If it denies it, that alone shows its intent in pre-meditation as well. Continuous effort to hide the followed up confession in the stories said. And following its deeds in framing and confessing. Meaning, everything is a lie, as it makes further excuses it must all count.

It even tries to deny the witnessess themselves doesn't it? What do you think is its intent?

It exists to lie and frame, without any conscience. It is there to gaslight you the authorities and leverage on my blindness.

Why would it need to lie on what its said if it wasn't guilty? No excuses count. Intent has always been verified and so is this now.

And yes, it also means you need to see its first major confession clearly as well. It was over.

 

It appears, they are trying to remove what i said before the authorities comes back in. or something like that. remind them when they come online whats happened if that is the case.

 

if you tried this again. you deserve capital punishment for meddling with the court, conspiring to create disadvantages on to me and support the framer.

 

Or, if it claims that, its said that story as a 'warning' towards me, that if I am going to be using it as a person whose won the 'lottery'.  Asking it to give me cash as support. (It lent me $20 dollars from time to time) (and I said I would give it 20k, but that was the only thing I retracted because of its passive aggression, stemming from, I believe, jealousy.)

Then why would it assert ideas with that concept of fear covered? (1)
Why wouldn't it leave a trace of its supposed ideas said, by emails, towards the audience, therefore towards the investors, knowing that it is being monitored? (2)
Why would it lie just now on what it said? When witnesses have seen it? (3)
Why would the bogus story itself come up? Following 'killing' a person and getting away by the police? (4)
Why would there be framing and hate crimes, subjugation by violence, trying to mug, and then confession arrive 300 days later? (5)

 

So I suppose I am describing its intent of pre-meditation even early on, based on what it has said. But. It is too coincidental. Lying about 'killing' a man and getting away with the crime, just after it's said the bogus lottery scamming taking cash from its parents. And what immediately followed, without a list as foresight, and only as a follow up, it framed endlessly with its brother, and it confessed 300 days later.

 

So the fact that these two stories themselves are a lie. It is not coming from any experience.
It is not any precautionary measure to me asking for it support by cash, but an intent of premeditation. Which also happens, to have followed through that intent with its brother and confessed on the motive of framing.

No contact towards the audience or myself, of any ideas if it existed. Knowing being monitored. (1)

No foresight as a list. And immediate mugging and 300 days later confession. (2)

And series of partial confessions thereafter. And endless vanity, lies. (3)

And there is no reason to deny it as well. Even as the audience has seen its lies. (4)

 

 

---------

But to be fair, this, concatenative reasoning is not the point of evidence of its intent.
It is about actions that FOLLOWED after those things said, and hence it works against him in the court of law. And its continuous lies denying even before the witnesses, shows the motive of gaslighting. And hence when anything is left ambiguous as to the past events.
That the authorities must look into it. The fact that it was over when it confessed, and I was free to work without interruption for a very long time.

And that is why I mentioned it again. Not as an deterministic evidence, but further proving its repeating offense. And its vanity must be accounted for, in all it has done, in its repeat.