We know why you waited 10 years. Statute of limitation because you knew it
could be a crime, despite that you and everyone else insist in wasn't. Actions speak louder than words.
There was no need for that. All you needed to do for cover was not say anything.
Originally Posted by
Rob.Singer
My original effort failed, so I came back in 2000 with a rage and a grudge....and a very successful Singer Play Strategy--but for only 4 years.
This claim, which is what I was originally challenging when you started with all the name calling with me,
remains mathematically impossible.
Originally Posted by
mickeycrimm
Anyone saying "There are lots of ways that could have been learned" needs to put up some proof and not just speculation with no substance to it. Can anyone point out where it was published that the steps were wrong? Any article out there? Anything on a forum? I don't think you are going to find anything that Rob could have learned it from other than on the play itself.
I'll give you 2 ways that Rob could have learned the correct sequence just off the top of my head.
1.) Sometimes
after the story broke, Rob could have communicated with someone who did execute this play, Kane, Nestor, or someone else. Hell, I contacted Nestor last week through facebook. Not hard at all.
2.) Again, after the story broke, Rob could have found a machine at some out of the way location (maybe an Indian Casino) that still had the capability. So Rob tries the sequence stated in the article and it doesn't work. He plays around a bit and discovers the correct sequence. Rob is a pretty smart guy.
Either of these scenarios, plus probably a few more could have provided Rob with the correct sequence and knowledge necessary and would not mean that he had that knowledge in 2003 and executed the play for 6 years to the tune of 3 million dollars. Having this knowledge and/or any other knowledge about the play
NOW, does not mean he had it pre-Kane/Nestor, nor that he played it for 6 years.
Mickey if you are now joining the "proofers" (who has mysteriously gone quite on this one), demanding proof of something, this is what needs to be proven. I am NOT demanding proof of anything, but based on Rob's complete lack of credibility, lying about all things big and small and completely irrelevant, for me to be satisfied, yeah it will require some sort of evidential corroboration.