Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 981: Line 981:  
COMMENTS BY THUNKFUL2
 
COMMENTS BY THUNKFUL2
 
:There are questionable statements above (which I made bold):
 
:There are questionable statements above (which I made bold):
−
:"there are pockets of darkness, for the most part this neighborhood is pretty well-lit" WHEN lit? on Sep 30 (story date)? Other data indicates lights out & no moon at time of shooting.  
+
:"there are pockets of darkness, for the most part this neighborhood is pretty well-lit" WHEN lit? on Sep 30 (story date)? Other data indicates lights out & no moon at time of shooting. However, in a photo taken of the crime scene with Seth Rich lying on pavement, I saw at least one light shining on the area.  So perhaps at least 1 street light did illumine the scene from some distance. ([[User:Thunkful2|Thunkful2]] ([[User talk:Thunkful2|talk]]) 12:10, 6 July 2017 (EDT))
    
:"TWO MINUTES?" Wash Post Cell phone records indicate hang up at approximately 4:19, same minute as ShotSpotter police report for shooitng. (See Conservapedia time line).  But 2 minutes would be within the "approximately."  The word "approximately" calls into question the Washington Post as a reliable source here, because cell phone records should be precise.  Thus I doubt the Wash Post actually got the cell phone records. But if not, how could Wash Post be so precise on the rest of the time log?
 
:"TWO MINUTES?" Wash Post Cell phone records indicate hang up at approximately 4:19, same minute as ShotSpotter police report for shooitng. (See Conservapedia time line).  But 2 minutes would be within the "approximately."  The word "approximately" calls into question the Washington Post as a reliable source here, because cell phone records should be precise.  Thus I doubt the Wash Post actually got the cell phone records. But if not, how could Wash Post be so precise on the rest of the time log?
SkipCaptcha
731

edits

Navigation menu