02-28-2022, 22:53:36 PM
Yeah, yeah, whatever. I don't see why I need to repeat myself to you, but my argument does come down to numbers, and you're going to have to deal with that.
Though it is questionable that you're telling me to "say the argument again without many key parts of the argument". It's like you're trying to get me to generate a strawman for you to characterize my argument as. So I'll ignore that point and present the full argument, plus some details added by recent revelations. But you're just going to ignore it, I'm sure. Anyway, here we go.
Point one. We know that the killer wore medium shoes to do the work.
Point two. The killer bashed in the victim's head with a bat. Presumably. We don't actually know that for sure, but everyone's guessing that, so we'll pretend that's true and confirmed for now.
Point three. The killer then went all around in those shoes, to every house, before abandoning the shoes and going back to join us in the morning.
Point four. Those shoes do not belong to anyone.
Point five. The indication of a medium sized person using these shoes were very deliberately everywhere. (Point three). Therefore, the marks must have been intended to be found. Also, the shoes must have been intended to be found. These are key points.
From this, we can conclude something. The very deliberate placement of marks and the shoes, and crumbs within, make it obvious that the evidence generated was false. It is nakedly an obvious frame-job with no specific target by the cookie. Crepe cookie? something like that. But here we run into a problem.
Why not choose a specific framing target, or multiple specific framing targets? In this case, it's merely clean misdirection with no clear evidence to drag people on the wrong track. This leaves one stand-out conclusion. The specific framing target is the cookie.
Alright, now for some more points.
Point A. Spamton is a salesman. He does not sell anything specific, he's a general salesman. Therefore, it is likely he sells shoes.
Point B. Spamton is small. There is reason to believe that a small person would want to frame the other small person. I will explain my reasoning in the conclusion.
Point C. Get the fuck over my pun. That wasn't the point. I was making a pun in like, the sense that you see on like, CSI. "Tracking cookies" isn't actual evidence, I was making a joke, fucking god.
Point D. The shoes do not come from anyone, so where did they come from?
Point E. Spamton ostensibly has stock, but we've never actually seen his stock. Therefore, he must store it in a void.
The reasoning behind the small person framing the other small person is clear enough. Once the other short one is dead, there will be only one small person left, so anything against them will be immediately dismissed as framing, so now they can wildly frame and always have it assumed that anything indicating them is just an obvious frame attempt. It is like... well, imagine if you had a known shapeshifter here. Obviously, anything could be them, so anything against them will be dismissed. The same is true of anyone with highly unique characteristics in these situations.
So the conclusion is clear. Spamton got those shoes from his own stock, because the cookie doesn't have shoes. Spamton got crumbs from the cookie, who is one hundred percent certain to shed crumbs, and put them in the shoes. Spamton then went and beat the victim to death, started a fire to cover up any trace evidence from that, which worked wonders, I might add, and then, Spamton made tracks everywhere to look like an utterly transparent vague frame with the only clear lead pointing back to the cookie. Spamton's hope was that the cookie would be executed and found innocent, and then you would assume that "because the cookie was innocent, it must have been a frame attempt by an actual medium sized person who was only framing a small person", thus clearing him of suspicion for another few nights, by which time you'd all be dead.
Though it is questionable that you're telling me to "say the argument again without many key parts of the argument". It's like you're trying to get me to generate a strawman for you to characterize my argument as. So I'll ignore that point and present the full argument, plus some details added by recent revelations. But you're just going to ignore it, I'm sure. Anyway, here we go.
Point one. We know that the killer wore medium shoes to do the work.
Point two. The killer bashed in the victim's head with a bat. Presumably. We don't actually know that for sure, but everyone's guessing that, so we'll pretend that's true and confirmed for now.
Point three. The killer then went all around in those shoes, to every house, before abandoning the shoes and going back to join us in the morning.
Point four. Those shoes do not belong to anyone.
Point five. The indication of a medium sized person using these shoes were very deliberately everywhere. (Point three). Therefore, the marks must have been intended to be found. Also, the shoes must have been intended to be found. These are key points.
From this, we can conclude something. The very deliberate placement of marks and the shoes, and crumbs within, make it obvious that the evidence generated was false. It is nakedly an obvious frame-job with no specific target by the cookie. Crepe cookie? something like that. But here we run into a problem.
Why not choose a specific framing target, or multiple specific framing targets? In this case, it's merely clean misdirection with no clear evidence to drag people on the wrong track. This leaves one stand-out conclusion. The specific framing target is the cookie.
Alright, now for some more points.
Point A. Spamton is a salesman. He does not sell anything specific, he's a general salesman. Therefore, it is likely he sells shoes.
Point B. Spamton is small. There is reason to believe that a small person would want to frame the other small person. I will explain my reasoning in the conclusion.
Point C. Get the fuck over my pun. That wasn't the point. I was making a pun in like, the sense that you see on like, CSI. "Tracking cookies" isn't actual evidence, I was making a joke, fucking god.
Point D. The shoes do not come from anyone, so where did they come from?
Point E. Spamton ostensibly has stock, but we've never actually seen his stock. Therefore, he must store it in a void.
The reasoning behind the small person framing the other small person is clear enough. Once the other short one is dead, there will be only one small person left, so anything against them will be immediately dismissed as framing, so now they can wildly frame and always have it assumed that anything indicating them is just an obvious frame attempt. It is like... well, imagine if you had a known shapeshifter here. Obviously, anything could be them, so anything against them will be dismissed. The same is true of anyone with highly unique characteristics in these situations.
So the conclusion is clear. Spamton got those shoes from his own stock, because the cookie doesn't have shoes. Spamton got crumbs from the cookie, who is one hundred percent certain to shed crumbs, and put them in the shoes. Spamton then went and beat the victim to death, started a fire to cover up any trace evidence from that, which worked wonders, I might add, and then, Spamton made tracks everywhere to look like an utterly transparent vague frame with the only clear lead pointing back to the cookie. Spamton's hope was that the cookie would be executed and found innocent, and then you would assume that "because the cookie was innocent, it must have been a frame attempt by an actual medium sized person who was only framing a small person", thus clearing him of suspicion for another few nights, by which time you'd all be dead.
I am the They who says it!