Sandy Hoax And The Boston Bombings

I did comment. I said I didn't know enough to draw a conclusion. Neither do you.

 

From your link in the conclusions section and in contravention of what your previous source said;

Item #2-1S1 swabbing from rifle forearm is a mixture
A Lanza submission 14 is included as a contributor to the DNA profile from item #2-1S1
N. Lanza is eliminated as as a contributor to the DNA profile from item #2-1S1.

 

What part of it confuses you?

 

You're missing the point again. Both Lanzas are eliminated as contributors to the DNA profiles from the trigger of the rifle, the pistol grip, the shoulder stocks of the rifle, the cartidge chambered round, the feed area and side magazine, cartridges from magazine, and both sides of the Christmas card.

Additionally, when it comes to the DNA profiles of the .22 caliber cartridges and both sides of the envelope flap, a hit was obtained with the Convicted Offender DNA Profile from New York State Police Investigation Center.

A convicted felon’s DNA ends up on a sealed envelope addressed to the children of Sandy Hook Elementary School, as well as on the .22 caliber shell casings of the ammo used to kill Nancy Lanza. Nothing out of the ordinary here.

 

No matching profiles were found for item #4-2S2

A hit on the data base could mean a store clerk or investigator has a record in new york. The document says the case was reopened to investigate that lead, we don't know what the results of that investigation are so I have yet to be ignoring anything.

Again I found nothing out of order except the narrators characterizations. I find both videos equally sincere. What is my bias again? I can tell when guy doesn't have a case or is in the act of concocting one. How did you get past the narration if you didn't listen to it? Funny that your version should precisely match the narrators down to honing our attention to a particular moment. Your narrator suggests he didn't get his story right because it was a practice video not meant to be released after telling us that rosen was carefully chosen for this elaborate plot and then recounts his own experience of having to make several takes of his own video to get the story right. I suggest the narrator doesn't have the foggiest and his video is self serving tripe that preys on the less than seriously occupied. Keep on clickin on it.

 

So, even though I've linked to the conclusions of the DNA study from the New York State Police Investigation Center, you want to catagorize it as pages and pages of theories, half truths, and innuendos. If you don't believe what it is clearly telling you, then so be it.

Both Lanzas are eliminated as contributors to the DNA profiles from the trigger of the rifle, the pistol grip, the shoulder stocks of the rifle, the cartidge chambered round, the feed area and side magazine, cartridges from magazine, and both sides of the Christmas card.

Additionally, when it comes to the DNA profiles of the .22 caliber cartridges and both sides of the envelope flap, a hit was obtained with the Convicted Offender DNA Profile from New York State Police Investigation Center. I'm not asking you to disprove anything. However, if you have reason to disbelieve the conclusion they've offered, please offer it.

 

Again no matches were found for item #4-2S2.
That both Lanzas are eliminated as contributors could mean there wasn't sufficient material to show up which is not beyond easy consideration.
There is a difference between what the report's conclusions are and what you have concluded about the information in the report's conclusions.

 

I'm talking about the actual DNA testing that was done on the items having to do with the crime scene. You are making a fuss about where the envelope was found when the issue is that the DNA profile for a convicted felon is on the underside of the stamp and the underside of the flap and on the shell-casing of the bullet that killed Nancy Lanza. Did you read the conclusions of the DNA testing. Again, if you have reason to disbelieve the conclusion they've offered, do tell.

 

Well, when it comes to the DNA profiles of the .22 caliber cartridges and both sides of the envelope flap, a hit was obtained with the Convicted Offender DNA Profile from New York State Police Investigation Center. So, if I had concluded that a hit was not obtained with the Convicted Offender DNA Profile from New York State Police Investigation Center, then your conclusion concerning my conclusion of the Investigation Center's conclusion would be conclusive.

 

Your bias was discovered when it was found that you commented on the contents of the videos before viewing them.

At the bottom of every You Tube is a little white button. Put your cursor on it and then left click, then move your mouse a little to the right. If you still hear the narrator, then go a little farther into the video. I've been at this kind of thing for quite a while, and I know how to get to the meat of things. And now you're attempting to make your case against my assessment of Gene Rosen's credibility by assessing the motives of the narrator. How logical or reasonable is that? And I don't think the narrator would screw up a video if he were recounting his own experience. And you never did give your answer concerning which version of Gene Rosen's account you find most believable.

 

there is nothing wrong with Rosen's account. I've already mentioned this a few times but I see you're conveniently disregarding it. You can't hear what the cameraman says. You see Rosen state the narrator's name then he stops and says he can't go on. You're basically pulling conclusions out of your ass because that video proves absolutely nothing.

 

The camera man gasps, and then Gene suddenly reacts and stops his account. Make of it what you will. And though I've asked a couple of people which version of Gene Rosen's account they find most believable, I can't get an opinion. How about you?

 

I dont hear the cameraman gasp but even if you do it what does that prove? Nothing. I haven't seen Rosen give another account so I wouldn't know how to answer your question.

 

So, your contention is that it's possible that a convicted felon was hired to work as a store clerk behind a counter where firearms ammunition is sold? I'm not sure, but I don't think that convicted felons are allowed that kind of employment. And I'm almost certain that the same goes for employment of crime investigators. And besides, you think that investigators wouldn't have looked into the issue of where the ammo was purchased? And what does that have to do with the envelope with the convicted felon's DNA on it?

 

For the third time no matches were found for item #4-2S2 which is the .22 cartridge. The data base hit referred to the envelope only and I think Meagain had something enlightening to say about the card and envelope.

 

The narrator said in his own narration that he had to take several times to get his own story right. And from the quote of mine you quoted right above your claim that I didn't answer said question," I find both videos equally sincere.

 

No because there was no convicted felon DNA on the cartridges.

 

Totally and completely possible if the employer didn't want to pay the $200+ for a background check.