A Car, A Garden, And A Coupla Guys

[John Corbett]

    You claim the DPD did "release" the car. Please provide your Proof that the DPD did "release" the car. Do you know of a single image showing that car NOT being parked in front of the TSBD following the Kill Shot that afternoon?  You are making all kinds of claims that are totally unfounded. I am waiting on You to provide the Evidence to support your Baseless claims.

You are unable to support your claim that the car was ever taken into evidence. You continue to assume things you cannot prove. SOP for you.

[Royell Storing]

If the DPD thought the car had any relevance, why did they release it?

   BUMP.  Either provide the Evidence to support YOUR CLAIM ABOVE, or Retract It.  The above is not merely an opinion. You are claiming this car was "Released".

[John Corbett]

   BUMP.  Either provide the Evidence to support YOUR CLAIM ABOVE, or Retract It.  The above is not merely an opinion. You are claiming this car was "Released".

There is zero evidence the car in question was impounded by the DPD. Do you have such evidence? I didn't think so.

[Royell Storing]

There is zero evidence the car in question was impounded by the DPD. Do you have such evidence? I didn't think so.

  YOUR Claim is that the DPD "released" the car. (1) Where, and, (2) How did this happen? Written or Verbal? Or, do you want to now RETRACT YOUR CLAIM?

[John Corbett]

  YOUR Claim is that the DPD "released" the car. (1) Where, and, (2) How did this happen? Written or Verbal? Or, do you want to now RETRACT YOUR CLAIM?

It's very simple. Either the DPD took possession of the car or they didn't. I'm not talking about immobilizing the car for which you are the only source. I'm talking about seizing it for evidence. You've never provided any evidence that happened. You seem to operate under the premise that the default explanation for every unknown factor is the one the conforms to your fantasy. That's not how it works. If you want to claim that the DPD took possession of the car in question, the onus is on you to provide evidence that is what happened. Otherwise there's no reason for anyone else to believe what you have simply assumed.

[Royell Storing]

It's very simple. Either the DPD took possession of the car or they didn't. I'm not talking about immobilizing the car for which you are the only source. I'm talking about seizing it for evidence. You've never provided any evidence that happened. You seem to operate under the premise that the default explanation for every unknown factor is the one the conforms to your fantasy. That's not how it works. If you want to claim that the DPD took possession of the car in question, the onus is on you to provide evidence that is what happened. Otherwise there's no reason for anyone else to believe what you have simply assumed.

     When did I claim that, ".....the DPD took POSSESSION of the car in question"? I NEVER posted that. You are NOW Continually blowing off that I "claimed" this and that. Please post where I made the claim that, "the DPD took POSSESSION of the car in question". I'll wait for your response.   

[John Corbett]

     When did I claim that, ".....the DPD took POSSESSION of the car in question"? I NEVER posted that. You are NOW Continually blowing off that I "claimed" this and that. Please post where I made the claim that, "the DPD took POSSESSION of the car in question". I'll wait for your response.

OK. Just clear up what your position is.

Did the DPD take possession of the car, yes or no.

If your answer is no, why do you think it was a getaway car?

If your answer if yes, provide us with your evidence.