I don't know, thats up for interpretation isn't it? Depends whether that specific aspect of the case that I mentioned interests you or not.
Just to recap, in reference to people claiming there was a cover up I enquired as to what the likelihood was that nobody involved in an alleged cover up ever came clean or left a full confession? And stated that personally I thought at least one person would have done by now.
Now, to me, that seems a fairly rational question and I don't see anything wrong with the actual question. If that topic was of no relevance or interest to you then you're all welcome to scroll past or just ignore the post.
Granted, it might have been something that has been asked a lot of times before, so I can understand if people didn't want to waste their time replying. But clearly people (especially you) have plenty of time to reply with numerous posts about the way I phrased a question or saying that I claimed something happened which I didn't have evidence for, but that didn't address the actual issue.
Obviously there was that one chap who did reply with a sensible answer, so lets exclude him.
Just to recap, in reference to people claiming there was a cover up I enquired as to what the likelihood was that nobody involved in an alleged cover up ever came clean or left a full confession? And stated that personally I thought at least one person would have done by now. Against my better judgment, let's see if you are capable of discussing the case.....
How do you know that nobody ever came clean or left a confession?
Does the mere fact that you and I don't know about it automatically mean that something didn't happen?
If there was indeed a cover up, don't you think suppression of evidence and misinformation would be part of it?
