You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

heks_ ago

Upvoated.

That said, two conflicting things occur to me. 1) Given the context of the investigation here, it seems creepy that this window just happens to overlook a playground, and 2) If this was something shady, doesn't it seem kinda odd that this Valerie woman would advertise her participation in it on her website? From what I'm gathering, James Alefantis is not advertising it, hence the need for the sleuthing in this post to definitively tie him to it. And yet, this woman is advertising it.

Ok, actually a third thing occurred to me, also along the creepy lines ... It appears that the lower pane of the window in her picture is mostly covered. This could be benign, but it would coincidentally block any very short people from being seen from the outside. But this point is feeling like confirmation bias to me ... I'm sure there's probably other reasons to block out the bottom part of a window. Still, what's troubling about it is that this seems to be yet another case of the coincidences starting to pile up. Yes, this Valerie person is advertising the name of the project (does she give an address?), but it doesn't seem that Alefantis is advertising anything about his involvement in it, and it's also overlooking a playground, and just the bottom part of the window is blocked out in a way that would make kids invisible from the outside.

Luxxy ago

Alefantis did advertise it, he left a bloody review on the place.

heks_ ago

Maybe I'm missing something, but leaving a review on a place does not typically count as an advertisement that you are involved with or own the place. I actually find it a bit odd that he would review a place he seems to own or be involved with without disclosing his involvement. In other words, it seems like Alefantis is kind of hiding his involvement with this place, since, as I understand, he owns it through a holding company that doesn't use his name (except for including his middle name), then he leaves a review without mentioning his involvement, which could mean he's using the review as a way to signal people in the know. But then, he could just be trying to make something he's involved in look good and it may be no more nefarious than that. I'm trying to remain objective here by acknowledging what seems weird but also acknowledging that some of this stuff might be perfectly capable of being explained in more mundane ways.