Sexual misconduct allegations against Radford, Shermer, et al. Part 2

[Brive1987]

Originally Posted by Henry Bannister

Sorry, I hadn't realised that he only released the photo to show that the relationship hadn't finished when she said he'd finished.

Fair enough that he released it and yes indeed the pic I saw wasnt explicit.

I think you will find there are a couple of camps:

Those that can see the logic of release but think it was an ethical bridge too far
Those that think BR was 'really' out to shame KS - that's his primary motive
Those that think that in this case BR really had to leave zero margin of doubt - ie release

I would have been in camp 3. But after seeing the way FtB leveraged outrage to dismiss benrlegal out of hand - and even suggest going to the site was ideologically suspect - I think the damage outweighed the benefit.

Weird to see SJW so prepared to align with patriarchal concepts of besmirched maidenly honour in order to achieve pragmatic goals...

Weirder still that the shrill shrieks of anger over revenge porn actually prove Ben's point. How can you be defending KS's naked privacy in April 2010 when she says "From late 2009 onwards I made repeated requests for his personal communication to cease but these were ignored."

Awkward. Just 'don't mention the war'

[Henry Bannister]

Originally Posted by Brive1987

I would be keen to read somewhere in HJ's analysis an opinion or conclusion as to whether on balance of probability:

• The emails should be dated to 2010 or 2012
• Karen circulated them, dated 2012, as part of her case against Ben
• Karen also submitted them to Gramigna as part of the investigation (per Baxter)

I would also be interested to hear his opinion re which specific 2012 emails the Gramigna investigation found to be "inappropriate".

He may, in addition, have an opinion on the implications of Gramigna finding no evidence of email harassment in 2010 (or 2011).

This appears to be the crux of the matter, not Radford's attention to micro detail.

Yes those specific questions seem to be the ones - hj seems to avoid saying whether the dates had actually been altered in his analysis. Was it A'isha who seemed to demonstrate fairly conclusively earlier in the thread that the dates *had* been changed?

Incidentally I started off fairly sympathetic to Stollznow but the more I see the more it looks as if Radford has indeed a good cause for complaint.

[Lorentz]

Originally Posted by Henry Bannister

Yes those specific questions seem to be the ones - hj seems to avoid saying whether the dates had actually been altered in his analysis. Was it A'isha who seemed to demonstrate fairly conclusively earlier in the thread that the dates *had* been changed?

Incidentally I started off fairly sympathetic to Stollznow but the more I see the more it looks as if Radford has indeed a good cause for complaint.

A'isha demonstrated that it was theoretically possible - though improbable - to have falsified dates show up on ones gmail screen. She did not claim this had been done and even thought it quite unlikely. In addition, this method would not pass the hashtag checks that the investigators say they performed on those emails.

[Henry Bannister]

Originally Posted by Lorentz

A'isha demonstrated that it was theoretically possible - though improbable - to have falsified dates show up on ones gmail screen. She did not claim this had been done and even thought it quite unlikely. In addition, this method would not pass the hashtag checks that the investigators say they performed on those emails.

Aha ta.

[hjhornbeck]

Dammit, it's tough to stay snarky against you. Lemmie try the direct approach instead:

Originally Posted by Henry Bannister

And yes I read your summary, it didn't really help I think because I couldn't see whether you admit that Stollznow falsified the dates on *any* of the e-mails, which to me seems the central point.

I didn't write those paragraphs on misdirection for nothin'. Stop. Think.

For the moment, let's fully trust Radford. He's presented us with "A list of a dozen or so e-mails provided by Karen as evidence of my harassment in 2012," to quote his website. We'll accept that as gospel. He then proceeds to show that "In seven out of the ten cases, the date that Karen attributed to those e-mails had been changed and was actually two years earlier (in one case three years earlier)." Again, we won't even question it, we'll just take it as truth.

Does this mean that

a) Radford never sent Stollznow any harassing emails in 2012,
b) Radford may be innocent of sending harassing emails in 2012, because some of them had their dates altered by Stollznow,
c) Radford may be guilty of sending harassing emails in 2012, by his own admission, or
d) Radford may be guilty of sending harassing emails in 2009, 2010, and 2012, as it's not necessarily the date that determines whether an email is harassing or not?

Never look where a magician points.

[hjhornbeck]

Also, paging McHell to the white courtesy phone, McHell to the courtesy phone: is there any way you can grab the Joint Motion to Dismiss for case 1:06-cv-00623, "Radford, et al v. Wal-Mart Transport, et al," off of PACER? I suspect it'll make for some entertaining reading...

[Brive1987]

Originally Posted by hjhornbeck

Dammit, it's tough to stay snarky against you. Lemmie try the direct approach instead:



I didn't write those paragraphs on misdirection for nothin'. Stop. Think.

For the moment, let's fully trust Radford. He's presented us with "A list of a dozen or so e-mails provided by Karen as evidence of my harassment in 2012," to quote his website. We'll accept that as gospel. He then proceeds to show that "In seven out of the ten cases, the date that Karen attributed to those e-mails had been changed and was actually two years earlier (in one case three years earlier)." Again, we won't even question it, we'll just take it as truth.

Does this mean that

a) Radford never sent Stollznow any harassing emails in 2012,
b) Radford may be innocent of sending harassing emails in 2012, because some of them had their dates altered by Stollznow,
c) Radford may be guilty of sending harassing emails in 2012, by his own admission, or
d) Radford may be guilty of sending harassing emails in 2009, 2010, and 2012, as it's not necessarily the date that determines whether an email is harassing or not?

Never look where a magician points.

Very sage advise. So let's turn to relevant implications.

It strongly suggests KS manipulated evidence and provided it to the skeptical community to harm BR. One could utter the "f" word here. I don't believe she honestly thought the content was from the past 12 months.

It raises reasonable doubt about the veracity of other actual 'evidence' KS may introduce at some point into proceedings.

It raises reasonable doubt about KS overall integrity and adds to a probable pattern of distortion. AvFM.

Baxter confirmed these bogus emails figured in the investigation and that they possibly got caught out - "those emails were brought into question ..." This requires us to ask the question - to how great an extent did Radford's 2012 well get poisoned?

And let's just keep affirming the objective truth - the investigator did not find evidence of email harassment in 2010 or 2011 as should be required by the SA narrative. *

And she only found evidence of "inappropriate" emails in 2012. Why I got two of those at work just yesterday ... And we know by Radford's own admission he wrote intemperate criticisms of KS to their 'boss' at this time ...

.................................................. ..

Alright back to regular programming:

"Watch me pull a rabbit out of this hat"


* And all this even with the provision of Stollznow's best case evidence trove.

[Henry Bannister]

Originally Posted by hjhornbeck

... For the moment, let's fully trust Radford. He's presented us with "A list of a dozen or so e-mails provided by Karen as evidence of my harassment in 2012," to quote his website. We'll accept that as gospel. He then proceeds to show that "In seven out of the ten cases, the date that Karen attributed to those e-mails had been changed and was actually two years earlier (in one case three years earlier)." Again, we won't even question it, we'll just take it as truth.

Does this mean that

a) Radford never sent Stollznow any harassing emails in 2012,
b) Radford may be innocent of sending harassing emails in 2012, because some of them had their dates altered by Stollznow,
c) Radford may be guilty of sending harassing emails in 2012, by his own admission, or
d) Radford may be guilty of sending harassing emails in 2009, 2010, and 2012, as it's not necessarily the date that determines whether an email is harassing or not?

Never look where a magician points.

Well I'm going for (b), since it depends on the contents of the e-mails. It's difficult to tell from your Analysis since several of the links in that section don't work. However the e-mail links that you pointed to that *do* work don't show harassment to me at all - they show two friends/ex-lovers having e-mail conversations.

Particularly the e-mail 'a shame' on September 19th 2010 where she suggests 'having an affair' with him. The basis of them being harassing e-mails is surely that she'd claimed to have finished the relationship before August 2009. Yet here she is in 2010 suggesting they have an affair.

And since we're assuming Radford is telling the truth, (a) why would Stollznow have altered the e-mail dates in the first place and, (b) if she *did* alter the e-mail dates, how can we trust anything else she has said?

I'm glad you've stopped being snarky I'm having difficulty enough following all this.

[Brive1987]

Originally Posted by Henry Bannister

Well I'm going for (b), since it depends on the contents of the e-mails. It's difficult to tell from your Analysis since several of the links in that section don't work. However the e-mail links that you pointed to that *do* work don't show harassment to me at all - they show two friends/ex-lovers having e-mail conversations.

Particularly the e-mail 'a shame' on September 19th 2010 where she suggests 'having an affair' with him. The basis of them being harassing e-mails is surely that she'd claimed to have finished the relationship before August 2009. Yet here she is in 2010 suggesting they have an affair.

And since we're assuming Radford is telling the truth, (a) why would Stollznow have altered the e-mail dates in the first place and, (b) if she *did* alter the e-mail dates, how can we trust anything else she has said?

I'm glad you've stopped being snarky I'm having difficulty enough following all this.

You have hit the nail on the head.

My thesis is that KS received unwanted personal email between on and off again relationship bouts in 2009 and 2010. And that these emails were a natural process of relationship breakdown - not aggressive and not calculated abuse. Further I believe the evidence shows that this history got transfigured to 'harassment' only in June 2010 after KS (kinda) fully committed to Baxter and that it became retrospective 'sexual harassment' after the (sort of) workplace blow up in Jan 2013 ie with the investigation. When this didn't fly it became 'sexual assault' when she focused on TAM and JREF in August to try and black-list Radford. It finally settled on 'predatory' stalking and several instances of assault when she took her 'case' public.

There really is no other case so strong or plausible as this.

[qayak]

Originally Posted by Lorentz

A'isha demonstrated that it was theoretically possible - though improbable - to have falsified dates show up on ones gmail screen. She did not claim this had been done and even thought it quite unlikely. In addition, this method would not pass the hashtag checks that the investigators say they performed on those emails.

She did no such thing. Lack of understanding of how Gmail works is not evidence that dates can be changed.

[Brive1987]

Originally Posted by hjhornbeck

No more public nuggets ("please send them to CFI — and please make them public if you can"), at least until Radford turned on the taps. But now you've got me a'wondering: what were Gramigna's findings? And who was your source?

Greta's article was clearly a fishing expedition that fell flat - with self-evident implications. I invite anybody who doubts this to review it for themselves.

Re the investigative findings. They are known with small margin of error. I invite you to review this.

[Brive1987]

HJ, all the talk of stasi derailed us from your Aug 2013 reaction to the SA post.

The one which so clearly articulates the immediate kneejerk FtB reaction, the one which also helps explain the 'freethinkers' inability to engage with new evidence that may force them to temper initial enthusiasms.

Yourself excluded of course.

Re Evidence

Did you / will you address your claims last year that:

Quote:

Stollznow presented them with a fair bit of evidence to back up her claims

Quote:

But here’s the thing: [CFI] already had a tonne of evidence, from those who were directly involved no less.

Quote:

any evidence we could gather by calling for it would be much weaker than what they have on hand.

In addition, are you still keen to punish CFI with a flood of (new) public witnesses?

Quote:

It’s our move now, and I say we encourage people to come forward publicly. That will drive away donors and investors, hitting them where they pay the most attention: their bottom line.

Also, and to quote Mykeru - "Who is we " ?? Perchance a 'league' of sorts? A .... a social justice league?


Re Natural Justice

I do however agree with your comment:

Quote:

You should not bring evidence to the public unless you are capable and comfortable of defending it.

It's just a pity you didn't use it in a Stollznow context for the period Aug13 - Apr14. The period when KS unfounded allegations, barely backed by even anecdote and hearsay, stood proud as the only public record on this matter. Damn Radford's principled adherence to the confidentiality clause.



Re Blake as white knight

Finally you mention:

Quote:

Stollznow already had that [corroboration] , in the form of Blake Smith.

I'm guessing you may like to issue a retraction of your own if this is the same Blake Smith referenced thus by Ben (re the June 2011 teleconf):

Quote:

Smith tells Radford that Stollznow never once mentioned anything to him about any stalking, harassment or abuse, and, at Radford’s request, the shows are split up.

Or the same Blake who wrote of his lack of knowledge to Radford:

Quote:

I know you and Karen have had a complicated past. I don't know all the details and for many reasons I'd prefer not to know all the details. Whatever has happened between you two outside of the show she's been nothing but professional on the show

Ie the same one who tempered his later (apparently) unfounded and (obviously) tortured support for KS with the words that he has “no certitude on this matter”?


I'm guessing you are far less confident now then you were then, but I'd appreciate an update on your POV.

.

[Brive1987]

Quote:

The one which so clearly articulates the immediate kneejerk FtB reaction, the one which also helps explain the 'freethinkers' inability to engage with new evidence that may force them to temper initial enthusiasms.

Further to my last and from the same immediate reaction thread to the Sollznow allegations of long term ("I was sexually harassed for four years") abuse and multiple assaults ...





Relevance? Evidence of inability to apply critical faculties in this case to offset existing bias and ideological focus.

[hjhornbeck]

Originally Posted by Henry Bannister

Well I'm going for (b), since it depends on the contents of the e-mails.

Fascinating! Let's explore that a little:

Quote:

1) Someone is innocent of murder in 2012, even if we have evidence they murdered someone in 2012, so long as we can demonstrate that, out of a pool of nine other people, six were actually murdered in 2010.

b) Someone is innocent of sending harassing emails in 2012, even if we have evidence they sent one harassing email in 2012, so long as we can demonstrate that, out of a pool of nine other emails, six harassing emails were actually sent in 2010.

3) Someone is innocent of theft in 2012, even if we have evidence they thieved once in 2012, so long as we can demonstrate that, out of a pool of nine other people, six thefts actually occurred in 2010.

You've already accepted b), so I'm curious if you'll accept the other two as well.

Originally Posted by Henry Bannister

It's difficult to tell from your Analysis since several of the links in that section don't work.

That reminds me: while Radford's blocking of search robots does help limit the spread of the info on his site, it also keeps those same robots from caching and archiving the thing. This has the convenient side-effect of allowing Radford to edit and memory-hole with impunity, and he's most certainly been editing:

Quote:

http://benrlegal.info/faq/index.html
published_time 2014-02-19T02:07:02+00:00
modified_time 2014-04-30T20:58:09+00:00

http://benrlegal.info/gifts-correspondence/index.html
published_time 2014-02-18T00:41:44+00:00
modified_time 2014-04-30T15:37:53+00:00

http://benrlegal.info/introduction-overview/index.html
published_time 2014-02-18T00:57:36+00:00
modified_time 2014-04-02T22:23:55+00:00

http://benrlegal.info/karen-stollzno...ons/index.html
published_time 2014-02-21T01:35:15+00:00
modified_time 2014-07-02T02:40:11+00:00

http://benrlegal.info/relationship-w...now/index.html
published_time 2014-02-18T00:43:46+00:00
modified_time 2014-05-07T18:22:54+00:00

http://benrlegal.info/stollznows-fal...aud/index.html
published_time 2014-02-18T01:02:49+00:00
modified_time 2014-04-02T00:43:17+00:00

http://benrlegal.info/tam-allegations/index.html
published_time 2014-02-20T11:38:54+00:00
modified_time 2014-04-02T01:02:52+00:00

http://benrlegal.info/timeline/index.html
published_time 2014-02-11T11:08:24+00:00
modified_time 2014-07-02T02:19:29+00:00

Most of those edits are innocuous, but we've already seen two examples of non-trivial ones. What if you suspect Radford's made one of those, but you didn't archive the last version you saw? You're outta luck, thanks to the search robot block.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by hjhornbeck

Quote:

1) Someone is innocent of murder in 2012, even if we have evidence they murdered someone in 2012, so long as we can demonstrate that, out of a pool of nine other people, six were actually murdered in 2010.

b) Someone is innocent of sending harassing emails in 2012, even if we have evidence they sent one harassing email in 2012, so long as we can demonstrate that, out of a pool of nine other emails, six harassing emails were actually sent in 2010.

3) Someone is innocent of theft in 2012, even if we have evidence they thieved once in 2012, so long as we can demonstrate that, out of a pool of nine other people, six thefts actually occurred in 2010.

You've already accepted b), so I'm curious if you'll accept the other two as well.

Murder is always murder, regardless of the relationship between the parties. Actions or words that are loving, or doting, or friendly, etc, can be harassment, depending on the relationship between parties. We know that these 2 parties were in a consensual relationship at one time, so presenting actions undertaken while in said relationship as though they are actions taken after the relationship has ended skews the perception of whether these actions were harassment or not. Your attempt for false equivalence seems dishonest.

[Brive1987]

HJ

In your point B above you accidentally linked to an innocuous email between 2 cohosts of a podcast. Could you please link to the correct "harassing" one?

Presumably one somewhat consistent with:

Quote:

This was followed by incessant communication of a sexual nature, including gifts, calls, emails, letters, postcards, and invites to vacation with him in exotic places so we could “get to know each other again”.

Or the "callous" behaviour hinted at by Anderson?

[Henry Bannister]

Originally Posted by hjhornbeck

Fascinating! Let's explore that a little:

You've already accepted b), so I'm curious if you'll accept the other two as well.

No you give me the evidence of those e-mails being harassing first, please. They're talking to each other in terms like 'Hello beautiful' 'yes hello beautiful too' as I recall. If someone's guilty of murder then there's presumably evidence of it. Where's your evidence of harassment?

You refer to the e-mails in your analysis but when accusing him of not being consistent you don't quote the content, and so you seem to be guilty of the very thing that you're accusing Radford of - magicians tricks of directing the attention elsewhere. By leading our attention into which e-mails were on which list and which ones he's left off another list you distract from whether the *content* of the e-mails are harassing her, which is actually the critical point.

So an answer to my questions please, since I answered yours, (a) which e-mails were harassing her? (b) and if it is shown that she altered the dates on even one or two e-mails in her submission to CFI, would you accept that we can't trust her evidence? This is surely important since if true she was knowingly supplying false information to a CFI investigator.

Incidentally a more general question: do we know how she submitted the e-mails? If for example she C&P'd them into a word processing document and/or made a pdf or submitted a paper copy then presumably it would be easy to have changed the dates.

[hjhornbeck]

Originally Posted by Henry Bannister

No you give me the evidence of those e-mails being harassing first, please.

You're dodging the question. You accepted b); do you also accept 1) and 3)? If not, why not?

Originally Posted by Henry Bannister

You refer to the e-mails in your analysis but when accusing him of not being consistent you don't quote the content, and so you seem to be guilty of the very thing that you're accusing Radford of - magicians tricks of directing the attention elsewhere.

For much of that section I'm citing bunches of emails at a time. Copy-pasting that much content is a pain, and will unnecessarily puff up my analysis. Still, the general point is good, and I have a solution for you: I've gathered all of the emails Radford has released, arranged them in chronological order, and stripped out everything but some meta-commentary. It's as honest and fair a display of those emails that you'll find, and you can read or download it here.

By leading our attention into which e-mails were on which list and which ones he's left off another list you distract from whether the *content* of the e-mails are harassing her, which is actually the critical point.

Originally Posted by Henry Bannister

Incidentally a more general question: do we know how she submitted the e-mails?

Guess what I'm currently working on.

[hjhornbeck]

Originally Posted by Brive1987

In your point B above you accidentally linked to an innocuous email between 2 cohosts of a podcast. Could you please link to the correct "harassing" one?

Read more carefully. Also, I'm not the one claiming them as being harassing: Radford is claiming that Stollznow claimed that they were harassing. And what are the odds that someone who thinks he has millions to gain from a lawsuit, has repeatedly used a key word in a misleading manner, and almost certainly lied in a sworn statement (see my write-up for the details) would ever lie in a legal document?

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by hjhornbeck

Read more carefully. Also, I'm not the one claiming them as being harassing: Radford is claiming that Stollznow claimed that they were harassing. And what are the odds that someone who thinks he has millions to gain from a lawsuit, has repeatedly used a key word in a misleading manner, and almost certainly lied in a sworn statement (see my write-up for the details) would ever lie in a legal document?

Speaking of reading more carefully, would you mind pointing out where Henry Bannister has accepted this as "evidence (Ben Radford) sent one harassing email in 2012"? Especially as now you aren't claiming it is harassing? This seems contradictory.

[Brive1987]

Originally Posted by hjhornbeck

Read more carefully. Also, I'm not the one claiming them as being harassing: Radford is claiming that Stollznow claimed that they were harassing. And what are the odds that someone who thinks he has millions to gain from a lawsuit, has repeatedly used a key word in a misleading manner, and almost certainly lied in a sworn statement (see my write-up for the details) would ever lie in a legal document?

Oh so I missed your qualifier that it was only an alleged piece of harassment? Here if I supply your point back to you, would you mind pointing out where I missed this?

b) Someone is innocent of sending harassing emails in 2012, even if we have evidence they sent one harassing email in 2012, so long as we can demonstrate that, out of a pool of nine other emails, six harassing emails were actually sent in 2010.

And let me get this straight. You think that the above clearly communicates that: 'you claim that Radford claims that Stolloznow claims ...'

[hjhornbeck]

Ah crap, I've gotta make a correction.

Originally Posted by hjhornbeck

That reminds me: while Radford's blocking of search robots does help limit the spread of the info on his site, it also keeps those same robots from caching and archiving the thing. This has the convenient side-effect of allowing Radford to edit and memory-hole with impunity

Radford used to block web spiders from crawling his website, but sometime in the past he let them in. Here's the contents of his current robots.txt:

Quote:

User-agent: *
Disallow: /wp-admin/
Disallow: /wp-includes/

I'm not sure when the change occurred, but I know it must have happened sometime before April 21st, 2014 (http://web.archive.org/web/20140421225639/http://benrlegal.info/stollznows-falsified-documents-and-fraud/). That also means you can recover old versions; if you hurry, for instance, you can see copies of Radford's timeline and false accusation pages that predate the current edits (2014-05-30T15:42:36+00:00 and 2014-06-17T00:34:16+00:00, respectively).

As a consequence of the change, his legal website's been climbing the search engine charts. From my location, when I search for "Karen Stollznow," the website is hitting the top of Google's page 2, the bottom of page 3 on Bing.com, but the bottom of the first page on ask.com.

Looks like he's aiming at Stollznow's reputation, after all...

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally Posted by hjhornbeck

Dammit, it's tough to stay snarky against you. Lemmie try the direct approach instead:

I didn't write those paragraphs on misdirection for nothin'. Stop. Think.

For the moment, let's fully trust Radford. He's presented us with "A list of a dozen or so e-mails provided by Karen as evidence of my harassment in 2012," to quote his website. We'll accept that as gospel. He then proceeds to show that "In seven out of the ten cases, the date that Karen attributed to those e-mails had been changed and was actually two years earlier (in one case three years earlier)." Again, we won't even question it, we'll just take it as truth.

Does this mean that

a) Radford never sent Stollznow any harassing emails in 2012,
b) Radford may be innocent of sending harassing emails in 2012, because some of them had their dates altered by Stollznow,
c) Radford may be guilty of sending harassing emails in 2012, by his own admission, or
d) Radford may be guilty of sending harassing emails in 2009, 2010, and 2012, as it's not necessarily the date that determines whether an email is harassing or not?

Never look where a magician points.

I'll be honest, I find your writing circuitous and confusing.

However it seems like you are arguing that Radford probably did send harassing emails to Stollznow in 2012, because he has not absolutely proved that he didn't, even though he did prove that Stollznow had falsified the dates on the emails she provided as evidence for the claim he had sent harassing emails.

The bit that puzzles me is that this argument seems to rely on covertly assuming that Stollznow was in possession of knock-down evidence that she was being harassed, but she has only chosen to provide some really dodgy, faked-up evidence. That seems weird because one would assume that Stollznow would lead with her best evidence, not some third-rate evidence she had to fake up by changing the date and hence the context.

It also seems to assume that an email is either a harassing email or it is not, whereas I would think that exactly the same email could be okay in the context of an ongoing relationship but not okay in the context of an estranged couple. An invitation to come over for sex is normal in an ongoing relationship but would be harassment if you sent it to an ex who had a restraining order against you.

[Henry Bannister]

Originally Posted by hjhornbeck

1) Someone is innocent of murder in 2012, even if we have evidence they murdered someone in 2012, so long as we can demonstrate that, out of a pool of nine other people, six were actually murdered in 2010.

b) Someone is innocent of sending harassing emails in 2012, even if we have evidence they sent one harassing email in 2012, so long as we can demonstrate that, out of a pool of nine other emails, six harassing emails were actually sent in 2010.

3) Someone is innocent of theft in 2012, even if we have evidence they thieved once in 2012, so long as we can demonstrate that, out of a pool of nine other people, six thefts actually occurred in 2010.

Ok you got me, it must have been Colonel Mustard with the lump hammer in the Library. Do I win? You’re making no sense. Both (1) and (3) say “even if we have evidence”. We *don’t* have evidence, that's the whole point. If we *did* have evidence he *might* have done it but *without* evidence we *can’t* say he did. That “harassing email in 2012” that you pointed to (http://benrlegal.info/wp-content/upl...Jan-4-2012.pdf) shows no harassment at all. The most harassing thing in there is "Hi Karen".

Similarly, the e-mail list you gave shows no “incessant communication of a sexual nature” as Stollznow claims. The e-mails don't show “From late 2009 onwards I made repeated requests for his personal communication to cease but these were ignored.” They show e-mails from both sides with sexual content *from both sides*, right up until 2012.

Originally Posted by hjhornbeck

Read more carefully. Also, I'm not the one claiming them as being harassing: Radford is claiming that Stollznow claimed that they were harassing.

That’s not true. Stollznow *did* call them harassing, several times, in her blog – a clue being in the title (http://natehevens.wordpress.com/2013...al-harassment/).

I’ve asked you twice whether it matters to you whether Stollznow may have changed the dates of the e-mails. You've admitted in your Analysis that she may have done, but you're just ignoring the question. You’re doing the exact same thing that you’re accusing Radford of: the magician's trick of misdirecting peoples’ attention. I agree with wareyin: I think you’re now being dishonest.

[hjhornbeck]

Originally Posted by wareyin

Speaking of reading more carefully, would you mind pointing out where Henry Bannister has accepted this as "evidence (Ben Radford) sent one harassing email in 2012"? Especially as now you aren't claiming it is harassing? This seems contradictory.

*Sigh*, looks like I need to explain this again.

On the fraud page of his website, Radford has two arguments to defend himself against that list of emails he provides:

1. They aren't harassing. (Blink and you'll miss it: "There are several others, most of them mundane.")
b) They were actually sent in 2009 and 2010, and Stollznow fudged the dates.

1. is just silly, and I figured I wouldn't have to get into it. Looks like I was wrong there, so I'll devote a section of the collaborative analysis into covering that claim. b) is what we're discussing here: assuming for the argument that those ten visible emails were harassing, is that nullified if Stollznow fudged somewhere between six and nine of those ten emails? Henry Bannister looked like he was saying "yes" to the above, so I've been pressing him on it.

Rather than clarify if he agrees, Bannister has continually dodged that question and fixated on argument 1, that the emails are not harassing. We can discuss that later, and I'm more than willing to, but I don't want to let Bannister slip away from what should have been a trivial task, clarifying and confirming he accepts argument b).

You cannot pretend that someone didn't defend themselves with a horrible argument. You'd never accept the word of health quack who kept throwing out misrepresentations and poor logic to defend their case, even if they did say some truthful things on occasion, so why are so many of you so eager to look the other way when a skeptic does it?

[hjhornbeck]

Originally Posted by Henry Bannister

It's difficult to tell from your Analysis since several of the links in that section don't work.

I've gotten around to checking my links, and I found one link to one section of Radford's website, repeated about three times in the document, had an extra "index.html" tacked onto the end. That's been corrected.

[hjhornbeck]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

I'll be honest, I find your writing circuitous and confusing.

Be specific, preferably with an example of how you think it should have been written, otherwise I can't do anything about it.

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

However it seems like you are arguing that Radford probably did send harassing emails to Stollznow in 2012, because he has not absolutely proved that he didn't,

I haven't even gotten there yet. Right now I'm just poking through some of his lesser arguments, and working towards that. If you're willing to do some work, you can skip ahead a bit by reading all the emails Radford presents on his website, chronologically ordered, in a single document.

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

... even though he did prove that Stollznow had falsified the dates on the emails she provided as evidence for the claim he had sent harassing emails.

Oooo, are you another person that accepts b)? As a reminder:

Quote:

b) Someone is innocent of sending harassing emails in 2012, even if we have evidence they sent one harassing email in 2012, so long as we can demonstrate that, out of a pool of nine other emails, six harassing emails were actually sent in 2010.

Return to you:

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

The bit that puzzles me is that this argument seems to rely on covertly assuming that Stollznow was in possession of knock-down evidence that she was being harassed, but she has only chosen to provide some really dodgy, faked-up evidence.

Uhm, Stollznow has done little more than make assertions. Can you point to a place where I assume anything about what Stollznow has?

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

It also seems to assume that an email is either a harassing email or it is not, whereas I would think that exactly the same email could be okay in the context of an ongoing relationship but not okay in the context of an estranged couple.

So you think that no two people would have different interpretations of a written document, when it comes to harassment? That seems self-refuting, by the existence of me.

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

An invitation to come over for sex is normal in an ongoing relationship but would be harassment if you sent it to an ex who had a restraining order against you.

Or asked that you stop emailing them. Ever notice that Radford never denies that Stollznow made repeated requests to stop sending her messages, even though he has nothing to lose from the denial if he's innocent?

[hjhornbeck]

Originally Posted by Henry Bannister

That’s not true. Stollznow *did* call them harassing, several times, in her blog – a clue being in the title

Can you point me to the spot where Stollznow says those particular emails were harassing?

Originally Posted by Henry Bannister

I’ve asked you twice whether it matters to you whether Stollznow may have changed the dates of the e-mails.

Remind me: who, in particular, is claiming Stollznow changed the dates of the emails? Is it someone hoping to earn millions from a civil lawsuit, someone who's repeatedly mischaracterized the meaning of a word to benefit himself, someone who's almost certainly lied in a legal document? Is this someone that you've trusted to tell you the truth, despite some evidence they could be profiting by misleading you and others?

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by hjhornbeck

*Sigh*, looks like I need to explain this again.

On the fraud page of his website, Radford has two arguments to defend himself against that list of emails he provides:

1. They aren't harassing. (Blink and you'll miss it: "There are several others, most of them mundane.")
b) They were actually sent in 2009 and 2010, and Stollznow fudged the dates.

1. is just silly, and I figured I wouldn't have to get into it. Looks like I was wrong there, so I'll devote a section of the collaborative analysis into covering that claim. b) is what we're discussing here: assuming for the argument that those ten visible emails were harassing, is that nullified if Stollznow fudged somewhere between six and nine of those ten emails? Henry Bannister looked like he was saying "yes" to the above, so I've been pressing him on it.

Rather than clarify if he agrees, Bannister has continually dodged that question and fixated on argument 1, that the emails are not harassing. We can discuss that later, and I'm more than willing to, but I don't want to let Bannister slip away from what should have been a trivial task, clarifying and confirming he accepts argument b).

You cannot pretend that someone didn't defend themselves with a horrible argument. You'd never accept the word of health quack who kept throwing out misrepresentations and poor logic to defend their case, even if they did say some truthful things on occasion, so why are so many of you so eager to look the other way when a skeptic does it?

Speaking of misrepresentations and poor logic, wow, you have some whoppers in this post. You do realize that an email that was sent in 2009 or 2010 while Radford and Stollznow were in a sexual relationship is likely to contain things that would be harassment if sent in 2012 after Radford and Stollznow were no longer in a sexual relationship, do you not?
1) is clearly not silly to anyone who understands that people in a sexual relationship have permission to speak to each other in a different way than people who are not in a sexual relationship.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally Posted by hjhornbeck

Be specific, preferably with an example of how you think it should have been written, otherwise I can't do anything about it.

Okay. How about instead of making a bunch of disconnected observations and then saying "Join the dots, people! Don't look where the magician is pointing!" you just clearly state your actual conclusion, and the exact pieces of evidence that lead you to that conclusion.

For someone complaining about misdirection, you're going a lot of your moves behind a curtain.

Quote:

I haven't even gotten there yet.

That seems exactly backwards, and typical of conspiracy theorist thinking. Instead you should go straight to the heart of the matter and only then try to pick nits about tiny details.

Conspiracy theorists try to build an argument out of nothing by starting with irrelevant details and asking questions like "Why didn't they do X instead of Y? Why didn't they prove Z? Why didn't they disprove imaginary possibility A?". Then once they've talked themselves into the belief that something suspicious must be going on, they leap into full-fledged insanity and decide that it's all Masons or Bigfoots or something.

What you should do instead is go straight to the best evidence about the most important issues, and base your initial beliefs on that.

Quote:

Uhm, Stollznow has done little more than make assertions. Can you point to a place where I assume anything about what Stollznow has?

See, this is the heart of the matter. There's no solid evidence for Stollznow's assertions, and you acknowledge this. There's no reason to believe there is anything that needs explaining. Everything else should be a footnote to this central point.

Quote:

So you think that no two people would have different interpretations of a written document, when it comes to harassment? That seems self-refuting, by the existence of me.

No, I do not think that. That is a silly straw man.

All I meant is exactly what I said, that exactly the same email could constitute harassment in one set of circumstances and a perfectly normal email between lovers in another set of circumstances.

Quote:

Or asked that you stop emailing them. Ever notice that Radford never denies that Stollznow made repeated requests to stop sending her messages, even though he has nothing to lose from the denial if he's innocent?

He probably hasn't denied kidnapping the Lindbergh baby or starting the Great Fire of London either. What do you think we should read in to this lack of denial, and with what degree of confidence?

[Henry Bannister]

Originally Posted by hjhornbeck

Can you point me to the spot where Stollznow says those particular emails were harassing?

http://natehevens.wordpress.com/2013...al-harassment/

Well she sets the scene with:

"Harassment from afar can include sending unwanted communication of a sexual nature, including emails, texts, instant messages, mail, tweets, phone calls, images, Facebook “pokes”, and stalking on networking sites. "

and then specifically (my bold):

"These became too big to ignore, so I called it all off. The rejection was ego shattering to him at first, and then met with disbelief. This was followed by incessant communication of a sexual nature, including gifts, calls, emails, letters, postcards, and invites to vacation with him in exotic places so we could “get to know each other again”. He wouldn’t leave me alone. This wasn’t love. It was obsession. His desperation only increased when I met another man. He continued his harassment as though my boyfriend (who is now my husband) didn’t even exist. "

She's included the e-mails within her claim of harassment.

Quote:

Remind me: who, in particular, is claiming Stollznow changed the dates of the emails? Is it someone hoping to earn millions from a civil lawsuit, someone who's repeatedly mischaracterized the meaning of a word to benefit himself, someone who's almost certainly lied in a legal document? Is this someone that you've trusted to tell you the truth, despite some evidence they could be profiting by misleading you and others?

Now you're just descending into insults. If you mean that he mischaracterized the word 'authentication' I think Brive fairly well demolished that above. And you make a big thing in your analysis that Radford's lawyers didn't specifically ask the independent lab to check the dates - by just authenticating his e-mails it becomes clear what the dates are, and so whether Stollznow has changed them.

It looks like you're again doing the hand waving trick that you're accusing Radford of. I have seen no evidence of harassment:

Quote:

harassment (either harris-meant or huh-rass-meant) n. the act of systematic and/or continued unwanted and annoying actions of one party or a group, including threats and demands. (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...com/harassment)

It's not harassment if he's sending her a lot of e-mails and she's replying - and nowhere in the e-mails that I've seen has she asked for him to stop e-mailing her - certainly not repeatedly. Please refer me to those specific e-mails.

[Henry Bannister]

Originally Posted by hjhornbeck

assuming for the argument that those ten visible emails were harassing, is that nullified if Stollznow fudged somewhere between six and nine of those ten emails? Henry Bannister looked like he was saying "yes" to the above, so I've been pressing him on it.

Rather than clarify if he agrees, Bannister has continually dodged that question and fixated on argument 1, that the emails are not harassing. We can discuss that later, and I'm more than willing to, but I don't want to let Bannister slip away from what should have been a trivial task, clarifying and confirming he accepts argument b).

Now this is just a lie. I answered your question twice. I disagree because I have seen no evidence that the e-mails are harassing.

It's like me saying to you "if we accept that you've been fraudulently accepting backhanders to give evidence in a court case why aren't you in prison?"

Come on answer, you're not allowed to say that you've not actually been accepting backhanders - "we can discuss that later, and I'm more than willing to, but I don't want to let you slip away from what should have been a trivial task, clarifying and confirming you accept argument b)":

why aren't you in prison?

[Brive1987]

This will go into my doc - but I will get it out in draft here first.

.............

DATING THE SA HARASSMENT

I'm intrigued as to when exactly KS was receiving incessant sexual harassment - to which she had repeatedly demanded an end. Abuse that formed the very core of her "I was harassed for four years" narrative.

Let's put aside for the moment the technical definition of incessant. The SA account clearly indicates a specific and sustained period covering months extending into a general description of "years".

Common sense tells me this scenario is inconsistent with the months leading up to the sexual liaison planned and conducted March/April 2010. An event which Stollznow efficiently and enthusiastically organised. I don't need to see her flouting her own no coms zone to figure that out. She may have received (apparently temporarily) unwanted emails of the 'woe is me' genre in 2009 and early 2010. But, it seems, no manic SciAm ones that would preclude a night of nooky. A night that had her promising subsequent weekly email exchanges.

What about some post coital abuse in May thru to July 2010? Well Radford is certainly suffering remorse post SF about KS apparently not wanting to extend her night of sex into something more. But again the emails are directly sprung from that night at SF, are not aggressive and have KS replying and continuing the convo. They are also interspersed with "hello beautifuls"

I note in this period Baxter is completely unaware of any apparent abuse of his girlfriend / fiancée. Remember according to Stollznow, since late 2009 she has told Radford to stop communicating with her. In fact she specifically says:

Quote:

His desperation only increased when I met another man. He continued his harassment as though my boyfriend (who is now my husband) didn’t even exist.

Well that meeting was in September 2009. And yet ..... and yet in July 2010 Baxter turns to a friend in need to spill his frustration over KS's ways. He Facebooks Radford, saying amongst other things that Karen spends much of her time trying to find ways to incriminate him (Baxter). Clearly KS's beloved was completely in the dark re the incessant abuse ... Or maybe there was none to report.

Regardless, any hypothetical abuse in this period is tempered to nothing by KS's multiple requests for weekends away, affairs and week long furloughs at Radford's place in September 2010. So, really no joy there. If KS was being abused May - August she sure as hell wasn't showing it in her "do you want to hang out next weekend" emails sent a mere month later.

And then you have a problem. Radford is clear he ceased any hope of romance after cutting Stollznow off in September, no more lovey dovey emails. KS really needs to counter this explicit claim with some form of evidence - if it is indeed false.

True, Radford makes the mistake of seeing if she wants to be 'friends only' in late April 2011 (clearly stating he did not want resumption of sex). And then in June, a bemused Radford is for the first documented time told to stop harassing (nb "harrassing", not "sexually harassing") Stollznow. This time with a cranky Baxter in tow (see below).

But from this point on we are well and truly outside the timeline parameters of any of the specifics in SA. We are in brand new narrative country. A narrative where Baxter makes clear that at TAM 2011 Ben was a true gentleman. Even in the Stollznow chronicles.

So. When exactly did we get incessant predatory sexual harrassment and desperate calls to stop that wasn't decisively countered by subsequent unilateral Stollznow offers? Or are we talking about intermittent incessant abuse? Maybe we are talking about an increasingly toxic professional and personal relationship in 2012?

Or maybe there was no incessant abuse. Maybe Stollznow is conflating her 2010 gentle "get over it Ben's" - more than netted off by subsequent offers - with the June 2011 teleconference. A conference likely triggered by Karen receiving Ben's 'let's be friends' letter the same day that Baxter attacked her with a fluffy toy (April 26) out of frustration at her antics. All this then coupled to 2012 drama.

With the evidence provided by both sides, I can see no way of interpreting KS's SA story as anything other than a parody of the currently documented facts of their relationship. And when placed in context with her workplace dispute with Ben and her failed complaints to CFI and JREF, one that had clear intent.

But obviously my opinion only.

[hjhornbeck]

Originally Posted by Henry Bannister

"These became too big to ignore, so I called it all off. The rejection was ego shattering to him at first, and then met with disbelief. This was followed by incessant communication of a sexual nature, including gifts, calls, emails, letters, postcards, and invites to vacation with him in exotic places so we could “get to know each other again”. He wouldn’t leave me alone. This wasn’t love. It was obsession. His desperation only increased when I met another man. He continued his harassment as though my boyfriend (who is now my husband) didn’t even exist. "

Congratulations, you've demonstrated Stollznow claims she was sent harassing emails. That means the current situation is:

1) Stollznow claims she was sent harassing emails.
2) Radford claims that Stollznow claims that a specific set of emails were harassing, and implies it was that set of emails exclusively.

I was asking you to show me where Stollznow claims that specific set of emails were the harassing ones. You failed.

Originally Posted by Henry Bannister

If you mean that he mischaracterized the word 'authentication' I think Brive fairly well demolished that above.

Brive has never attacked my interpretation of "authentication." Even Radford agrees with it; where do you think I pulled my quotation from?

Originally Posted by Henry Bannister

by just authenticating his e-mails it becomes clear what the dates are, and so whether Stollznow has changed them.

So you think Flashback are being intentionally deceptive when they say otherwise?

Originally Posted by Henry Bannister

Now this is just a lie. I answered your question twice.

Let's review. Everything started when you appear to endorse b):

Originally Posted by Henry Bannister

Well I'm going for (b), since it depends on the contents of the e-mails.

I asked for clarity on that, twice. Each time, you dodged the question.

Originally Posted by Henry Bannister

No you give me the evidence of those e-mails being harassing first, please.

Originally Posted by Henry Bannister

Ok you got me, it must have been Colonel Mustard with the lump hammer in the Library. Do I win?

Thinking we were talking past one another, I tried to clarify what I was talking about in a reply to wareyin, that I was ignoring the question of whether or not the emails were harassing and just focusing on the underlying logic. Your response?

Originally Posted by Henry Bannister

Now this is just a lie. I answered your question twice.

I won't bother arguing with someone who invents details out of thin air, needs every argument spoon-fed to them in the most primitive form possible, and doesn't have the courage to stand by their words. Life's too short, and I've got a document to write.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally Posted by hjhornbeck

Congratulations, you've demonstrated Stollznow claims she was sent harassing emails. That means the current situation is:

1) Stollznow claims she was sent harassing emails.
2) Radford claims that Stollznow claims that a specific set of emails were harassing, and implies it was that set of emails exclusively.

I was asking you to show me where Stollznow claims that specific set of emails were the harassing ones. You failed.

Once again you are doing a lot of vague handwaving towards some sort of conclusion but you aren't saying exactly what your conclusion is, nor exactly what evidence supports that conclusion.

You once again seem to be trying to insinuate that there is some set of incriminating emails which Stollznow has not revealed or even specifically claimed to exist, but which do exist because Radford has not specifically denied their existence, and that since he has not denied the existence of incriminating evidence which nobody has ever claimed existed in the first place that this evidence must exist and hence he must be guilty. Or something.

Maybe I am doing your argument an unjustice but since you keep finding excuses not to explain exactly what it is you are arguing, I don't think I can be blamed too much for that.

[hjhornbeck]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

Okay. How about instead of making a bunch of disconnected observations and then saying "Join the dots, people! Don't look where the magician is pointing!" you just clearly state your actual conclusion, and the exact pieces of evidence that lead you to that conclusion.

So you want me to write summaries of each claim I cover, and include full links and citations to the exact pieces of evidence I use in my analysis?

(checks the collaborative document again)

.... yep, that confirms it, you haven't read a single thing I've written.

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

What you should do instead is go straight to the best evidence about the most important issues, and base your initial beliefs on that.

I did that. Either your inability to read led you astray, or you're so entrenched in your position that you've projected a wild fantasy on top of my writing.

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

See, this is the heart of the matter. There's no solid evidence for Stollznow's assertions, and you acknowledge this.

Where did I acknowledge this? Geez, for a "skeptic" forum there's no shortage of people willing to invent a more pleasing reality for themselves.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally Posted by hjhornbeck

So you want me to write summaries of each claim I cover, and include full links and citations to the exact pieces of evidence I use in my analysis?

(checks the collaborative document again)

.... yep, that confirms it, you haven't read a single thing I've written.

I was going by what you posted which was cryptic, combative and insufficiently explained.

I read your link and I want ten minutes of my life back. It was the same kind of innuendo and speculation without clear logical structure, just spread out over more pages. It's clearly a work in progress, but it's equally clearly a work in progress where the conclusion has been fixed already and but you haven't found anything to put in the body of the essay that justifies that conclusion.

Quote:

I did that. Either your inability to read led you astray, or you're so entrenched in your position that you've projected a wild fantasy on top of my writing.

That or you don't have a coherent case to make, just a disconnected bunch of "gotchas" with no rhyme or reason, none of which add up to a refutation of Radford's claim.

Quote:

Where did I acknowledge this? Geez, for a "skeptic" forum there's no shortage of people willing to invent a more pleasing reality for themselves.

I can only go by what you post. If you post things I'm just going to have to believe that they are your actual position.

[Brive1987]

HJ. I read your review of Radford's PDF doc of Stollznow's emails. There was a lot of detail but I'm not sure what it all proved. From what I can gather:

Radford used a canon photocopier to scan his doc to PDF
The doc was either a fax, or he scanned a print job to BW rather than greyscale
The doc started life as an email
The email was quite possibly sent by Stollznow
Radford does not waste CFI core hours with his private work

How is any of this relevant other than helping prove Stollznow engaged in a dirty tricks email campaign using questionably dated emails?

[hjhornbeck]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

You once again seem to be trying to insinuate that there is some set of incriminating emails which Stollznow has not revealed or even specifically claimed to exist, but which do exist because Radford has not specifically denied their existence, and that since he has not denied the existence of incriminating evidence which nobody has ever claimed existed in the first place that this evidence must exist and hence he must be guilty. Or something.

You're getting better, but this is still "something." There's probably a set of incriminating out there that aren't fully revealed, but you've got the owner wrong.

If you've read through Stollznow's emails (like I have), you'll note that she prefers to sign her emails with her first name, "Karen." If we buy into the idea that Radford's KS-Docs-15 and -16 are copies of an email Stollznow sent out (which is almost certainly the case), then we'd expect to find the text "Karen" sitting at the bottom.

But we don't. Now, there are quite a few other explanations out there (that email's been through a lot if Baxter's to be believed, and an accidental omission is plausible), but when you combine that with the fact that the second page is completely full, and Radford refers to emails that aren't on that list several times on his webpage (see "error" in 2009, for instance), those small bits of evidence make it likely there's at least a third page to that document.

And that's rather significant. Harassment is repeated unwanted communication, after all, so by not sharing all the evidence with someone you raise the chances they'll think it isn't harassment. Radford could have dodged that by being clear about the number of emails Stollznow considered harassing, but he didn't, instead preferring vague terms like "at least six" (complaint) or "a dozen or so" (website). By not filling in the blanks he's making us fill them in for him, which suits him just fine; we walk away thinking there were only ten harassing emails, and he doesn't have to worry about perjury changes for lying about the exact number.

Compounding that is the fact that Radford has no justification for saying those are all the harassing emails sent. He may have read some of the investigator's documents (Declaration, 23), but he hasn't seen the full document (Declaration, 33). That means he has no idea which emails were deemed "harassing" by the investigator, let alone whether or not there are more he doesn't have copies of.

Radford has been manipulating and lying to all of you, whether accidental or on purpose, allowing you to think those ten emails are all the evidence of harassment there is. And rather than challenge the claims of someone who's got a vested interest in keeping you misinformed, and could even earn millions of dollars from bamboozling a jury, you've looked exactly where the magician pointed.

[Brive1987]

Originally Posted by hjhornbeck

You're getting better, but this is still "something." There's probably a set of incriminating out there that aren't fully revealed, but you've got the owner wrong.

If you've read through Stollznow's emails (like I have), you'll note that she prefers to sign her emails with her first name, "Karen." If we buy into the idea that Radford's KS-Docs-15 and -16 are copies of an email Stollznow sent out (which is almost certainly the case), then we'd expect to find the text "Karen" sitting at the bottom.

But we don't. Now, there are quite a few other explanations out there (that email's been through a lot if Baxter's to be believed, and an accidental omission is plausible), but when you combine that with the fact that the second page is completely full, and Radford refers to emails that aren't on that list several times on his webpage (see "error" in 2009, for instance), those small bits of evidence make it likely there's at least a third page to that document.

And that's rather significant. Harassment is repeated unwanted communication, after all, so by not sharing all the evidence with someone you raise the chances they'll think it isn't harassment. Radford could have dodged that by being clear about the number of emails Stollznow considered harassing, but he didn't, instead preferring vague terms like "at least six" (complaint) or "a dozen or so" (website). By not filling in the blanks he's making us fill them in for him, which suits him just fine; we walk away thinking there were only ten harassing emails, and he doesn't have to worry about perjury changes for lying about the exact number.

Compounding that is the fact that Radford has no justification for saying those are all the harassing emails sent. He may have read some of the investigator's documents (Declaration, 23), but he hasn't seen the full document (Declaration, 33). That means he has no idea which emails were deemed "harassing" by the investigator, let alone whether or not there are more he doesn't have copies of.

Radford has been manipulating and lying to all of you, whether accidental or on purpose, allowing you to think those ten emails are all the evidence of harassment there is. And rather than challenge the claims of someone who's got a vested interest in keeping you misinformed, and could even earn millions of dollars from bamboozling a jury, you've looked exactly where the magician pointed.

This is all too much.

The Stollznow 10 are not harassing emails and you need to be less flexible in your description. (Even if you are really trying to say "Emails that Stollznow claimed were harassing" but you find the qualifiers too wordy. Maybe try "allegedly harassing")

You keep ignoring the fact there is no evidence of incessant unwanted emails of a sexual nature that flowed despite demands they stop - for 2010 and 2011. You can't find such a stream, Stollznow didn't produce any and the investigator saw no basis for a finding here. And yet 2010 and 2011 is the core period of SA. Sorry who is lying?

We don't know the exact origins of the list. We do know from Baxter that such a mismatched list existed and was used by their camp. We know KS used such a list in a campaign to colour perceptions of BR. We know it was made available to the investigator. Is Radford's PDF this list? Well Baxter felt moved to equivocate. Publicly. Meanwhile Radford is confident enough that he has staked his fraud case and his dollars on it. And demanded the CFI file be made open to the court. Ballsy move if it's all disprovable fraud of his own.

The investigator did not claim any emails from 2012 were harassing as you claim. He said they were unwanted and inappropriate. Like, I guess, rude criticism about work performance would be .....

Finally Radford did not claim this list comprises KS's full claim of alleged harassing emails. We know her allegations to the investigator went back to 2009 - allegations which, given the findings, were corroboration free. This list does appear to be the only 'hard' evidence KS can present to actually make her case. It's the list she sent friends and allies. It's the list she provided CFI. It's the 2012 list that had to fill the credibility gap caused by a digital armageddon which purged 2010 and 2011 records and destroyed her ability to prove a case - but not, it appears, her willingness to roll on regardless.

And that is the central black hole at the centre of this sorry galaxy. You can prod and sniff all the outer cosmic debris you want - but there is no escaping the evidence-free, would-be career busting allegations, Radford is responding to.