This is common knowledge, especially around here. I see you are shifting your polemic from your averred 'inside knowledge' that "burner phones" were used and "using a spoofed number made over voip originating from a server in Russia".
My goodness, I requested sauce on this incredible information to which I am still waiting on. Then you wrongly claimed I said phone calls could "easily" be traced. As you already know, I never said this. You did. Now, you are claiming I do not know that the police have access to instantly trace and identify the caller. Again, it is common knowledge they do have this capability. Accordingly, most people here seem to agree with this statement.
Now, I asked you more than once for sauce on the "burner phones" used for Catturd and "using a spoofed number made over voip originating from a server in Russia". I'm still waiting. You then falsely mischaracterized my writing and now you're shifting to yet another tactic.
As sure as the sun rises in the morning, it is indeed common knowledge that the police have this capability. By the appearance of the many people agreeing with me, it is common knowledge to them as well.
Now, I asked you more than once for sauce on the "burner phones" used for Catturd and "using a spoofed number made over voip originating from a server in Russia". I'm still waiting. You then falsely mischaracterized my writing and now you're shifting to yet another tactic.
Funny how you're so upset about me "falsely mischaracterizing" (whatever that means) your writing while I never said that catturd's caller used those techniques. I was providing an example of a phone call that could not be "instantly traced" by a police department.
As sure as the sun rises in the morning, it is indeed common knowledge that the police have this capability. By the appearance of the many people agreeing with me, it is common knowledge to them as well.
So your standard of truth is just that if enough people believe it, it is so?
Now, you're a grammar Karen? So be it. It should have been 'falsely characterizing'. And the subject matter has always been about Catturd. Now, you're shifting again. It seems no one believes your rhetoric by disapproval rate.
This is common knowledge, especially around here. I see you are shifting your polemic from your averred 'inside knowledge' that "burner phones" were used and "using a spoofed number made over voip originating from a server in Russia".
My goodness, I requested sauce on this incredible information to which I am still waiting on. Then you wrongly claimed I said phone calls could "easily" be traced. As you already know, I never said this. You did. Now, you are claiming I do not know that the police have access to instantly trace and identify the caller. Again, it is common knowledge they do have this capability. Accordingly, most people here seem to agree with this statement.
Evidence?
I don't care. I follow the evidence.
Now, I asked you more than once for sauce on the "burner phones" used for Catturd and "using a spoofed number made over voip originating from a server in Russia". I'm still waiting. You then falsely mischaracterized my writing and now you're shifting to yet another tactic.
As sure as the sun rises in the morning, it is indeed common knowledge that the police have this capability. By the appearance of the many people agreeing with me, it is common knowledge to them as well.
Funny how you're so upset about me "falsely mischaracterizing" (whatever that means) your writing while I never said that catturd's caller used those techniques. I was providing an example of a phone call that could not be "instantly traced" by a police department.
So your standard of truth is just that if enough people believe it, it is so?
Now, you're a grammar Karen? So be it. It should have been 'falsely characterizing'. And the subject matter has always been about Catturd. Now, you're shifting again. It seems no one believes your rhetoric by disapproval rate.