Prevarication Du Jour

BotM201503281437ZThe Cabin Boy™ has been ranting for a couple of months about finding fingerprint or DNA on the letter I received to prove that he didn’t send it. I’ve noted in the past that the letter had been handled by multiple people and that the chance of finding any useful evidence of that sort is very low.

OTOH, knowing the make, model, and serial number of the printer that printed the letter and the envelope could be very helpful. At present, the original letter and envelope are in the hands of the Circuit Court, so the chain of custody is unbroken.

Stay tuned.

28 thoughts on “Prevarication Du Jour


  1. It is clear, that part of this attack on you recently is an “accuse the accusers” strategy. Brett actually committed perjury, so they accuse you of perjury. Brett actually forged documents, so you’re accused of forging documents. If they accuse you of killing a hooker, we should check to see if any hookers disappeared in Maryland, and what Brett’s alibi is at the time of her disappearance.


  2. Odd that one would try to educate the publisher of the letter to smash his printer to bits, unless, of course, either, or both, the police have already inspected the printer in question, or John has other authenticated letters showing the exact same watermarks.


    • Or John suspects or knows that the same printer was used to submit court filings? Be interesting to know if it matches Bill’s filings, or Brett’s?

      Hmmm…


    • Give that the Cabin Boy™ has published several pictures of himself that show a printer in the background, the results pointing to the same make and model, while not conclusive, would be interesting circumstantial evidence.


      • I won’t steal the quote, this was coined by Paul Lemmen a while ago, but I suspect there is a Yangtze River of fear pee emanating from a certain trailer in MD.


      • Oh, and by the way, this shoots down an off-chance theory I had.

        If, for the novelty if for no other reason, one assumed Bill didn’t send the letter, a certain “most excellent friend” of his somehow rocketed up on my suspect list.

        It was a long-shot, but I was wondering.


  3. Copies of s sealed court order that BS received “anonymously ” would also show the electronic watermark of who printed that as well.

    I wonder who that could be, and if we might have any other examples if he submitted any other documents to the court.

    Hmmmmmm….


  4. The only person harping constantly about that letter is BS. Reminds me of the saying “the guilty flee where no man pursueth.”


  5. The comment thread brought something to mind: what if, and I’m just hypothesizing, but WHAT IF an apparent OPSEC breach wasn’t that at all? What if, buried in a mountain of comments, there were a few that contained interesting info that would, indeed, set hearts aflutter in certain quarters, and result in mad dashes for Depends from sea to shining sea? And that was the whole point? Interesting thought, don’t you think? I love a good mystery!


  6. asking for a friend

    If someone still doesn’t have a legal clue and has been threatening to sue people for criticizing him since at least 2007/8 should anyone be worried? Also, if other people from other blogs that he was banned from ask to give us records – should we accept?

    Just again asking for a friend…


  7. Bill has never printed anything on that printer. He just uses some software that happens to print things on it.

    Isn’t that the logic for deleting tweets and creating pingbacks?

    “I’m sorry officer, I wasn’t speeding – the car was. I had nothing to do with it.”


  8. What’s fun?

    It’s an easy hack to disable/change/spoof this type of printer signature. There are several methods, physical, via software, or via modifying the printer firmware, of doing so. And that’s just the ones I know.

    That’s FUN!

    Good thing I’m a White Hat hacker…

    The easiest and obvious one, of course, involves printing a yellow background…;)

Leave a Reply