Page 14 of 21 First ... 4101112131415161718 ... Last
  1. #131

    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    10,094
    2
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by mrtnira View Post
    http://www.indystar.com/story/news/c...ers/491871001/
    On a different murder, but along some of the same ideas and problems mentioned in the thread earlier -- the problem of "armchair sleuthing" on the internet. In this case, the Indiana State Police found that sleuthing discussions of Facebook were creating a problem for them. Crowd sourcing is an analytical method, but it may not always provide the solution or improve identifying the solution.
    This is an interesting analogy. The Indy case involves a lot of individual actors doing their own thing whereas in Seth Rich's death you have both individual actors and the right wing media, and a central "group" the profiling project un Burkman's direction meddling. It would be interesting to know which investigation has the most bum leads.

  2. #132

    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    10,094
    2
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Content Comparison between the Initial Report by the Profiling Project and their Final Report.

    My apologies, this is going to be a very, very, long post.

    When I refer to page numbers (IR) will refer to the initial report, and (FR) will refer to the final report. Neither report comes with page numbers so I had to provide my own hand count. The initial report which appears to have been designed for quick media consumption can be found here. https://www.scribd.com/document/3518...th-Rich-Report

    The final report can be found here. http://thepublicityagency.com/wp-con...2017-FINAL.pdf Notice that the “final” report has the word final in its email address, so it’s their PR agency’s term, not mine.

    When I say a page or a section appears the same, this is based on a side by side reading. Obviously if I used various word processing programs to compare word counts, I might catch other subtle word and sentence alterations. For a few shorter pages and sections I felt comfortable concluding the test was identical.

    Both reports have the identical front page which has the heading “Initial Findings”.

    IR2, FR2, The executive summary is identical.

    IR3-4, FR3-4. The project recap section appears to be the same.

    IR5. FR5. The definition section is the same.

    IR6-8, FR6-8, Section Three, Profile of Seth Rich, appears to be the same.

    IR9-13, FR9-13, Section Four, Victimology, appears almost identical until we reach the bottom of the text on page 13. In the initial report the final paragraph read:

    “In support of our assertion that the offender has killed before, and is, by the FBI definition, a serial killer, Adams & Pizarro (2014) note that”
    The text ended suddenly here.

    In the Final report the paragraph continues, saying:

    “multiple homicide offenders refine their criminal abilities through experience. That Offender left a sanitized crime scene is indicative of experience. The crime scene also appears to be void of emotion or attempt to hide the crime, further supporting the experienced killer premise, as multiple homicide offenders have ‘a greater ability to kill multiple victims without thought or care for the consequences.’ (Wright, Pratt, & Delisi, 2008).”

    On page 10, of the reports there was one more inconsistency. In the initial report there is a sentence at the bottom of page 10 which reads: “”It has been reported (cite) no bullet casings were found.” In the final report, the sentence reads “It has been reported no bullet casings were found.” The editors apparently realized that there was a reference to a non-existent footnote in the IR, but instead of adding a footnote in the FR, they removed the word (cite) and didn’t add a reference for a very significant detail, upon which they later depend upon to reach their conclusions.

    IR14-17, FR14-17, Questions Considered for Victimology, Appears the same. The PP, attempted to answer questions they provided on page 14, then provided a list of unanswered questions on pages 15, 16, and 17 which appeared to come from some standardized list.

    IR18-23, FR18-23, Section Five, Questions the Profiling Project Asked, the first question lead to a multi-page print out concerning various homicide victims in Washington D.C. and several tables featuring information about their cases such as the approximate locations of their murders. These sections appeared to be the same.

    IR24, FR24, Question 2, asking what the victimology was between Seth Rich and the offender. These pages are identical.

    IR25. FR25, Question 3, asking “Are the theories presented possible?” This page is identical in both reports.

    IR26-27, FR26-27, This is a two page write up that appears the same in both versions of the report. It provides the PP’s explanation why they do not think Seth’s death was “A Random Robbery Gone Bad.”

    IR28, FR28, This is an identical discussion of the theory that Seth was killed for leaking DNC documents to Wikileaks. It discusses this matter without acknowledging the lack of evidence that Seth actually leaked such documents. Instead this page considered this possibility:

    “Not Likely, unless a toxin was introduced into Seth”. What follows is perhaps the only explanation present for the toxin theory present in the report. “Any forgiven [sic] substance in Seth’s system could support this theory. Any poison or radiation indications would support the professional killer theory, as the killer would have known that once the matter entered the bloodstream it would take effect.”

    IR29, FR29, These identical pages discusses the theory that Seth was “Killed by Clinton Directions” and once again the report says “Not likely, unless a toxin was introduced into Seth.” The assumption appears to be that hit men for Hillary Clinton use poisons like Russian Intelligence.

    IR30, FR30, “A Hit Team” did it. Once again this report states :Not likely unless a toxin was introduced into Seth.” The pages appear identical.

    IR31, FR31, Theory. “The Russians Did It”, Wait you guessed it! Identical pages with the same boiler plate about the use of a toxin.

    IR32, FR32, Question Four, “Are there any theories not yet presented which may be valid?” This page on both reports appears to be identical.

    IR33, FR33, Section 6, Neighborhood Canvas Discussion. Identical in both reports. This is where the PP asserts they found a security camera that the MPD “may have missed.”

    IR34, FR34, Section 7, “Discussion, Considerations and Additional Research Needed.” Both pages appear the same. The unintentional laugh line is “we recognize that it is crucial to keep aspects of criminal investigations confidential, for both a defendant’s constitutional rights and to maintain case integrity.” Someone should probably inform Jack Burkman of this principle given his present legal action filed against the MPD to force this agency to reveal more details about Seth’s murder, including the ballistics report.

    At the bottom of the page, the profiling project complains about “numerous discrepancies in the data, some due to input errors, but others unexplainably skewed. . . Armed robberies must be recorded as such, not simply theft”. The PP is indicating that they believe armed robberies are being under-reported by the MPD. If they are correct, this might mean that there were even more robberies and armed robberies in Seth’s neighborhood that occurred then will show up on the MPD’s publically available database.

    IR35, FR35. At this point the two reports start to differ. In the Final Report we have a one page discussion of seven arrests in the Bloomingdale neighborhood where Seth was killed. These arrests were for ARMED ROBBERIES (my capitalization) that “happened just days before Rich was killed.” The three guns that were later recovered did not match “with the ballistics in Rich’s murder.” (reference to a Fox 5 report) The names of several arrestees were given. These were Paul Tyrone Dorn (19), Demetrius Brandon (20), and Stanley Marquis Williams (22). They were arrested for an armed robbery on July 28, 2016.

    The profiling project discusses their armed robbery arrest, which occurred at the 1600 Block of 1st Street N.W. It discusses their criminal records, and their federal prison sentences. But it concludes: “Through all three have not been directly tied to Seth Rich’s murder, MPD introduced them in an effort to highlight a crack-down on street crime. However, they seem to be more indicative of a broken system, rather than an exemplar.” Later in an Appendix to the Final Report (FR 46-82) we find the criminal records for Dorn, Williams, and Stanley. A total of 37 pages showing that these men had a very extensive criminal history complete with many convictions.

    At this point I was confused. I get that the criminal justice system in Washington D.C. can be described as broken. I understand these men are dangerous, and rob people. But why on earth was it necessary to do this sort of document dump? It would have been easier to list each one’s convictions and whether they were in prison at the time Seth Rich was killed. Perhaps the Profiling Project is attempting to signal its interest in these men as persons of interest without saying these words. If they are it is a pretty confusing, or deliberately confusing way to do so. Otherwise its page space that could be better used by mapping robbery locations or performing other crime analyst functions.

    The contradiction in this report is, that it discounts the possibility that Seth Rich was murdered in a botched robbery then in its final report 37 pages are used to provide the criminal history of three offenders? I don’t understand what they are trying to do here. They already established with a footnote on page 34. (See note 34) that relatively few people are arrested for homicide in D.C. compared to the number of homicides which happen. It wouldn’t seem difficult to establish that the MPD also has a clearance problem with other serious crimes, such as armed robbery.

    As a matter of fact if you go to: https://mpdc.dc.gov/sites/default/fi...5_lowres_0.pdf which is the MPD’s annual report for 2015, and put numbers together from pages 28 and 32 you can find out the following information about robbery arrest rates from 2014 and 2015.

    Year 2014 2015

    # of Robberies 3,368 2,426

    Arrests 880 1,050

    Arrest rate 26.1% 43.3%

    The MPD has had relatively good years for solving robberies and much worse years. But the PP could have summarized this information with little text instead of creating a huge Appendix E.

    Switching to the Appendixes on IR35, we have Appendix A, which is identical to Appendix A, in IR36.

    Appendix B in IR36 is identical to Appendix B, in FR37.

    Appendix C in both reports appears to be the same. It runs from IR37 to IR 42. And FR 38 to 43.

    Appendix D which is a template of bullet points for the various motivations for homicide runs from IR43-44, and FR44-45. They appear to be the same.
    The last page in the IR is the reference section. It’s on page 45. The reference section in the FR has two more references (total for a 16) and it can be found on page 83.

    As previously mentioned, Appendix E is only found in the final report and runs from page 46 to page 82.

  3. #133

    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    10,094
    2
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Let's see if I can summarize a bit.

    The 83 page report is made up with the same material as the initial report, but with one report page added concerning robbery in Washington D.C. This text is accompanied by a 37 page appendix. This is a tremendous waste of space. Most writers would have summarized the three individuals criminal convictions in three single spaced pages had they believed it necessary to include this information in the report.

    It was a poor substitute to an actual discussion of robbery statistics in the neighborhood where Seth died, and for Washington D.C. in general. The writers also did not use any mapping software to show where various robberies had taken place and during which time frame. This would have been a much more productive use of their time, then a data dump concerning three offenders whom they did not describe as persons of interest in this case. I am not saying the PP should have described the three as persons of interest, I'm only saying that the size (and therefore importance) of Appendix E in the final report did not match the Profiling Project's conclusions about these individuals. Certainly other people arrested for Robbery in the Fifth District in Washington D.C. have similarly extensive criminal records, so the attention paid to these three individuals in the form of a 37 page appendix does not match what is written about them on page 35 of the Final Report.

    On page 10 of the Final Report, the PP fixes an omission and we get the full paragraph that was missing from the Initial Report.

    “In support of our assertion that the offender has killed before, and is, by the FBI definition, a serial killer, Adams & Pizarro (2014) note that multiple homicide offenders refine their criminal abilities through experience. That Offender left a sanitized crime scene is indicative of experience. The crime scene also appears to be void of emotion or attempt to hide the crime, further supporting the experienced killer premise, as multiple homicide offenders have ‘a greater ability to kill multiple victims without thought or care for the consequences.’ (Wright, Pratt, & Delisi, 2008).”

    In my 1,300 page critique of the PP's initial report I explained why I thought it was a mistake to described the crime scene as sanitized, and this was a deduction based on an absence of shell casings that could not be supported by what is publically known about this case. The comments about the crime scene being "void of emotion" is contradicted by the assertion by Seth Rich's parents that Seth's watch band was torn, and that he had bruises on his hands and face. The term "void of emotion" in my opinion is psycho-babble. Finally the PP draws a conclusion that the offender or offenders did not try to hide the crime (i.e. move Seth's body) and this shows that they did not have "thought or care for the consequences".

    It is much more likely that the offender, or offenders, having shot Seth Rich on a Washington street, did not feel they had the time to drag or move his body, if this thought even crossed their minds. Once again, the MPD has a gunshot locator, https://www.washingtonpost.com/inves...=.18bc142866a7 and assuming the offenders knew of this very public device, there would have been a strong incentive for them to leave the murder scene immediately before the police arrived, or before they were observed by a witness.

    I understand why the initial report given to the media would have not contained Appendix E, because of its length. However, the omission of Final Report page 35 from the Initial Report, which discussed robbery in Washington D.C. tilted the initial report to support the PP's conclusion that Seth was not a victim of a robbery gone bad.

    This appears to me, to be selective editing to support the PP's theory of the case, as this page could have been easily included in the Initial Report.

  4. #134

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    282
    Style
    Karate
    2
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    http://www.websleuths.com/forums/for...Sleuthing-Tips
    This may be of general interest to people. Maybe it's not specific to Seth Rich, but we are talking around some of the principles/techniques of citizens investigation of a public event.

  5. #135

    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Heimat
    Posts
    4,182
    Style
    Judo
    1
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    That's the thing about theories. If you're going to try to advance a theory, the evidence has to add up.

    It can't just be pin the tail on the donkey. You can't take Fact A-Y and pin it on Conclusion Z without a lot of meaningful, non theorycrafting intermediary work.

    Anybody can create a fantasy narrative using any arbitrary set of solid facts. The PP is creating a murky "whodunit" and trying to tie the facts of the case to a specific extraordinary claim: that Seth was a Wikileaks contributor so at-risk he got murdered by some shadowy cabal.

    Meanwhile a lot of people leak to Wikileaks and nobody dies. In fact if leaking information was such a big deal, there'd be dead people all over the news. Nope, they are busy with transformations and smiling for the cameras.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sam Browning View Post
    Let's see if I can summarize a bit.

    The 83 page report is made up with the same material as the initial report, but with one report page added concerning robbery in Washington D.C. This text is accompanied by a 37 page appendix. This is a tremendous waste of space. Most writers would have summarized the three individuals criminal convictions in three single spaced pages had they believed it necessary to include this information in the report.

    It was a poor substitute to an actual discussion of robbery statistics in the neighborhood where Seth died, and for Washington D.C. in general. The writers also did not use any mapping software to show where various robberies had taken place and during which time frame. This would have been a much more productive use of their time, then a data dump concerning three offenders whom they did not describe as persons of interest in this case. I am not saying the PP should have described the three as persons of interest, I'm only saying that the size (and therefore importance) of Appendix E in the final report did not match the Profiling Project's conclusions about these individuals. Certainly other people arrested for Robbery in the Fifth District in Washington D.C. have similarly extensive criminal records, so the attention paid to these three individuals in the form of a 37 page appendix does not match what is written about them on page 35 of the Final Report.

    On page 10 of the Final Report, the PP fixes an omission and we get the full paragraph that was missing from the Initial Report.

    “In support of our assertion that the offender has killed before, and is, by the FBI definition, a serial killer, Adams & Pizarro (2014) note that multiple homicide offenders refine their criminal abilities through experience. That Offender left a sanitized crime scene is indicative of experience. The crime scene also appears to be void of emotion or attempt to hide the crime, further supporting the experienced killer premise, as multiple homicide offenders have ‘a greater ability to kill multiple victims without thought or care for the consequences.’ (Wright, Pratt, & Delisi, 2008).”

    In my 1,300 page critique of the PP's initial report I explained why I thought it was a mistake to described the crime scene as sanitized, and this was a deduction based on an absence of shell casings that could not be supported by what is publically known about this case. The comments about the crime scene being "void of emotion" is contradicted by the assertion by Seth Rich's parents that Seth's watch band was torn, and that he had bruises on his hands and face. The term "void of emotion" in my opinion is psycho-babble. Finally the PP draws a conclusion that the offender or offenders did not try to hide the crime (i.e. move Seth's body) and this shows that they did not have "thought or care for the consequences".

    It is much more likely that the offender, or offenders, having shot Seth Rich on a Washington street, did not feel they had the time to drag or move his body, if this thought even crossed their minds. Once again, the MPD has a gunshot locator, https://www.washingtonpost.com/inves...=.18bc142866a7 and assuming the offenders knew of this very public device, there would have been a strong incentive for them to leave the murder scene immediately before the police arrived, or before they were observed by a witness.

    I understand why the initial report given to the media would have not contained Appendix E, because of its length. However, the omission of Final Report page 35 from the Initial Report, which discussed robbery in Washington D.C. tilted the initial report to support the PP's conclusion that Seth was not a victim of a robbery gone bad.

    This appears to me, to be selective editing to support the PP's theory of the case, as this page could have been easily included in the Initial Report.

  6. #136

    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Heimat
    Posts
    4,182
    Style
    Judo
    1
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    All of the "students" involved so far are still confidential, right?

    The only professionals willing to put their name on this report are being paid by a lobbyist and not pursuing a degree, is that right?

    That should tell you a lot about the amateur nature and quality of both the IR and FR.

    Thanks for taking the time, as always Sam.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sam Browning View Post
    Content Comparison between the Initial Report by the Profiling Project and their Final Report.

    My apologies, this is going to be a very, very, long post.

    When I refer to page numbers (IR) will refer to the initial report, and (FR) will refer to the final report. Neither report comes with page numbers so I had to provide my own hand count. The initial report which appears to have been designed for quick media consumption can be found here. https://www.scribd.com/document/3518...th-Rich-Report

    The final report can be found here. http://thepublicityagency.com/wp-con...2017-FINAL.pdf Notice that the “final” report has the word final in its email address, so it’s their PR agency’s term, not mine.

    When I say a page or a section appears the same, this is based on a side by side reading. Obviously if I used various word processing programs to compare word counts, I might catch other subtle word and sentence alterations. For a few shorter pages and sections I felt comfortable concluding the test was identical.

    Both reports have the identical front page which has the heading “Initial Findings”.

    IR2, FR2, The executive summary is identical.

    IR3-4, FR3-4. The project recap section appears to be the same.

    IR5. FR5. The definition section is the same.

    IR6-8, FR6-8, Section Three, Profile of Seth Rich, appears to be the same.

    IR9-13, FR9-13, Section Four, Victimology, appears almost identical until we reach the bottom of the text on page 13. In the initial report the final paragraph read:

    “In support of our assertion that the offender has killed before, and is, by the FBI definition, a serial killer, Adams & Pizarro (2014) note that”
    The text ended suddenly here.

    In the Final report the paragraph continues, saying:

    “multiple homicide offenders refine their criminal abilities through experience. That Offender left a sanitized crime scene is indicative of experience. The crime scene also appears to be void of emotion or attempt to hide the crime, further supporting the experienced killer premise, as multiple homicide offenders have ‘a greater ability to kill multiple victims without thought or care for the consequences.’ (Wright, Pratt, & Delisi, 2008).”

    On page 10, of the reports there was one more inconsistency. In the initial report there is a sentence at the bottom of page 10 which reads: “”It has been reported (cite) no bullet casings were found.” In the final report, the sentence reads “It has been reported no bullet casings were found.” The editors apparently realized that there was a reference to a non-existent footnote in the IR, but instead of adding a footnote in the FR, they removed the word (cite) and didn’t add a reference for a very significant detail, upon which they later depend upon to reach their conclusions.

    IR14-17, FR14-17, Questions Considered for Victimology, Appears the same. The PP, attempted to answer questions they provided on page 14, then provided a list of unanswered questions on pages 15, 16, and 17 which appeared to come from some standardized list.

    IR18-23, FR18-23, Section Five, Questions the Profiling Project Asked, the first question lead to a multi-page print out concerning various homicide victims in Washington D.C. and several tables featuring information about their cases such as the approximate locations of their murders. These sections appeared to be the same.

    IR24, FR24, Question 2, asking what the victimology was between Seth Rich and the offender. These pages are identical.

    IR25. FR25, Question 3, asking “Are the theories presented possible?” This page is identical in both reports.

    IR26-27, FR26-27, This is a two page write up that appears the same in both versions of the report. It provides the PP’s explanation why they do not think Seth’s death was “A Random Robbery Gone Bad.”

    IR28, FR28, This is an identical discussion of the theory that Seth was killed for leaking DNC documents to Wikileaks. It discusses this matter without acknowledging the lack of evidence that Seth actually leaked such documents. Instead this page considered this possibility:

    “Not Likely, unless a toxin was introduced into Seth”. What follows is perhaps the only explanation present for the toxin theory present in the report. “Any forgiven [sic] substance in Seth’s system could support this theory. Any poison or radiation indications would support the professional killer theory, as the killer would have known that once the matter entered the bloodstream it would take effect.”

    IR29, FR29, These identical pages discusses the theory that Seth was “Killed by Clinton Directions” and once again the report says “Not likely, unless a toxin was introduced into Seth.” The assumption appears to be that hit men for Hillary Clinton use poisons like Russian Intelligence.

    IR30, FR30, “A Hit Team” did it. Once again this report states :Not likely unless a toxin was introduced into Seth.” The pages appear identical.

    IR31, FR31, Theory. “The Russians Did It”, Wait you guessed it! Identical pages with the same boiler plate about the use of a toxin.

    IR32, FR32, Question Four, “Are there any theories not yet presented which may be valid?” This page on both reports appears to be identical.

    IR33, FR33, Section 6, Neighborhood Canvas Discussion. Identical in both reports. This is where the PP asserts they found a security camera that the MPD “may have missed.”

    IR34, FR34, Section 7, “Discussion, Considerations and Additional Research Needed.” Both pages appear the same. The unintentional laugh line is “we recognize that it is crucial to keep aspects of criminal investigations confidential, for both a defendant’s constitutional rights and to maintain case integrity.” Someone should probably inform Jack Burkman of this principle given his present legal action filed against the MPD to force this agency to reveal more details about Seth’s murder, including the ballistics report.

    At the bottom of the page, the profiling project complains about “numerous discrepancies in the data, some due to input errors, but others unexplainably skewed. . . Armed robberies must be recorded as such, not simply theft”. The PP is indicating that they believe armed robberies are being under-reported by the MPD. If they are correct, this might mean that there were even more robberies and armed robberies in Seth’s neighborhood that occurred then will show up on the MPD’s publically available database.

    IR35, FR35. At this point the two reports start to differ. In the Final Report we have a one page discussion of seven arrests in the Bloomingdale neighborhood where Seth was killed. These arrests were for ARMED ROBBERIES (my capitalization) that “happened just days before Rich was killed.” The three guns that were later recovered did not match “with the ballistics in Rich’s murder.” (reference to a Fox 5 report) The names of several arrestees were given. These were Paul Tyrone Dorn (19), Demetrius Brandon (20), and Stanley Marquis Williams (22). They were arrested for an armed robbery on July 28, 2016.

    The profiling project discusses their armed robbery arrest, which occurred at the 1600 Block of 1st Street N.W. It discusses their criminal records, and their federal prison sentences. But it concludes: “Through all three have not been directly tied to Seth Rich’s murder, MPD introduced them in an effort to highlight a crack-down on street crime. However, they seem to be more indicative of a broken system, rather than an exemplar.” Later in an Appendix to the Final Report (FR 46-82) we find the criminal records for Dorn, Williams, and Stanley. A total of 37 pages showing that these men had a very extensive criminal history complete with many convictions.

    At this point I was confused. I get that the criminal justice system in Washington D.C. can be described as broken. I understand these men are dangerous, and rob people. But why on earth was it necessary to do this sort of document dump? It would have been easier to list each one’s convictions and whether they were in prison at the time Seth Rich was killed. Perhaps the Profiling Project is attempting to signal its interest in these men as persons of interest without saying these words. If they are it is a pretty confusing, or deliberately confusing way to do so. Otherwise its page space that could be better used by mapping robbery locations or performing other crime analyst functions.

    The contradiction in this report is, that it discounts the possibility that Seth Rich was murdered in a botched robbery then in its final report 37 pages are used to provide the criminal history of three offenders? I don’t understand what they are trying to do here. They already established with a footnote on page 34. (See note 34) that relatively few people are arrested for homicide in D.C. compared to the number of homicides which happen. It wouldn’t seem difficult to establish that the MPD also has a clearance problem with other serious crimes, such as armed robbery.

    As a matter of fact if you go to: https://mpdc.dc.gov/sites/default/fi...5_lowres_0.pdf which is the MPD’s annual report for 2015, and put numbers together from pages 28 and 32 you can find out the following information about robbery arrest rates from 2014 and 2015.

    Year 2014 2015

    # of Robberies 3,368 2,426

    Arrests 880 1,050

    Arrest rate 26.1% 43.3%

    The MPD has had relatively good years for solving robberies and much worse years. But the PP could have summarized this information with little text instead of creating a huge Appendix E.

    Switching to the Appendixes on IR35, we have Appendix A, which is identical to Appendix A, in IR36.

    Appendix B in IR36 is identical to Appendix B, in FR37.

    Appendix C in both reports appears to be the same. It runs from IR37 to IR 42. And FR 38 to 43.

    Appendix D which is a template of bullet points for the various motivations for homicide runs from IR43-44, and FR44-45. They appear to be the same.
    The last page in the IR is the reference section. It’s on page 45. The reference section in the FR has two more references (total for a 16) and it can be found on page 83.

    As previously mentioned, Appendix E is only found in the final report and runs from page 46 to page 82.

  7. #137

    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    10,094
    1
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    The only name of a student that is public is Kevin Doherty. He was a former LEO, and graduate student at GW. He was also their lead investigator.

  8. #138

    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    10,094
    2
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    I just added an update section to the front page article.

  9. #139

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    282
    Style
    Karate
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUo7KzrURJA&t=284s
    Some how this popped up in my suggested viewing list on You Tube. It is more detailed than I care to listen to, but it might be of interest to someone who likes to follow threads and relationships.

  10. #140

    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    10,094
    3
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    I listened to it. Jerome Corsi is a big time conspiracy theorist, and he spent a great deal of time talking about Hillary and the DNC and computer security. I'm only concerned with Seth Rich's murder, and none of the other stuff.

    However he makes the assertion as a bare fact that Seth Rich was a Bernie supporter who was very upset that the DNC was helping Clinton win the primaries. He offers absolutely no evidence to support this contention. Like did Seth ever contribute money to Bernie's campaign which would have shown up in public records? Another guy on the tape said "Seth Rich could feel" X, that's not proof folks. (see minute 55) "My state of mind analysis of Seth Rich", (minute 108) Some guy other then Corsi on the tape.

    Then the guy on the tape who was a Hollywood film-maker says the best proof was Julian Assange's statements about Seth Rich, whereas David French of the National Review showed through textual analysis of what Assange actually said, that Assange never confirmed that Seth was a Wikileaks source. http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...heory-disgrace.

    Some of their other "proof" was that there was a hundreds of thousands of dollars in reward money and no one had come forward and people should be diming each other out on a street robbery/murder for that sort of money. My response is that rewards don't work all the time. Especially in the short term.

    Did Seth tell a named source like his girl friend, a drinking buddy about his fervent support for Bernie? I've seen this claim made multiple times and it is never sourced.

    There is the separate claim that Seth provided documents to Wikileaks through a guy named Gavin MacFadyen who is now happens to be dead.
    http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...ks-emails-fbi/

    So if you follow the Breitbart argument, an anonymous source claiming to be a Federal Investigator says they've seen the FBI "forensic report" that asserts there were emails between Seth and Gavin. and the FBI allegedly has possession of Seth's laptop. Who allegedly completed their report within "96 hours".

    Obviously it would be helpful to find out if the MPD ever turned Seth's laptop over to the FBI at any time. You would only know if you had access to the evidence room log in, and log out documents, from Seth's case. They say this guy named Kim.dotcom has documents showing that the FBI accessed Seth's computer after his death. I simply haven't investigated this, though David French says that "Kim.dotcom is a pseudo-name for a guy with a very sketchy past as in criminal convictions for various white collar crimes.

    But let me put it in martial arts terms, and we'll change the word email to black belt certificate.

    So an anonymous source saying they used to write for Black Belt Magazine claiming that they have seen a black belt certificate awarded by Bruce Lee to Count Dante. No copy or original of any such certificate has been seen so it's authenticity cannot be directly evaluated. Obviously there is something dubious because while Dante and Lee may have crossed paths in America at some tournament in the l960s, Lee is not known to have given out Black Belt Certificates, especially to people he didn't train with.

    Similarly nothing that is publically known about Seth. (including from the Profiling Project's report) reliably indicates 1) Seth supported Bernie. 2) Seth was upset at the DNC. 3) Seth therefore was willing to, and did risk his career by leaking thousands of documents. 4) To Gavin MacFadyen a director of Wikileaks.

    So back to our martial arts analogy. We have dead guy #1, who is alleged by an anonymous source to do unlikely thing #1, who supposedly send certificate/emails to dead guy #2.

    Notice that it is now impossible to interview dead guy #1, or dead guy #2, to confirm the story. Note that attributing the underlying act is dead guy #1 is quite unlikely, and not supported by any other information. (For example if Bruce had been known to give out Black Belt Certificates to other people who didn't train with him like Ed Parker.)

    And all this information comes from some anonymous source who cannot provide any proof of the underlying documents. Certificate as verses a Seth Rich email to Wikileaks or the FBI computer forensic report.

    So running it through our martial arts Bullshit meter, we can say that this is Bullshido folks. At least in terms of narrowly proving Seth was a Bernie Bro who leaked the emails to another guy who now in conveniently dead. None of the factual building blocks to this theory can be established.

Page 14 of 21 First ... 4101112131415161718 ... Last

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Log in

Log in