It only took a little wait for Hairy to nail you on that one.
I've seen you play the omission game in several technical discussions already... but defending Ver? Come on.
Nail? Hardly.
I'm not defending Ver. I'm defending truth.
It hardly seems appropriate to dress as a Defender of the Truth when the Truth so dearly defended is at the very least incomplete.
At least you could have read the whole sentencing before taking a conman at his word.
It's a fact that the judge DID use the expression "pipe bomb" in the official document. Which could suggest there were pipe bombs involved indeed, even if they didn't make it to the proceedings. There could have been deals or other circumstances excluding some witnesses, just to name one possibility.
Hm, sometimes I wonder why do I even argue with you about nontechnical stuff...