The Syndicate

lol.

You literally voted for me after analyzing my interactions with Jackie. You can call it whatever you want, I think it's weak. Sorry if that upset you but it doesn't change my mind.

Whatley, defending yourself is pointless at this point. Just do that hunting. That hunting is your defense. Who's bad?

George Costanza wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:27 pm lol.

You literally voted for me after analyzing my interactions with Jackie. You can call it whatever you want, I think it's weak. Sorry if that upset you but it doesn't change my mind.

I literally voted for you after analyzing everyone's interactions with Jackie, deeming yours the worst, in combination to never having read you as a civilian at any point prior to that. I didn't think you looked good before Jackie, and I think you look worse after Jackie. Exactly how is that "weak"? That's what scumhunting is. It's a deliberate usage of information in the thread to arrive upon an educated conclusion.

"lol"

This is how you take pressure in crunch time, after willfully planting your flag in the lynch of a player you read as a civilian to be a "team player"? No way, George Costanza. No way.

Jerry Seinfeld wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:23 pm Why the hell wouldn't Jackie do that? It's the point of WIFOM. I've seen a mafioso fake track their own teammate into a kill and cruise to victory with it; I can certainly conceive of this.

we've all seen a lot of things. Since the narrator has chosen to disclose the actual identity of the player at death, I'm assuming that would help determine some player habits.

Sorry to break you out of roleplay mode, but would the player Long Con shout LYNCH GEORGE COSTANZA after getting lynched and knowing he'll be flipping scum if I was his team mate? If you say there's a greater percentage that he would, then lynch me. You'll be lynching a vanilla townie, but at least it'll give you information on how NOT to assess a situation.

George Costanza wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:31 pm

Jerry Seinfeld wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:23 pm Why the hell wouldn't Jackie do that? It's the point of WIFOM. I've seen a mafioso fake track their own teammate into a kill and cruise to victory with it; I can certainly conceive of this.

we've all seen a lot of things. Since the narrator has chosen to disclose the actual identity of the player at death, I'm assuming that would help determine some player habits.

Sorry to break you out of roleplay mode, but would the player Long Con shout LYNCH GEORGE COSTANZA after getting lynched and knowing he'll be flipping scum if I was his team mate? If you say there's a greater percentage that he would, then lynch me. You'll be lynching a vanilla townie, but at least it'll give you information on how NOT to assess a situation.

I have no idea why you're insisting this is some kind of impossibility. This happens all the time. I have done it myself as a mafioso, in the championship game of the MU tournament two years ago. I was on my way to the gallows and I posted a huge ISO incriminating my only teammate.

He survived the game and won.

Sorry, the lol is one of exasperation. I feel like I've been guilty to you since Day 1, quite literally, and all I've done is go round in circles defending myself. so if you need to lynch me to get it out of the way, you do that Jerry. I hope everyone else can see the truth though.

Alright, I'm back, SERENITY NOW'ed, and ready to vote for George now that Jerry has also seen the light. Will look at Whately just to be fair.

He looks to me like a civilian being thrown into the game and wanting to engage with the main posters, make sure they didn't escape suspicion. That both of those main posters have turned out to look eminently civ is just the way the game unfolded.

Joining in Day 2 I was very much fixated on Elaine and Jerry. So much so that I've decided to take a step back and review other leads and questions I have.

The thing that looks worst to me is this.

Regarding my Peterman vote without much reason, truth is there was none other than me wanting to gauge reactions. I figured if Peterman was bad, I should pressure vote and see who scrambles. This didn't happen

That's after previously defending the vote with this:

Interesting. What should I say over his 7 posts that hasn't been said already?

That strikes me as a lack of transparency, which isn't a great look at this point in the game, when we're all really scrambling to solve and avoid LYLO. My gut says it's good for him to come clean rather than fabricate a reason, but I realize that's open to interpretation.

In summary, I still think George is a stronger suspect based on what he's said about Estelle and Jackie.

Would be hilarious if Jerry is scum though. I mean really, hats off to you. While no one is questioning Elaine and Steinbrenner, you're not even a confirmed PR and no one's questioning your alliance.

Jerry Seinfeld wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:27 pm Whatley, defending yourself is pointless at this point. Just do that hunting. That hunting is your defense. Who's bad?

Leo, Frank, recent posts makes me want to look at George but I can also see the angle of a frustrated civ taking heat solely based on mafia actions.

George, how do your actions counteract what is being claimed? Can any of your actions hold you accountable or no?

Frank, I don't understand what's happening in that post. Do you trust Whatley or not?

George Costanza wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:36 pm Would be hilarious if Jerry is scum though. I mean really, hats off to you. While no one is questioning Elaine and Steinbrenner, you're not even a confirmed PR and no one's questioning your alliance.

I have a reason to think that Elaine and Jerry are civ. Steinbrenner however I'm not 100% on, I recall liking his thought processes and questions during day 3.

[mention]George Costanza[/mention]
[mention]Uncle Leo[/mention]
[mention]Frank Costanza[/mention]
[mention]Tim Whatley[/mention]
[mention]J Peterman[/mention]

Two of the five of you are mafia. From your perspectives, you should be able to say it's just two of the four (unless you want to add me into the mix).

Please do the following:

Eliminate two players from your suspect pool, not including me.

Tim Whatley wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:37 pm

Jerry Seinfeld wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:27 pm Whatley, defending yourself is pointless at this point. Just do that hunting. That hunting is your defense. Who's bad?

Leo, Frank, recent posts makes me want to look at George but I can also see the angle of a frustrated civ taking heat solely based on mafia actions.

George, how do your actions counteract what is being claimed? Can any of your actions hold you accountable or no?

I haven't been a very low poster, but I don't have 7 pages to go through. Skim through them. Tell me if something I posted catches your eye (in context, not out of context) and I'll do my very best to explain myself. I feel I've been honest and open at all times. Vanilla townie is the easiest role to play, because I have nothing to hide and little to lose in terms of dying as opposed to a power role. I'm a little frustrated that I've explained myself repeatedly and after each time, Jerry or someone else bring back some other reason that has nothing to do with me and everything to do with Jackie. But again, well played to Jackie.

Frank, please talk to me about Steinbrenner.

Tim Whatley wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:39 pm

George Costanza wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:36 pm Would be hilarious if Jerry is scum though. I mean really, hats off to you. While no one is questioning Elaine and Steinbrenner, you're not even a confirmed PR and no one's questioning your alliance.

I have a reason to think that Elaine and Jerry are civ. Steinbrenner however I'm not 100% on, I recall liking his thought processes and questions during day 3.

What kind of reason do you have?

Steinbrenner is the confirmed 2-shot cop.

I've been working like a dog this past hour! I will do what I do best and give my opinion on everyone here, because I know you like nothing better than to listen to me talk. This is based on what I've been able to eavesdrop on from the hallway (what you've all been saying and doing):

Elaine - Ah, Elaine. So many potential firings, so many reinstatements. Claims to have one job but does another. However, she's at least getting things done, and has shown some of those job claimings to be true. No votes from me today.

Frank - I've agreed with Frank on some occasions. They've been some of the few posts I've actually made! But I agreed on the wrong things, such as his Puddy comment. The vote record isn't great, except that last one getting Jackie. But then again, I suppose I could say that of anyone, considering we've only caught one baddie. Oh, and this little nugget:

Jerry Seinfeld wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 1:48 pm (chart cut)

Note though: Frank, Bania, and Whatley have never said a word to or about one another in this game thread. It's not typical mafia behavior, but I am not sure it'd be surprising in this scenario wherein both player slots have generally been populated by low posters.

I have a friend of a friend of a friend in Czechoslovakia (is that what they're calling it these days?) who has pulled this sort of stunt as a baddie on more than one occasion, so it puts the possibility of Frank being bad a little closer.

George - George's outlier vote last round doesn't look so great. George also keeps saying he'll go back and look at players he's suspicious of, but doesn't. Except Uncle Leo, which honestly, I agree with a suspicion of Leo. But these outlier votes and this new agreement to "do what the town does" but not really doesn't look great. Not a fan.

Steinbrenner - As I said before, I like this fellow - he's got conviction! And although that conviction has been against me much of this little game, I appreciate it as a man. The last vote wasn't the best, considering the flip, but he has been at least consistent, and his contributions to the game have been apt. He's paying attention. Not perfect, given the votes, but certainly not the worst.

Jerry - I said my piece on Jerry before. I voted him with good conscience. I was also quite busy the rest of that day gathering my lost belongings from Burma, but I'm glad his flip-flopping moved to a baddie. So, looks good to me today. Edit: Although, dammit Jerry, make up your mind! You're doing it again! But I have more faith in you this time around, considering the last vote.

Tim Whatley - Good Jackie vote last round. My issue at this point is that he keeps saying he voted me and is voting people for reactions, but I haven't seen much of what intel he's actually garnered from these so-called reactions. It makes me think he's just saying that to say something. Have I missed an explanation?

Uncle Leo - Uncle Leo, why don't you like me? I see you voted me because I haven't said much and I had a bad vote. Haven't we all had a bad vote? But what I do like about Leo is, he's not afraid to go after anyone, no matter how "cleared" they may appear.

It looks like I've pulled the compliment sandwich on all of you fine people, which was...not my intention. But my sherpa says I should try being positive more often. Helps with stress. In the wake of this madness, I'm also trying to understand these charts of role/team possibilities you people have created in the little time and brainpower I have, so I believe I have the gist enough to understand these combinations of possible baddies.

So, from what I've gathered, I'm happiest to vote George, Whatley, or Frank today. And maybe Leo. But less likely Leo.

*tents fingers in thought*

J Peterman wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:43 pm So, from what I've gathered, I'm happiest to vote George, Whatley, or Frank today. And maybe Leo. But less likely Leo.

Peterman, this is no time for player salad! You just talked about everyone, so pick one!

Whatley, then George.

J Peterman wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:43 pm George - George's outlier vote last round doesn't look so great. George also keeps saying he'll go back and look at players he's suspicious of, but doesn't. Except Uncle Leo, which honestly, I agree with a suspicion of Leo. But these outlier votes and this new agreement to "do what the town does" but not really doesn't look great. Not a fan.

I've never been a sheep. I don't follow no herds.

I don't feel I have the support of town enough to actually sway people to vote for someone I want at this point. If my post helps confirmed townies, in my eyes I've done well. Otherwise, it's sticking to people I think are scum.

Thanks, Peterman. Now, tell me, having made your best effort to figure out my nonsense charts and the like, was there anything in my analyses you didn't agree with? I see the one comment you made there in your reads post. What else? Does Frank's civilian ID mean anything to you?

J Peterman wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:43 pm IBut what I do like about Leo is, he's not afraid to go after anyone, no matter how "cleared" they may appear.

Where did he do that?

[quote="George Costanza" post_id=377013 time=1508366917 user_id=230
I don't feel I have the support of town enough to actually sway people to vote for someone I want at this point. If my post helps confirmed townies, in my eyes I've done well. Otherwise, it's sticking to people I think are scum.
[/quote]

Imagine for a moment that you have total control over the lynch. Who dies?

I understand some of these questions are repetitive, but there's a reason I am asking.

EBWOP

George Costanza wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:48 pm I don't feel I have the support of town enough to actually sway people to vote for someone I want at this point. If my post helps confirmed townies, in my eyes I've done well. Otherwise, it's sticking to people I think are scum.

Imagine for a moment that you have total control over the lynch. Who dies?

I understand some of these questions are repetitive, but there's a reason I am asking.

Tim Whatley wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:37 pm

Jerry Seinfeld wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:27 pm Whatley, defending yourself is pointless at this point. Just do that hunting. That hunting is your defense. Who's bad?

Leo, Frank, recent posts makes me want to look at George but I can also see the angle of a frustrated civ taking heat solely based on mafia actions.

George, how do your actions counteract what is being claimed? Can any of your actions hold you accountable or no?

Tell me more about Leo and Frank. I'll give you two options, please address one or both:

1) Why do you suspect Leo and Frank most?

2) Why do you suspect George and Peterman less?

THE GAME WILL BE WON OR LOST TODAY, LET'S RUMBLE.

Jerry Seinfeld wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:49 pm Thanks, Peterman. Now, tell me, having made your best effort to figure out my nonsense charts and the like, was there anything in my analyses you didn't agree with? I see the one comment you made there in your reads post. What else? Does Frank's civilian ID mean anything to you?

I assume you mean civilian ID for Whatley? Depends on his flip, I suppose. But he doesn't seem terribly sure about the ID, considering his last comment/quote from Whatley about not being sure. So of course it means something to me, but I have yet to see exactly what.

Jerry Seinfeld wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:51 pm EBWOP

George Costanza wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:48 pm I don't feel I have the support of town enough to actually sway people to vote for someone I want at this point. If my post helps confirmed townies, in my eyes I've done well. Otherwise, it's sticking to people I think are scum.

Imagine for a moment that you have total control over the lynch. Who dies?

I understand some of these questions are repetitive, but there's a reason I am asking.

I'd go with Frank, then Leo then you or Peterman.

J Peterman wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:54 pm

Jerry Seinfeld wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:49 pm Thanks, Peterman. Now, tell me, having made your best effort to figure out my nonsense charts and the like, was there anything in my analyses you didn't agree with? I see the one comment you made there in your reads post. What else? Does Frank's civilian ID mean anything to you?

I assume you mean civilian ID for Whatley? Depends on his flip, I suppose. But he doesn't seem terribly sure about the ID, considering his last comment/quote from Whatley about not being sure. So of course it means something to me, but I have yet to see exactly what.

The civilian ID was on Frank. What does that mean to you?

I require sustenance. I think I'll try that new Norwegian restaurant uptown. More conversation later, I hope.

J Peterman wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:54 pm

Jerry Seinfeld wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:49 pm Thanks, Peterman. Now, tell me, having made your best effort to figure out my nonsense charts and the like, was there anything in my analyses you didn't agree with? I see the one comment you made there in your reads post. What else? Does Frank's civilian ID mean anything to you?

I assume you mean civilian ID for Whatley? Depends on his flip, I suppose. But he doesn't seem terribly sure about the ID, considering his last comment/quote from Whatley about not being sure. So of course it means something to me, but I have yet to see exactly what.

No, he means Frank Costanza flipped civ. Since there's a cop in the game, it is possible we have a godfather, however.

I wish I was this good at being mafia. Alas, I can't hang. I am the civilian duck who quacks like the civilian duck.

Jerry Seinfeld wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:38 pm Frank, I don't understand what's happening in that post. Do you trust Whatley or not?

Ah, I realize my quote placement there wasn't clear. My statements apply to the quotes below them. Which means that, in the balance, I trust Whately.

Jerry Seinfeld wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:42 pm Frank, please talk to me about Steinbrenner.

I haven't read through all of his material, but I feel like his effort is genuine. His thought process on Whately is similar to my own ("his two claims of reaction baiting don't really address the underlying thought process of his gameplay"), but he ends up on the other side of the coin based on his own gut judgement. He's correct with his ID of me as civilian, and that's a hard claim.

The part of the Jackie ISO I liked best was this:

I like that he's willing to state disagreement with Jerry unprompted here, but I would like to hear more on why Jackie had these thoughts about Estelle at the time. There is no prior mention of her in his posts.

That got me thinking about Jackie trying to lead Jerry further down the road to incorrect suspects. Because all of the people in his "What's Up With" tier at that point (including me) are/were civ. Jackie might have thought that, if he flipped bad, that interaction with me and Estelle would create more follow-up interest.

George Costanza wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:43 pm

Tim Whatley wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:39 pm

George Costanza wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:36 pm Would be hilarious if Jerry is scum though. I mean really, hats off to you. While no one is questioning Elaine and Steinbrenner, you're not even a confirmed PR and no one's questioning your alliance.

I have a reason to think that Elaine and Jerry are civ. Steinbrenner however I'm not 100% on, I recall liking his thought processes and questions during day 3.

What kind of reason do you have?

Steinbrenner is the confirmed 2-shot cop.

If Jerry is mafia, why is Elaine still alive? It feels like those two have been in a back and forth so consistently that if Jerry was bad, Elaine should have been killed by now.

J Peterman wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:43 pmTim Whatley - Good Jackie vote last round. My issue at this point is that he keeps saying he voted me and is voting people for reactions, but I haven't seen much of what intel he's actually garnered from these so-called reactions. It makes me think he's just saying that to say something. Have I missed an explanation?

Let's talk about how Elaine's hard claim came shortly after, hindering the time I had to judge. The only person I saw a reaction from was Jerry, but Jerry is... Y'know a troublemaker. Unless you are scum Peterman, his reaction meant little.

George Costanza wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:56 pm

J Peterman wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:54 pm

Jerry Seinfeld wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:49 pm Thanks, Peterman. Now, tell me, having made your best effort to figure out my nonsense charts and the like, was there anything in my analyses you didn't agree with? I see the one comment you made there in your reads post. What else? Does Frank's civilian ID mean anything to you?

I assume you mean civilian ID for Whatley? Depends on his flip, I suppose. But he doesn't seem terribly sure about the ID, considering his last comment/quote from Whatley about not being sure. So of course it means something to me, but I have yet to see exactly what.

No, he means Frank Costanza flipped civ. Since there's a cop in the game, it is possible we have a godfather, however.

Guaranteed actually. There is 100% a godfather in this game. Setup A in the 14 player matrix.

The fact Peterman isn't even aware of the civ read on Frank is as interesting as Whatley not knowing that Steinbrenner is the "cop"

Frank Costanza wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:56 pmThe part of the Jackie ISO I liked best was this:

I like that he's willing to state disagreement with Jerry unprompted here, but I would like to hear more on why Jackie had these thoughts about Estelle at the time. There is no prior mention of her in his posts.

That got me thinking about Jackie trying to lead Jerry further down the road to incorrect suspects. Because all of the people in his "What's Up With" tier at that point (including me) are/were civ. Jackie might have thought that, if he flipped bad, that interaction with me and Estelle would create more follow-up interest.

I don't follow exactly -- you say "best part of the Jackie ISO", but the quote features Jackie's name. I don't think he spoke in the third person. Whaddya mean?

George Costanza wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:57 pm The fact Peterman isn't even aware of the civ read on Frank is as interesting as Whatley not knowing that Steinbrenner is the "cop"

It might be interesting. Tell me why you think it's interesting.

Lanie where are you?

Jerry Seinfeld wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 7:00 pm

Frank Costanza wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:56 pmThe part of the Jackie ISO I liked best was this:

I like that he's willing to state disagreement with Jerry unprompted here, but I would like to hear more on why Jackie had these thoughts about Estelle at the time. There is no prior mention of her in his posts.

That got me thinking about Jackie trying to lead Jerry further down the road to incorrect suspects. Because all of the people in his "What's Up With" tier at that point (including me) are/were civ. Jackie might have thought that, if he flipped bad, that interaction with me and Estelle would create more follow-up interest.

I don't follow exactly -- you say "best part of the Jackie ISO", but the quote features Jackie's name. I don't think he spoke in the third person. Whaddya mean?

That quote came from Steinbrenner; I meant that's the part of Stein's thought process I liked the most.

Jerry Seinfeld wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 7:01 pm

George Costanza wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:57 pm The fact Peterman isn't even aware of the civ read on Frank is as interesting as Whatley not knowing that Steinbrenner is the "cop"

It might be interesting. Tell me why you think it's interesting.

Well, mafia team communicates to each other, this sort of information would have been made clear between them I feel, even if they aren't up to speed in the thread THERE IS A 2-SHOT COP - HE ID'D ESTELLE AND FRANK. It brings them both further down my suspect pile.

Jerry Seinfeld wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:52 pm

Tim Whatley wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:37 pm

Jerry Seinfeld wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:27 pm Whatley, defending yourself is pointless at this point. Just do that hunting. That hunting is your defense. Who's bad?

Leo, Frank, recent posts makes me want to look at George but I can also see the angle of a frustrated civ taking heat solely based on mafia actions.

George, how do your actions counteract what is being claimed? Can any of your actions hold you accountable or no?

Tell me more about Leo and Frank. I'll give you two options, please address one or both:

1) Why do you suspect Leo and Frank most?

2) Why do you suspect George and Peterman less?

1) Leo's vote day 2 pinged me hard and that ping never went away. Frank because of POE, but I must admit that Peterman and George can be swapped with Frank, but that leads me to...

2) My reads of George are tonal. I just don't read him as mafia, even recent posts I read tonally as civ, but the problem I have is that I know there's some bias. Part of me wants to believe he's civ because I want to be right on that judgment call. The same bias applies to you and Elaine. I don't think we had a tie between two mafia, so I'm excluding Peterman.

George Costanza wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 7:05 pm

Jerry Seinfeld wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 7:01 pm

George Costanza wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:57 pm The fact Peterman isn't even aware of the civ read on Frank is as interesting as Whatley not knowing that Steinbrenner is the "cop"

It might be interesting. Tell me why you think it's interesting.

Well, mafia team communicates to each other, this sort of information would have been made clear between them I feel, even if they aren't up to speed in the thread THERE IS A 2-SHOT COP - HE ID'D ESTELLE AND FRANK. It brings them both further down my suspect pile.

I considered it a potentially incriminating given that neither power role was killed -- potentially the result of mafia members being behind on the thread and literally not knowing what's going on (Peterman and Leo come to mind, which I dubbed a viable pairing).

I voted Uncle Leo. It's the only vote I feel good about placing right now.

Tim Whatley wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 7:06 pmI don't think we had a tie between two mafia, so I'm excluding Peterman.

What leads you to this conclusion?

Pee break. I'm glad we're all here, folks. Keep the dialogue moving as long as possible.

During day 3, no one seemed to hard oppose a Peterman vote. The only person that jumped at my pressure vote was you, and I don't think you had malice while jumping at it.

Jerry Seinfeld wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 7:06 pm

George Costanza wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 7:05 pm

Jerry Seinfeld wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 7:01 pm

George Costanza wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:57 pm The fact Peterman isn't even aware of the civ read on Frank is as interesting as Whatley not knowing that Steinbrenner is the "cop"

It might be interesting. Tell me why you think it's interesting.

Well, mafia team communicates to each other, this sort of information would have been made clear between them I feel, even if they aren't up to speed in the thread THERE IS A 2-SHOT COP - HE ID'D ESTELLE AND FRANK. It brings them both further down my suspect pile.

I considered it a potentially incriminating given that neither power role was killed -- potentially the result of mafia members being behind on the thread and literally not knowing what's going on (Peterman and Leo come to mind, which I dubbed a viable pairing).

I didnt consider that angle. Good point. Let me think it over some.

Tim Whatley wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 7:07 pm I voted Uncle Leo. It's the only vote I feel good about placing right now.

If no one is going to go with Frank, I'll vote for Leo too as he's my second suspect.

Whatley voting for Leo and not voting for me (to bring the votes 3 against each of us) also reads townie move to me tbh. He had all the reason to build a case and vote for me with Jackie cross references but he chose not to.