But Mr. Bradley did, after saying that they knew long ago, said that they "selectively omitted" information to him, which is a statement one makes when they are really screaming deception. He also said "I had translated the data into something meaningful for the police, he said. Then I turned it over to them. The No. 1 principle for them is to validate the data, and they had the tools and resources to do it. They chose not to.
I wish that I had gotten a screenshot because I was not expecting him to delete it. But anyway, in my opinion, he repeatedly implied that the state was less than truthful with the information before apologizing to them for having to speak in an unfavorable light. If he stood behind what he was saying, and what his statements seemed to imply, I would think that he would not have deleted the post. I have no respect for the man at this point, whatsoever.