Like, if you can acknowledge that the screenshot of his face and the video of the shooting are from two different videos and there’s not continuous footage between the two…
Then I don’t understand why you keep saying it’s him.
If you can’t, then I don’t think there’s anyway I can help you understand this.
And I definitely don’t understand why you just want to keep repeating your opinion like it’s somehow a fact.
That doesn’t matter if it can’t be evidence…
We’re just going in circles.
You believe the cops because things the cops said…
Most can’t do that anymore
Again, we aren’t talking about what he’s found guilty of or not. We’re talking about if he shot the guy or not.
Saying the evidence is inadmissable doesn’t discount the fact that it was the gun used and the manifesto shows motive.
He DEFINITELY shot the guy. Whether he’s CONVICTED for it is a different issue.
Because he was seen wearing a greenish coat?
Like, if you can acknowledge that the screenshot of his face and the video of the shooting are from two different videos and there’s not continuous footage between the two…
Then I don’t understand why you keep saying it’s him.
If you can’t, then I don’t think there’s anyway I can help you understand this.
And I definitely don’t understand why you just want to keep repeating your opinion like it’s somehow a fact.