George Webb names Seth Rich's killer - Alpha Jalloh

originally posted by: facedye

originally posted by: Lucidparadox

originally posted by: facedye

originally posted by: Lucidparadox

originally posted by: facedye

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Youtube... More confirmation bias fodder for the gullible. Yet no actual hard evidence for any of this.

"no actual hard evidence for any of this."

looks like you have no idea who george webb is, or what he's been uploading for the past... ooooh i don't know.. 219 days.

careful who you call gullible - you just might be the pot calling the kettle black.

if you think there's nothing suspicious about a "failed robbery murder" of someone in the DNC who is now known to have been in contact with wikileaks over the course of the election, you're posting comments on the wrong website.

please name one other "failed robbery" you can think of where the victim ends up dead while still retaining every single item that would be of interest to the robber.

Actually, that makes MORE sense that he still retained everyhting that would be of interest to the robber.

A robbers motive, is to rob, not kill. If things go awry, and he has to kill... it probably wasnt part of the plan.

At that point the robber want to...
A: Get out of there as fast as possible leaving as little evidence behind as possible.
and
B: Not take anything that can trace him/her back to a murder scene.

Its commons sense.

what you are describing is in no way "common sense."

if a robber has to kill, they'll want to retain anything for their efforts that they possibly can. they just had to kill someone when they only wanted their personal items - their goal, then, is to grab any personal items possible to "make up for" their taking of a life.

ever seen a cashier/clerk get shot? does the robber typically run off without grabbing anything from the register?

again, what you are describing is not common sense. it's certainly not common for a robber to kill but not rob. it just looks like you've never been robbed before. on that note, i can assure you it's a pretty straight forward process. the assailant typically either is poor & hungry, looking to get even, or is looking to add a notch onto his belt.

none of these motivations above would result in the circumstances that seth rich's murder is concerned with.

Actually it happens quite often, Im at work so I cant go and site robberies.

But loot is not taken alot of the times in these cases.

Usually when the robber never had any intent at all in firing their weapon.

Just as you said, the majority of robbers are just poor, hungry, oppressed people looking for a way to get their next meal. they dont want to harm anyone. Killing is usually accidental, or done in self defense (and by that I mean the person they are robbing pulls a weapon)

did you just imply that seth rich had a gun on him, and that's why he was shot? this is without merit.

your rebuttal is very weak. please define what you mean by "it happens quite often" or rethink your hypothesis altogether.

this man, who was in contact with wikileaks over the course of the election, was shot in cold blood, (twice in the back) and had none of his personal items stolen.

if none of his items were stolen, but he was shot to death in the middle of washington DC, what makes you believe it was a failed robbery?

seriously, other than mainstream news reporters telling you that "sources" told them it was a failed robbery, what makes you believe this was a failed robbery? what *exactly* are you basing that on?

I never said he had a gun... where did you get that? I said robbers acting in self defense use there weapon when they didnt intend to initially.

Its possible he was being robbed, didnt comply.. reached for something or made a quick move that scared the robber crapless.. and they fire their gun out of fear...

Robber freaks out... cant believe he just killed someone.. so he runs away.

What "exactly" am I basing that on? Um.. the police? The reports? and anything that doesnt come from a conservative fan fiction site?

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: facedye

Looking at when Rich left the bar and when he was murdered, seems to be a long period of time there.

What was he doing? It doesn't take that long to walk that distance.

i agree, there's a huge discrepancy between the time he left the bar and the shooting itself.

from wikipedia, for everyone's viewing:

On Sunday, July 10, 2016, Rich was shot about a block from his apartment in the Bloomingdale neighborhood of Washington, D.C.[29][30][31] Earlier that night he had been at Lou's City Bar, a sports pub 1.8 miles from his apartment, in Columbia Heights, where he was a regular customer. He left when the bar was closing, at about 1:30 or 1:45 a.m.[32][33] Police were alerted to gunfire at 4:20 a.m. by an automated gunfire locator.[31][34] Within approximately one minute after the gun shots, police officers found Rich with multiple gunshot wounds, in a conscious and breathing state.[35] He was transported to a nearby hospital, where he later died.[36][37][38] According to police, he died from two shots to the back[29][30] and may have been killed in an attempted robbery, noting that the neighborhood had recently been plagued by robberies.[29] Rich's mother told NBC's Washington affiliate WRC-TV, "There had been a struggle. His hands were bruised, his knees are bruised, his face is bruised, and yet he had two shots to his back, and yet they never took anything... They didn't finish robbing him, they just took his life."[39]

Source

I've seen no documentation or reporting that explains what he was doing between 1:45 and 4:20 am. However, when looking at the address of the bar on the map, it's clear to see that he's ridiculously close to his job.

It's not unbelievable to me to think that he might have just been finishing up work late after a few drinks, but at that point i'd be speculating.

originally posted by: Lucidparadox

originally posted by: facedye

originally posted by: Lucidparadox

originally posted by: facedye

originally posted by: Lucidparadox

originally posted by: facedye

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Youtube... More confirmation bias fodder for the gullible. Yet no actual hard evidence for any of this.

"no actual hard evidence for any of this."

looks like you have no idea who george webb is, or what he's been uploading for the past... ooooh i don't know.. 219 days.

careful who you call gullible - you just might be the pot calling the kettle black.

if you think there's nothing suspicious about a "failed robbery murder" of someone in the DNC who is now known to have been in contact with wikileaks over the course of the election, you're posting comments on the wrong website.

please name one other "failed robbery" you can think of where the victim ends up dead while still retaining every single item that would be of interest to the robber.

Actually, that makes MORE sense that he still retained everyhting that would be of interest to the robber.

A robbers motive, is to rob, not kill. If things go awry, and he has to kill... it probably wasnt part of the plan.

At that point the robber want to...
A: Get out of there as fast as possible leaving as little evidence behind as possible.
and
B: Not take anything that can trace him/her back to a murder scene.

Its commons sense.

what you are describing is in no way "common sense."

if a robber has to kill, they'll want to retain anything for their efforts that they possibly can. they just had to kill someone when they only wanted their personal items - their goal, then, is to grab any personal items possible to "make up for" their taking of a life.

ever seen a cashier/clerk get shot? does the robber typically run off without grabbing anything from the register?

again, what you are describing is not common sense. it's certainly not common for a robber to kill but not rob. it just looks like you've never been robbed before. on that note, i can assure you it's a pretty straight forward process. the assailant typically either is poor & hungry, looking to get even, or is looking to add a notch onto his belt.

none of these motivations above would result in the circumstances that seth rich's murder is concerned with.

Actually it happens quite often, Im at work so I cant go and site robberies.

But loot is not taken alot of the times in these cases.

Usually when the robber never had any intent at all in firing their weapon.

Just as you said, the majority of robbers are just poor, hungry, oppressed people looking for a way to get their next meal. they dont want to harm anyone. Killing is usually accidental, or done in self defense (and by that I mean the person they are robbing pulls a weapon)

did you just imply that seth rich had a gun on him, and that's why he was shot? this is without merit.

your rebuttal is very weak. please define what you mean by "it happens quite often" or rethink your hypothesis altogether.

this man, who was in contact with wikileaks over the course of the election, was shot in cold blood, (twice in the back) and had none of his personal items stolen.

if none of his items were stolen, but he was shot to death in the middle of washington DC, what makes you believe it was a failed robbery?

seriously, other than mainstream news reporters telling you that "sources" told them it was a failed robbery, what makes you believe this was a failed robbery? what *exactly* are you basing that on?

I never said he had a gun... where did you get that? I said robbers acting in self defense use there weapon when they didnt intend to initially.

Its possible he was being robbed, didnt comply.. reached for something or made a quick move that scared the robber crapless.. and they fire their gun out of fear...

Robber freaks out... cant believe he just killed someone.. so he runs away.

What "exactly" am I basing that on? Um.. the police? The reports? and anything that doesnt come from a conservative fan fiction site?

by saying "robbers acting in self defense use their weapon," you're implying that this could have been why he was shot. maybe it was an unintentional implication, but it can be implied from your statement nonetheless. in your next statement under that, you're also clearly conveying that seth could have had a weapon on him. that's where i'm getting that from.

Robber freaks out... cant believe he just killed someone.. so he runs away.

this is entirely hypothetical, and does not mesh well with reality. robbers often rob, murder or no murder. the only tangible piece of information tying this into a "failed robbery" is the police commentary, which states he "may have been killed in an attempted robbery, noting that the neighborhood had recently been plagued by robberies."

so... no actual evidence of a failed robbery - just supposition because they've seen a rise in robberies within that neighborhood.

What "exactly" am I basing that on? Um.. the police? The reports? and anything that doesnt come from a conservative fan fiction site?

based on the police, their reporting, and "anything that doesn't come from a conservative fan fiction site," this is still very much an open investigation for the authorities, and is in no way conclusive of a failed robbery attempt. literally no authoritative agency has concluded that this is a result of a failed robbery.

looks to me like you're the one misunderstanding suppositions for conclusions

a reply to: facedye

...police officers found Rich with multiple gunshot wounds, in a conscious and breathing state.

I have seen other reports that he was also "talkative," but I have never seen reports of what he spoke about, or even if the police officers questioned him... but I would think they would have at least tried, or report that he was unable to answer any questions.

I very much want to know what -- if anything -- Seth Rich said about the incident to anyone -- EMTs, police, doctors or nurses, whoever.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
He made it up on the spot. All sources have confirmed that he had nothing to do with high level DNC emails.

That's funny because Russia didn't have anything to do with the high level DNC emails either... all sources have confirmed that.

Seth Rich could have hacked the email server, or better and easier yet gained access to the computers of those who did have access, or even better yet found credentials for said email server(s). After all, he was quite involved with many of those who did have access, and nothing a little social engineering couldn't gain access to.

It easier to believe Seth Rich had access than it is to believe Russia did. Seth was on the inside.

For those who haven't seen it yet, please do watch this and get up to speed. It mentions a lot of details that are hard to come by.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: drock905

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Youtube... More confirmation bias fodder for the gullible. Yet no actual hard evidence for any of this.

You watched a 14 minute video in 5 minutes?

I don't have to. Youtube is never evidence of anything.

Yes it is - Melania slapped away Donalds hand and tards cheered both here and elsewhere. YouTube videos are trustworthy as long as it fits the narrative.

Remember seeing what the US military did in Afghanistan (cheers Chelsea Manning and Wikileaks for that BTW) - the US government did not deny the youtube evidence.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

I don't have to. Youtube is never evidence of anything.

If I do recall correctly, both Hillary AND Obama blamed the Benghazi attack on a youtube video.

amirite?

originally posted by: ColdWisdom

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

I don't have to. Youtube is never evidence of anything.

If I do recall correctly, both Hillary AND Obama blamed the Benghazi attack on a youtube video.

amirite?

You recall correctly.

originally posted by: ColdWisdom

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

I don't have to. Youtube is never evidence of anything.

If I do recall correctly, both Hillary AND Obama blamed the Benghazi attack on a youtube video.

amirite?

lololololololololol

YUP.

originally posted by: Sublimecraft

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: drock905

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Youtube... More confirmation bias fodder for the gullible. Yet no actual hard evidence for any of this.

You watched a 14 minute video in 5 minutes?

I don't have to. Youtube is never evidence of anything.

Yes it is - Melania slapped away Donalds hand and tards cheered both here and elsewhere. YouTube videos are trustworthy as long as it fits the narrative.

Remember seeing what the US military did in Afghanistan (cheers Chelsea Manning and Wikileaks for that BTW) - the US government did not deny the youtube evidence.

Wait, what ? Melania slapping Donalds hand actualy happened. There is physical evidence of that in a form of a YouTube video, a camera recorded it,a news channel broadcasted it and it was uploaded to YouTube by random people.
The video in the OP however is just a bunch of hogwash. No hard evidence what so ever but just a wannabe detective talking for 12 minutes and presenting conservative fan fiction.

a reply to: ErrorErrorError



So, you agree with me then that YouTube IS a good source of evidence and that it NEVER being a source of evidence of anything is factually incorrect - yeah?

a reply to: LucidparadoxIMPEACHED FOR WHAT EXACTLY? you say he colluded with russians ok if he did he was president elect of us so whats the problem if he wants to meet people he is going to be dealing with. if there had been any thing illegal do you truly think obama would have allowed him to take oath of office? podestia said in the leaks they were going to deal with who ever was leaking info guess what seth rich found out the hard way what they meant.

originally posted by: Willtell
It’s the right who are always responsible for fake conspiracies….like Obama was born in Kenya and isn’t a citizen, or this fake conspiracy and many others like Pizza-gate.

It’s a design because the right are the best dupes, due to their inherent bigotry.

What they do is besmirch ALL conspiracies, fitting in with the deep state plan to fool the people.


The right-wing are at the vanguard of world's ignorance and blindness, led by people like Fox news and Alex Jones.

Due to how wrong you are I can't tell if you joking..

You do know it was the Hillary campaign that started the whole Obama birther conspiracy right ?

Who is this Andre Taggart guy he mentions in the video? George seems to think something rests on that guy coming clean. He mentions he Navy Intel?

a reply to: drock905

Wow, just posting that video sure upset a couple of the rabid haters. I'd rather have some facts than speculation, but then, I don't remember anyone forcing me to believe this video. It's a shame some seem hell bent on removing any and all things counter to "Russia did it". I'm glad my paycheck doesn't depend on such things.

a reply to: Lucidparadox

Woah!

Hang on one second partner! Not sure what left-leaning cloud you just drifted down from, but it's obvious to me that your statements have more to do with your politics than any interest in discussing Seth Rich.

Let us not forget this young man was murdered in cold blood. That's a fact right there.

It is also a fact that this young man was said to have been "robbed" although not a stinking thing was taken off his dead body.

it's also a fact that he worked for the DNC and that he is said to have been involved in the Wikileaks' possession of DNC emails.

Now, if you can't see why any sound person might be a bit suspicious of the circumstances surrounding his death, or if you're having a hard time understanding that people are often murdered in the name of politics around the world---then I have to question your intelligence. And people are not just slain in modern times for political reasons---but throughout the history of this godforesaken world---well, you get my drift.

Add to this the blatant corruption of the Clintons. That's pretty well established, isn't it? The corruption? I mean, most reasonable people are in touch with this fact. I needn't list the ways, must I?

But your holier-than-though attitude, your snide tone and your smugness---well, they make me uneasy.

Why? Because you're on a conspiracy site. Questioning things is what we do here---and we do it well. There are things people have talked about here that were actually proven---and many times. And over and over again.

So give a little space and some latitude for people to discuss this topic, to mull it over. To think hard about it.

Because we're good at it here.

And because if Seth was murdered for being a whistle blower---well, that's downright scary.

That's not good for a democracy, for a political party----or the future of this little spinning ball we live on.

The only way our future can be good is for each of us to love the truth.

No matter what it is.

End of story.

a reply to: Krazysh0t Wait. What?!

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
I don't have to. Youtube is never evidence of anything.

YouTube is nothing more than a video content distributor. People can freely upload videos, including video evidence, to YouTube. Just because its called "YouTube" and it has a lot of entertainment videos, and science videos, and music videos, doesn't mean it can't also have video evidence of a crime, or as the OP posted videos of research and investigations.

Your reply is a sad joke.

a reply to: facedye

Plus he wasn't just shot twice in the back, very odd bullet placement for a stick up, he was beaten very severely. There were CC cameras everywhere, and yet no video evidence? I believe the last big batch of wiki leaks CIA docs clearly shows how very capable they are of manipulating everything digital, Julian laid all the puzzle pieces out in order.