He won't respond to this because he's a loser, a fool, and a coward.

You said there is no evidence at all behind claims, and obviously neither do you have any evidence at all behind your claims and yet you say, Who Knows? You claim that he's on a rescue mission and assume what he was up to, yet you can't ask for more details and are extremely trusting a corrupt system. If you're making these assertions and assumptions then you should know.

Surely the police and/or legal team should know the truth behind it. After all, that's what courts and news systems are for is it not? To get to the truth and real details? How are you sure his rescue mission wasn't the computer? Where is this data you're speaking of? From what reputable sources? Or is this just more ''move along folks, nothing to see here'' sort of drivel based on assumptions and cover-ups. In fact, you are making an uninformed assumption and asking others to do what you are doing.

yep, now I'm getting it. It's loud and clear !

I know how the legal system and mainstream news systems works. I've experienced it firsthand many times. It's not honest nor is it reliable to provide the truth or justice.

I'll give you just two recent examples of this system you're trying to support and cram down readers throats as if it's some type of perfect system unworthy of scrutiny.

I watched a guy go crazy a few blocks from my house. He came out of the house shooting a 22 rifle. I was walking my dog and all the streets within a 4 block radius were blocked off with armed police and cars at every intersection. I knew the owner of the house was a decent guy and wondered what happened. It turned out that the owner, a nice man, had a relative staying whom he discovered was doing cocaine and the relative lost on a bad trip.

As I was walking my dog police cruisers told everyone in the area to stay indoors, don't open it for anyone. What did I see on the local news that night? A 4 second footage of the house with no reference to the real issues and no image of all the armed police and road blocks. I couldn't believe it was the same scene and the story didn't relate to what really happened nor did it provide any details.
Why didn't news detail it? Because politicians and news media don't want to scare people with the truth. In fact, they don't want the truth or they'd provide actual accurate details so public can be informed.

My second, but not my only example, is a female relative recently high on crack. She needed money and broke into the house of her 86 year old grandpa (my father-in-law) around 1:00 or so in the morning. She and her boyfriend beat him with a paint can that they found in the house and kicked and hit him until he woke up and knocked him unconscious. This happened 5 more times until they were winded and ran off. He flat-lined on the way to the hospital. He managed to survive to tell the story. If he hadn't told the details to the police we wouldn't have known that the niece did it.
Why? Because the entire family and town notice that there's a pattern. The police don't close the crack houses in town because they get a kickback from it. The court system is a sad farce where crimes like this have the criminals walking in no time.

The victims prosecution and law don't provide any information to the family. Why? Because they don't have to.
The niece lied to produce a different story which is still being reviewed by the judge for an upcoming trial in what only can be called a kangaroo court .
The news reporters soft peddled the whole thing by offering information that was incomplete and what information was provided was only 50% accurate. The victim said the article didn't resemble his story or interview.

Why? The town has a lot of crime and there is an agenda in place NOT to scare the public.

The perps lawyer wanted to wave it as robbery. When the relatives showed up in suits and business clothes asking to speak to the prosecution the sentence was increased to aggravated assault . Everyone wanted to know why attempted manslaughter charges weren't levied?
The law acts on it's own and does not have to say anything to anyone nor does it have to tell the truth.

Each court session was like a fast food drive-through with minimal sentencing. It was disgusting. The legal system is about making those workers the most amount of money with the least amount of work -- not about serving justice. Sadly the police didn't even find the perps phone. The victims family located it under a pile of clothes in her apartment, which they handed to the prosecution. All along the family thought the prosecution had the phone which might be able to validate more issues implicating her and 2 other drug addicted relatives for motive to kill based on a massive inheritance.

If the family wasn't present in court the victims would be out of jail with reduced sentences just like the hearings that took place before and after the niece's hearing. The niece had a warrant for her arrest for a year on assault but the police, who easily knew her crack house gang, didn't take her in and therefor didn't prevent this recent crime. The 86 yr old man still could die at any time after multiple serious surgeries and pneumonia with no justification. Nobody is honestly or accurately supporting him and he has absolutely NO rights to question or ask about any of it.

In addition to this, the perp gave birth to a substance addicted child 4 months ago. During her arrest the government took the child and the family cannot find out who has it or where it went. The family has no rights and the government does **not **have to tell them anything.

Meanwhile, the crack flop houses are still running. If the victim had died the information of the perp wouldn't be known and the court doesn't care because they have a revolving door money making system --- for them !

What makes you think that protecting child trafficking, a bigger money maker and emotional addiction than crack is going to be handled any differntly? (based on recovery experts claim that sexual addictions are harder to rehab than substance abuse.)

So look, you're trying to convince me that your assumptions are actual -- in other words, you're peddling bullshit. The entire complex situation doesn't add up. You're lame story doesn't help your case; it only makes you look stupid.

I'm sure you're far too busy, y'know, with your side gig as Harvey Weinstein's pet gimp.