They're so completely busted, I'm telling you. "Elvis, ha ha ha!" Dude. If there's an explanation for it, what is it? You can't laugh it off as hysterically funny crazy talk when you have already been caught doing it on another occasion.

They don't know for sure that there really was anything in the picture? Really? Because that's the story they used first -- or, no, wait, that was the story that the photos were doctored. And then it became clear that it showed on television. So then they had to admit that the photos weren't doctored. So now it's that maybe the photos aren't doctored, but they don't show anything?

If there was nothing in his coat, why don't they just say, "There was nothing in his coat"?

I'll tell you why. Because he had a receiver on, and all these guys are trying to do is make it three more weeks without anybody proving it. And if they say, "There was nothing in his coat," then it's going to be obvious that they're lying, because there was,and you can see it in the pictures and in the video. So they claim they don't know if there was, sort of, maybe, but if there was, it definitely wasn't a receiver.

Right.