3 ms·
The man was shot twice in the back. Nothing was stolen and no one was arrested. There were no cameras or witnesses to confirm what happened. But the police s
by JuliusPullo 6y ago
The man was shot twice in the back. Nothing was stolen and no one was arrested. There were no cameras or witnesses to confirm what happened. But the police said this was a robbery. Shouldn't the police version itself qualify as a "conspiracy theory".
- svrb 6y agoYes, but that would damage the narrative, so no. Regardless of whether in actual fact the murder has anything to do with the leaks, the claims that an absence of evidence is evidence of absence serve only to promote an evil purpose. We will likely never know the truth, and the narrative that this couldn't possibly be related to the leaks is a major part of why. The answer to cui bono [from the narrative] is therefore "the murderer, whoever that is, regardless of whether there is in fact a conspiracy". Why then do so many support the narrative?! Why has the murderer been deemed "part of our tribe" and thus worthy of plot armor, as it were?!