Replies

Frankly it doesn't matter whether we agree. Now we are talking numbers. You asked about the existence of any information supporting the arrest of Conradt and I noted that such evidence (and we agree it is sloppy) was mentioned in the article. Actually, I used the word "most".

You stated I was either lying or mistaken. "There was not any of that stuff" in the article.

Wow. What would be the point of lying? And, unless you have blinders on, there is no mistaking the context of one of the key players learning that the findings of a forensic analysis verified that Bill Conradt was the person who chatted online with the decoy- which was the example that was provided you.

You then began quibbling about the quantity of the evidence, insisting that the one example I provided you is not "most". Sigh. Okay, shove aside the idea that the article was referenced as a way to help you find the information that you were looking for and instead, let's focus on the words "most" and "any". Yes, that is correct, one example does not equal "most" and since we are now parsing words, the information you were given is more than what you stated as not "any".

"Most". "Not any". "Some" okay?

Continuing. You also questioned whether the transcript between Conradt and the decoy could be considered illegal. Good question. You were provided with yet another excerpt to the article that reflected upon that matter and also cited a section within the Texas Penal Code that would be used by the police in determining Conradts guilt or innocence. Again, that is simply a reference to the article to help you find the information you had asked about.

But, since you are keeping track, I've now given you a couple of references to the article that makes note of certain steps (albeit, wobbly) that were taken in processing the search and arrest warrants.

Note, I don't consider the article to be the final source of information. Obviously it is not. Still, for those that are interested in seeking out any information about this subject (and since you asked about it, you must be curious), the article can be a stepping stone that might lead to further insight.

By now, if you've managed to stay with me (and I wouldn't blame you if you haven't, I'm pretty bored with the subject now) I would think you are well aware that my initial intent was to inform you that SOME of the information you were looking for was noted in the Esquire article. If you feel that you need to continue focusing on the the numbers, have at it. You'd probably thank me for not spoon feeding you any more references. Re-read (or read for the first time) the article and see if you can find more examples on your own. Whether you care to quantify any of your findings as "most", "some", or not "any" is left for you to determine.

Have fun.