Oh, so it’s just my “incredibly imaginary posts”, that you’re not going to respond to.
OK.
4 Likes
Answered in post #607.
2 Likes
Promise? Nope.
But, please do cite posts by IM that later were proven by facts that are proven facts, not his presentation of what he believes to be true.
7 Likes
And tell us (@CurrentlyHorseless) this source of proven facts that you are verifying IM’s posts against. I am interested in reading all the proven facts.
11 Likes
Darn it, you tagged me and it was gone before I got to read it. 
2 Likes
There is a two part special on NBC called, “The Thing About Pam”. Part 1 was this past Tuesday and part two is next week. It is the true story of how a small town police department completely and utterly bungled a murder investigation. The portrayal of the police in this program reminds me of the actions of the small town cops in Livingston. Part 1 can be streamed on Peacock. It would be humorous if not so sad in real life. I wonder, when this is over, if 48 Hours will portray the police in this situation similarly?
2 Likes
States do have the right to prosecute those who make a false claim or claims. It’s very rare though because of the cost and lack of staff.
Also, a lot of the time of LE is called out and minors are involved they call CPS.
4 Likes
I’m not interested in convincing you of the accuracy of his posts. You can make your own assessment.
4 Likes
I am not asking you to convince me of anything. I simply asked you the source of your information you are using to verify the content of IM’s posts. I would love a source of facts.
7 Likes
Well, this is classic deflection reminiscent of another poster…no, I can’t prove what I’ve posted as fact but you go search for it. Got it. In other words you’ve chosen to believe what you’ve been fed.
6 Likes
Except for the cameras at the house that were, were not recording, as convenient.
Maybe they were recording, but the result, after they were removed the day after… Wasn’t satisfactory to their ends? Speculation
17 Likes
You misunderstand.
The only “fact” that I have posted is the “fact” that I, for myself, believe pretty much everything IM posts.
If you choose to distrust everything, or most, or some of what he posts, I just don’t care. I’m not interested in explaining to you why I have decided, for myself, that I believe what he posts.
4 Likes
Do you imagine that the cameras were recording on old fashioned physical tape? The cameras would have been recording to a hard drive or to the cloud. The police would have taken any hard drives and determined the electronic location of any cloud based files before they left on Aug 7.
4 Likes
Still wondering how you define “bogus”. 
4 Likes
One would assume. But maybe not, considering…
8 Likes
Dang! I guess I read a different post than what you clearly wrote here. Just curious what he posted here that you later verified as facts and where did you find that verification? That’s all I, and another, have asked. If that is all you need to believe someone then let me remind you that many of us have posted things that were later proved officially.
It’s okay to say you believe and support LK and everything IM posts simply because you want to. At least that’s honest since you say you don’t know any principle in this situation.
13 Likes
Having read the other things the police did not do correctly in this case, I lack confidence that they did any of that.
26 Likes
Same
6 Likes
Not what I said.
1 Like
You referred to the call to CPS as “bogus”.
By “bogus” I meant 1) whatever you meant when you used the word, or 2) the first dictionary definition that pops up on Google. You choose.
1 Like
