Another anomoly, the stitching of the swoop logo is not even, all Puma have equal distance stitching on the logo, but that image has the bottom row of stitching too close. It could be a fake knockoff or a different holdall totally
Do you mean in the Police forensics photo, on the right? As I had thought that police photo of the bag, was maybe a bag they had made for the operation, as it looks too new, whereas Mair's was old, plus was dark brown, and not black. But yes that stitching is not evenly spaced. Many thanks for your observation.
False flags are always characterised by narratives that are holier than a string vest and this fits the pattern. The anomalies of the sports bag are but one aspect of the fraud. The key point is that all the evidence points to it being a psy-op that, as is invariably the case, was decisively rumbled by both Richard D. Hall and yourself, Mark.
Hello Mark. Like you, I use my own name. As an engineer, I’m professionally interested in the evidence you gather and publish. I’m not questioning your or Richard Hall’s motivation or sincerity; the innocence of Tommy Mair does seem likely on Hall’s assessment; and I’m not trying to upset any theory about a possible setup by the police. Hall may well be right in his 5-point theory.
But it turns out that, all those years ago, you already had the evidence I use to prove my point, and you couldn’t see then (and still can’t see) the self-contradiction in your analysis of that evidence.
I accept your criticism of my failed internet search, but thanks to additional photographs you provided in this article, your “rebuttal” does not refute, but reinforces, my observation about your analysis of Fig B, viz., that you are visualising an “ambiguous shape” to be something it cannot logically be, rather than objectively analysing much clearer evidence in front of you.
I now see that “vintage” Puma bags from the ‘70s [Type 1] consistently have the pattern of stitching you visualise (and I can’t see) in Fig B, which I describe as a “trapezoid”, a distorted rectangle, wider at the top and tapering to a narrow base.
I also agree that “all evidence” (including CCTV footage) suggests “Tommy’s Puma bag” is indeed from the “1980s era” [Type 2] which have (a) two rivets, (b) a characteristic Puma “swoosh” mark, and (c) a “teardrop” (instead of a “trapezoid”) patch at the ends of each handle, numerous examples of which you found (and I didn’t) on the internet.
Put those two things side by side, with no added red outline to distort your perception, and you get the following logic.
Your Fig B shows a bag with (i) two rivets and (ii) the characteristic Puma “swoosh” mark, which you correctly identify as two of the unique characteristics that define a Type 2 Puma bag from the 1980s era, which your own research evidence shows to have the characteristic “teardrop” shaped handle patch (not a “trapezoid”) under the two rivets.
Yet you insist that the same bag in Fig B does NOT have a “teardrop” and MUST be a Type 1 bag, with the “trapezoid” patch, which you believe you can “see” in Fig B (and I can’t see).
There is a very simple reason why I can’t see it. Do you agree that, physically and logically, Tommy’s bag can’t be both Type 2 and Type 1 at the same time?
To me, the presence of “two rivets” alone in Fig B provides sufficient conclusive evidence to establish positive identification of a Type 2 Puma bag, and that evidence is not consistent with the trapezoidal stitching pattern in Type 1, which you seek to impose on the police photograph in Fig A, without any evidence supporting the possible existence of such an hypothetical “Type 3” Puma bag.
All three of your Type 1 bags (with the “trapezoid” patch), have either ONE rivet or NO rivets, not TWO. Also, the positive identification of Tommy’s bag as a Type 2 by “rivet pattern alone” is further reinforced by the presence of the Puma “swoosh” mark, which is absent on all three of your Type 1 bags.
So, the one thing that could change my mind is the discovery of this (hypothetical) “Type 3 bag”, which would be a hybrid mix of both Type 2 [“two rivets” + Puma “swoosh”] and Type 1 [“trapezoid” anchor patch + NO “swoosh”], but until it is located, I think you will agree that the “trapezoid” shape you claim to “see” in Fig B contradicts the “two rivets” and “swoosh” mark. I hope you agree that, although the two rivets and “swoosh” mark in Fig B are both fuzzy, they are much more clearly discernible than the “ambiguous shape” of the anchor patch in question in that out-of-focus enlargement taken from the arrest scene.
“Gathering relevant evidence” is one thing; “objective forensic assessment” of that evidence is another. Forensic investigation lets the evidence speak for itself; it tries very hard NOT to tell others what the investigator wants it to say. Where you visualize a “trapezoid” shape in Fig B, I can, with justification, visualize a “teardrop”, but I would not put my “visualisation” up as evidence under cross-examination in the witness box because the “two rivets” and “swoosh” mark speak “loudly enough” on their own.
I think it’s time to review the high level of confidence you have been placing on your allegation of fraud, based on what you believe you can visualise in the grainy, out-of-focus handle patch in Fig B. When disproven, such allegations can do damage to your laudable campaign to prove Tommy’s innocence.
Thanks for your reply back. Please, know my articles are in no way personal against you, but pure discussion of the evidence, and our differences about it etc.
I shall be writing another rebuttal article, because you have made several more assertions which are simply incorrect, and flawed, and I feel it only right to show a detailed response to your assertions you have made, and why they are incorrect.
Another anomoly, the stitching of the swoop logo is not even, all Puma have equal distance stitching on the logo, but that image has the bottom row of stitching too close. It could be a fake knockoff or a different holdall totally
Hi Wendy,
Do you mean in the Police forensics photo, on the right? As I had thought that police photo of the bag, was maybe a bag they had made for the operation, as it looks too new, whereas Mair's was old, plus was dark brown, and not black. But yes that stitching is not evenly spaced. Many thanks for your observation.
yes the police one, its not a real puma bag, resellers looking for fakes notice things like that
Mike drop!
Mike drop? What does that mean mate?
That you did good, my friend.
Excellent detective work!
Mark: 1
Feds: 0
If this guy used Bing for his search he may have missed info that you get from CHROME
False flags are always characterised by narratives that are holier than a string vest and this fits the pattern. The anomalies of the sports bag are but one aspect of the fraud. The key point is that all the evidence points to it being a psy-op that, as is invariably the case, was decisively rumbled by both Richard D. Hall and yourself, Mark.
https://substack.com/@bruce1701/note/c-130120061?r=5v3nzq&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action
Hello Mark. Like you, I use my own name. As an engineer, I’m professionally interested in the evidence you gather and publish. I’m not questioning your or Richard Hall’s motivation or sincerity; the innocence of Tommy Mair does seem likely on Hall’s assessment; and I’m not trying to upset any theory about a possible setup by the police. Hall may well be right in his 5-point theory.
But it turns out that, all those years ago, you already had the evidence I use to prove my point, and you couldn’t see then (and still can’t see) the self-contradiction in your analysis of that evidence.
I accept your criticism of my failed internet search, but thanks to additional photographs you provided in this article, your “rebuttal” does not refute, but reinforces, my observation about your analysis of Fig B, viz., that you are visualising an “ambiguous shape” to be something it cannot logically be, rather than objectively analysing much clearer evidence in front of you.
I now see that “vintage” Puma bags from the ‘70s [Type 1] consistently have the pattern of stitching you visualise (and I can’t see) in Fig B, which I describe as a “trapezoid”, a distorted rectangle, wider at the top and tapering to a narrow base.
I also agree that “all evidence” (including CCTV footage) suggests “Tommy’s Puma bag” is indeed from the “1980s era” [Type 2] which have (a) two rivets, (b) a characteristic Puma “swoosh” mark, and (c) a “teardrop” (instead of a “trapezoid”) patch at the ends of each handle, numerous examples of which you found (and I didn’t) on the internet.
Put those two things side by side, with no added red outline to distort your perception, and you get the following logic.
Your Fig B shows a bag with (i) two rivets and (ii) the characteristic Puma “swoosh” mark, which you correctly identify as two of the unique characteristics that define a Type 2 Puma bag from the 1980s era, which your own research evidence shows to have the characteristic “teardrop” shaped handle patch (not a “trapezoid”) under the two rivets.
Yet you insist that the same bag in Fig B does NOT have a “teardrop” and MUST be a Type 1 bag, with the “trapezoid” patch, which you believe you can “see” in Fig B (and I can’t see).
There is a very simple reason why I can’t see it. Do you agree that, physically and logically, Tommy’s bag can’t be both Type 2 and Type 1 at the same time?
To me, the presence of “two rivets” alone in Fig B provides sufficient conclusive evidence to establish positive identification of a Type 2 Puma bag, and that evidence is not consistent with the trapezoidal stitching pattern in Type 1, which you seek to impose on the police photograph in Fig A, without any evidence supporting the possible existence of such an hypothetical “Type 3” Puma bag.
All three of your Type 1 bags (with the “trapezoid” patch), have either ONE rivet or NO rivets, not TWO. Also, the positive identification of Tommy’s bag as a Type 2 by “rivet pattern alone” is further reinforced by the presence of the Puma “swoosh” mark, which is absent on all three of your Type 1 bags.
So, the one thing that could change my mind is the discovery of this (hypothetical) “Type 3 bag”, which would be a hybrid mix of both Type 2 [“two rivets” + Puma “swoosh”] and Type 1 [“trapezoid” anchor patch + NO “swoosh”], but until it is located, I think you will agree that the “trapezoid” shape you claim to “see” in Fig B contradicts the “two rivets” and “swoosh” mark. I hope you agree that, although the two rivets and “swoosh” mark in Fig B are both fuzzy, they are much more clearly discernible than the “ambiguous shape” of the anchor patch in question in that out-of-focus enlargement taken from the arrest scene.
“Gathering relevant evidence” is one thing; “objective forensic assessment” of that evidence is another. Forensic investigation lets the evidence speak for itself; it tries very hard NOT to tell others what the investigator wants it to say. Where you visualize a “trapezoid” shape in Fig B, I can, with justification, visualize a “teardrop”, but I would not put my “visualisation” up as evidence under cross-examination in the witness box because the “two rivets” and “swoosh” mark speak “loudly enough” on their own.
I think it’s time to review the high level of confidence you have been placing on your allegation of fraud, based on what you believe you can visualise in the grainy, out-of-focus handle patch in Fig B. When disproven, such allegations can do damage to your laudable campaign to prove Tommy’s innocence.
Regards,
P.L. Cusack, BE(Mech)HonsA, MIEAust, CPEng (ret.)
Chartered Engineer (ret.)
Hi Pat,
Thanks for your reply back. Please, know my articles are in no way personal against you, but pure discussion of the evidence, and our differences about it etc.
I shall be writing another rebuttal article, because you have made several more assertions which are simply incorrect, and flawed, and I feel it only right to show a detailed response to your assertions you have made, and why they are incorrect.
Warm regards
Mark Conlon
https://substack.com/@bruce1701/note/c-130120061?r=5v3nzq&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action