made all kinds of supposition-based statements about Rodger's actions elsewhere. But not there.

"How did one boy do this?

They haven't answered that question. Not privately to the parents. Or publicly to the press.


Does that seem like a reasonable way to evaluate the integrity of a crime scene investigation? To let the emotionaly wrought, bereaved parents of the victim walk through the crime scene after the the investigation has been conducted and observe their reactions?


Non-responsive.

Have the police adequately explained the events?

"How did one boy do this?"

It's interesting how when the victims families make political statements the official story crowd all rush to their defense. When they ask hard questions? Not so much.




The boy who lived upstairs also said he could not figure out how he would not have heard some noise but he heard nothing.


The police interviewed him and concluded he couldn't have heard it.


Yes well he said lives there and said he should have heard it...I have not seen the police info but I would think he should know if he can normally hear what happens in the apartment below him or not.




It's also curious that the police lied several times about their response time. And finally claimed they didn't know when they had responded.


That makes no sense. Dispatch and response times are time stamped in the system.


So you have questions for the police as well:


The parents said the apartment manager called 911 on the evening of May 23 after receiving a copy of the manifesto, in which Rodger said he planned to start by killing his roommates, and asked deputies to come to the complex. But the manager said no one entered the apartment until well after midnight, the parents said.

Hoover, the sheriff's department spokeswoman, would not say when deputies ultimately entered the apartment, saying, "There were a lot of moving parts that evening; there was a lot to consider when responding to the location."

When the families met privately with Brown on the Monday after the rampage, they asked about the response time. The parents said at first he said "within an hour." When pressed, they said, he finally acknowledged that he wasn't sure.


Source.

Strangely, this section was in the original AP story. But it was subsequently cut. It took me awhile to find an source that still had the original section.


One must be careful not to assume that inaccuracies in the after incident reports mean there was a grand conspiracy. There is inherently an incredible amount of chaos during an event like this. It is perfectly possible that Brown was talking out his ass and when pressed he admitted he didn't know the response time. But that doesn't mean the response time is not known, in fact I'm certain it's known. Who can say that the response time was not provided by the police subsequent to Brown's admission he didn't know?
edit on 23-6-2014 by RKWWWW because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 09:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: RKWWWW

originally posted by: Moresby

originally posted by: RKWWWW

originally posted by: Moresby

originally posted by: Char-Lee

originally posted by: RKWWWW

originally posted by: Char-Lee

originally posted by: Moresby

originally posted by: RKWWWW

originally posted by: Moresby

originally posted by: RKWWWW

originally posted by: Moresby

originally posted by: captaintyinknots

originally posted by: Moresby
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.
"tag team debunking efforts". I love it. When you cant counter the argument, try to discredit the person making it.

There is not "debunking" going on here. There is calling out of outright lies and misrepresentations of the truth. The claims being made are, at most, baseless conjecture, or, more likely, intentional misrepresentations of the truth.

That you would try to spin this and make it about the people pointing out the fact that the claims being made by posters are not backed by ANYTHING is certainly curious....


I don't know what that's all about.

But I do know the parents found the crime scene bizarre. And it caused them to question Elliot Rodger's role.

"How did one boy do this?" one of the parents asked.

Then right after these notions enter the thread. In trot a couple of debunkers, using thread clogging tactics to obfuscate these facts.

But the parent's question is a good one:

"How did one boy do this?"

The police have yet to offer an answer. And, given the parent's description of the crime scene, a fairly detailed answer is required.






Why do we need answers. You've not pointed out any misconduct on the part of those who conducted the crime scene investigation.


This is classic thread-clogging. You know that isn't an appropriate question. Obviously, cops do an investigation to provide answers on how a crime occurred. Just a page ago you seemed to be lauding their brilliant investigative technique.

The important point remains:

The parents saw the crime scene. They thought it was bizarre. There didn't seem to be enough blood. The murders seemed to be committed in too small an area(s). It forced one of them to ask the question:

"How did one boy do this?"

This wasn't a conspiracy theorist asking this question. Nor some anonymous blogger who'd never been near the scene. This was the parent of one of the victims who said this after visiting the crime scene. He saw what they showed him and said:

"How did one boy do this?"

A question the cops still haven't answered. They've made all kinds of supposition-based statements about Rodger's actions elsewhere. But not there.

"How did one boy do this?

They haven't answered that question. Not privately to the parents. Or publicly to the press.


Does that seem like a reasonable way to evaluate the integrity of a crime scene investigation? To let the emotionaly wrought, bereaved parents of the victim walk through the crime scene after the the investigation has been conducted and observe their reactions?


Non-responsive.

Have the police adequately explained the events?

"How did one boy do this?"

It's interesting how when the victims families make political statements the official story crowd all rush to their defense. When they ask hard questions? Not so much.




The boy who lived upstairs also said he could not figure out how he would not have heard some noise but he heard nothing.


The police interviewed him and concluded he couldn't have heard it.


Yes well he said lives there and said he should have heard it...I have not seen the police info but I would think he should know if he can normally hear what happens in the apartment below him or not.




It's also curious that the police lied several times about their response time. And finally claimed they didn't know when they had responded.


That makes no sense. Dispatch and response times are time stamped in the system.


So you have questions for the police as well:


The parents said the apartment manager called 911 on the evening of May 23 after receiving a copy of the manifesto, in which Rodger said he planned to start by killing his roommates, and asked deputies to come to the complex. But the manager said no one entered the apartment until well after midnight, the parents said.

Hoover, the sheriff's department spokeswoman, would not say when deputies ultimately entered the apartment, saying, "There were a lot of moving parts that evening; there was a lot to consider when responding to the location."

When the families met privately with Brown on the Monday after the rampage, they asked about the response time. The parents said at first he said "within an hour." When pressed, they said, he finally acknowledged that he wasn't sure.


Source.

Strangely, this section was in the original AP story. But it was subsequently cut. It took me awhile to find an source that still had the original section.


One must be careful not to assume that inaccuracies in the after incident reports mean there was a grand conspiracy. There is inherently an incredible amount of chaos during an event like this. It is perfectly possible that Brown was talking out his ass and when pressed he admitted he didn't know the response time. But that doesn't mean the response time is not known, in fact I'm certain it's known. How do we not know the response time was provided by the police subsequent to Brown's admission he didn't know?


What happened to:


That makes no sense. Dispatch and response times are time stamped in the system.


You jumped off that and started to doing the very thing you claimed others were doing. Making stuff up.

I was about to put the Isla Vista story on the shelf. But this classic OSer attack has got me interested again.



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 09:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Moresby

originally posted by: RKWWWW

originally posted by: Moresby

originally posted by: RKWWWW

originally posted by: Moresby

originally posted by: Char-Lee

originally posted by: RKWWWW

originally posted by: Char-Lee

originally posted by: Moresby

originally posted by: RKWWWW

originally posted by: Moresby

originally posted by: RKWWWW

originally posted by: Moresby

originally posted by: captaintyinknots

originally posted by: Moresby
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.
"tag team debunking efforts". I love it. When you cant counter the argument, try to discredit the person making it.

There is not "debunking" going on here. There is calling out of outright lies and misrepresentations of the truth. The claims being made are, at most, baseless conjecture, or, more likely, intentional misrepresentations of the truth.

That you would try to spin this and make it about the people pointing out the fact that the claims being made by posters are not backed by ANYTHING is certainly curious....


I don't know what that's all about.

But I do know the parents found the crime scene bizarre. And it caused them to question Elliot Rodger's role.

"How did one boy do this?" one of the parents asked.

Then right after these notions enter the thread. In trot a couple of debunkers, using thread clogging tactics to obfuscate these facts.

But the parent's question is a good one:

"How did one boy do this?"

The police have yet to offer an answer. And, given the parent's description of the crime scene, a fairly detailed answer is required.






Why do we need answers. You've not pointed out any misconduct on the part of those who conducted the crime scene investigation.


This is classic thread-clogging. You know that isn't an appropriate question. Obviously, cops do an investigation to provide answers on how a crime occurred. Just a page ago you seemed to be lauding their brilliant investigative technique.

The important point remains:

The parents saw the crime scene. They thought it was bizarre. There didn't seem to be enough blood. The murders seemed to be committed in too small an area(s). It forced one of them to ask the question:

"How did one boy do this?"

This wasn't a conspiracy theorist asking this question. Nor some anonymous blogger who'd never been near the scene. This was the parent of one of the victims who said this after visiting the crime scene. He saw what they showed him and said:

"How did one boy do this?"

A question the cops still haven't answered. They've made all kinds of supposition-based statements about Rodger's actions elsewhere. But not there.

"How did one boy do this?

They haven't answered that question. Not privately to the parents. Or publicly to the press.


Does that seem like a reasonable way to evaluate the integrity of a crime scene investigation? To let the emotionaly wrought, bereaved parents of the victim walk through the crime scene after the the investigation has been conducted and observe their reactions?


Non-responsive.

Have the police adequately explained the events?

"How did one boy do this?"

It's interesting how when the victims families make political statements the official story crowd all rush to their defense. When they ask hard questions? Not so much.




The boy who lived upstairs also said he could not figure out how he would not have heard some noise but he heard nothing.


The police interviewed him and concluded he couldn't have heard it.


Yes well he said lives there and said he should have heard it...I have not seen the police info but I would think he should know if he can normally hear what happens in the apartment below him or not.




It's also curious that the police lied several times about their response time. And finally claimed they didn't know when they had responded.


That makes no sense. Dispatch and response times are time stamped in the system.


So you have questions for the police as well:


The parents said the apartment manager called 911 on the evening of May 23 after receiving a copy of the manifesto, in which Rodger said he planned to start by killing his roommates, and asked deputies to come to the complex. But the manager said no one entered the apartment until well after midnight, the parents said.

Hoover, the sheriff's department spokeswoman, would not say when deputies ultimately entered the apartment, saying, "There were a lot of moving parts that evening; there was a lot to consider when responding to the location."

When the families met privately with Brown on the Monday after the rampage, they asked about the response time. The parents said at first he said "within an hour." When pressed, they said, he finally acknowledged that he wasn't sure.


Source.

Strangely, this section was in the original AP story. But it was subsequently cut. It took me awhile to find an source that still had the original section.


One must be careful not to assume that inaccuracies in the after incident reports mean there was a grand conspiracy. There is inherently an incredible amount of chaos during an event like this. It is perfectly possible that Brown was talking out his ass and when pressed he admitted he didn't know the response time. But that doesn't mean the response time is not known, in fact I'm certain it's known. How do we not know the response time was provided by the police subsequent to Brown's admission he didn't know?


What happened to:


That makes no sense. Dispatch and response times are time stamped in the system.


You jumped off that and started to doing the very thing you claimed others were doing. Making stuff up.

I was about to put the Isla Vista story on the shelf. But this classic OSer attack has got me interested again.




Apparently you have anger issues when someone asks you questions you can't answer.

Do you know for a fact that the response time to the apartment was never provided by the police subsequent to Sheriff Brown's admission he didn't know that response time? Simple question. The answer is either yes or no. That's right....take your time. God forbid anyone pin down your "facts"
edit on 23-6-2014 by RKWWWW because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 09:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: RKWWWW


I'm asking you questions you can't answer.

Do you know for a fact that the response time to the apartment was never provided by the police subsequent to Sheriff Brown's admission he didn't know that response time? Simple question. The answer is either yes or no.


I have no idea. Why would I?

But they certainly didn't call WaPo and ask them to correct the story with that information. We know that.

We also know all the information about the 911 call was cut from the WaPo story, including the fact that the apartment manager received the "manifesto" which caused him to call 911.

And none of this is "fog of war" stuff. This article was written a month after the fact.


edit on 23-6-2014 by Moresby because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
72
<< 43  44  45    47 >>

log in

join