New Info From Walter Thompson -via Msdaol, Danny's side of the story with details- Options

[PeacefulBe]

Not only speculation, but speculation that flies in the face of what multiple witnesses and participants have stated. Every item Icedragon mentions has already been addressed in the various discussions on each point. The "truth" is only "hard to pin down" when one does not decide who are credible witnesses and who are not. And I disagree that we need to go into all these exercises in finding "motives" that make sense to us. We can see what happened. We can decide whether Danny and Walt have been caught in lies or not. We can decide whether we trust the witness of Johann and Beartrap and Arild as primary actors in the events of 2004 and whether we trust the witness of other observers and friends of Linda. Once we make the basic decision as to who can be counted on to tell the truth, then it matters not how much the details are embroderied or how many times they are repeated. Repetitions do not make lies into truth.

I see that you have had more time to weigh the evidence here than I have and may feel more comfortable in making the judgement call as to who is telling the truth and who is lying. I have only been weighing this evidence for a short time so I don't feel comfortable with throwing my self onto one side or the other yet. I don't think that I have a "6-year-old" brain. I just like to get the whole story best I can before making that big leap.

I strongly suggest that it is Abrahamsen who speaks the truth, and I believe we had already posted confirming evidence of that long before we received his letter.

Watchbird, could you tell me where to find the thread containing the confirming evidence so I can go and read it? Thanks

I think speculation is the wrong word. Speculation is making statments with out fact or evidence to support it, picking a side and hoping the evidence will support it. Stock speculators, in the stock market used to pick stock based on hope, gossip, and current market conditions, Hot or cold. Stock analyist on the other make decisions and predications based on the financial condition of the companies they are recommending and the market indicators. they use fact to project resonable conclusions, to make more accurate decisons.

The same has I have tried to do. I have tried to stay away from speculation and inuenendo, unlike many people around here. I gathered all the information from first hand information scources and put them in one place, unfortunately it was not posted in it's completeness. After careful analaysis and discussion with friend who are i respect for there analitical skills. These are the 2 possible situations that could have occured more or less, based on the information, some minor details maybe changable but to the greater extent these are the options. right now we have no smoking Gun to absloutely to accuse Linda or Danny. of wrong doing. while i have leanings i have had to back off Those leanings. I think that analysis is a better word.

IceDragon, I stand corrected. Your reasonable conclusions are very interesting. I also try to stay away from speculation, innuendo and hearsay because the whole reason I came here was to search for truth. And that's what I intend to keep pursuing.

[inga]

[regarding Linda:]
This eventrually lead to an inapproprate relationship. If sexual in nature there was certinaly an oppetuinty and would explain the pregnancy test.

This is precisely what I have not found -- the "opportunity" you mention. All I know of are speculations based on flimsy evidence that Linda had supposedly met the doctor here or there. Some very specific, supposedly "provable" meetings did not take place, because Linda was at an entirely different place at the time, according to Johann who is a first-hand witness with no stake in this other than that he stands for truth.

There is speculation that she spent time alone with the doctor in Norway. Johann can probably speak to this "opportunity" as well.

What is quite apparent is that Danny Shelton and Walt Thompson have been doing their best to make it appear that there was opportunity for an affair to take place.

[watchbird]

Not only speculation, but speculation that flies in the face of what multiple witnesses and participants have stated. Every item Icedragon mentions has already been addressed in the various discussions on each point. The "truth" is only "hard to pin down" when one does not decide who are credible witnesses and who are not. And I disagree that we need to go into all these exercises in finding "motives" that make sense to us. We can see what happened. We can decide whether Danny and Walt have been caught in lies or not. We can decide whether we trust the witness of Johann and Beartrap and Arild as primary actors in the events of 2004 and whether we trust the witness of other observers and friends of Linda. Once we make the basic decision as to who can be counted on to tell the truth, then it matters not how much the details are embroderied or how many times they are repeated. Repetitions do not make lies into truth.

I see that you have had more time to weigh the evidence here than I have and may feel more comfortable in making the judgement call as to who is telling the truth and who is lying. I have only been weighing this evidence for a short time so I don't feel comfortable with throwing my self onto one side or the other yet. I don't think that I have a "6-year-old" brain. I just like to get the whole story best I can before making that big leap.

I strongly suggest that it is Abrahamsen who speaks the truth, and I believe we had already posted confirming evidence of that long before we received his letter.

Watchbird, could you tell me where to find the thread containing the confirming evidence so I can go and read it? Thanks

Yes, I have indeed "had more time to weigh the evidence", and not only that, I started with the advantage of being a long time friend of Johann's, of working with him in several venues, and of having confidence in his honesty and kindly character. So when I asked him for an explanation of what was meant by the terse announcements on the 3abn webpage in May and June, 2004, there was no question in my mind whose version of the story to believe. But of course there is no way for me to hand you my confidence in Johann....

What I can do, however, is to make a few suggestions as to how to go about studying the material and making decisions as to who to believe. First of all, there are no real shortcuts .... this is one more situation which proves the truth of the old saw, "The long way around is the shortest way home." And another .... "The best place to begin is at the beginning.... that's the very best place to start."

Here, then, are some suggestions. They will require some note taking, a printer, and lots of patience.

1) In the pinned section, print off the three letters there .... the ones from Johann Thorvaldsson, Arild Abrahamson, and Walt Thompson. (Don't run Arild's and Walt's letters together. Be sure they are separate files.) From the beginning of this thread, print off the other letter from Thompson.

2) Now notice the dates on each, July 29, 2004 for Johann's, May 2006 for the first of Walt's, and June 2006 for the other, and July 14 for Arild's.

3) Compare them closely. Use some system of marking passages 1) which are in essential agreement, 2) which could be different views of the same thing, and 3) which are contradictory.
I believe you will find that Johann's and Arild's are in essential agreement, in spite of the fact that they were written nearly 2 years apart so that Arild's covers more time than Johann's. I also believe that you will find a few differences between Walt's two letters. And I think you will find enough differences between Walt's and the other two so it becomes obvious to you that one side or the other must be lying. There is simply no way to reconcile the two stories in many places.

4) Accept this as fact. Don't sweat the details. At this point the only conclusion that you should reach is that one or the other is lying. And don't let go of that. No matter how contrived the arguments get from anyone .... don't let go of this basic fact. There is no use trying to reconcile the differences. They are simply too great for that.

Now .... how to determine which side is truthful and which is giving out lies ....

Here is where I think the only way to really get there is to start at the beginning.

The beginning was 2004, and you will find the threads started at that time mostly at the very end of the 3ABN menu. (When you pass your cursor over the thread titles, a box containing the date it was started will appear.) There were not many threads that were begun in 2004, and it is such ancient history now that it may seem unnecessary .... but I think walking with those who were trying to sort things out at the time will give you a better feel for why some now are so certain about where they stand.

When you are finished with those, then move to those begun in 2006, after Danny's remarriage. This was when interest really picked up. And once Sister begins to appear in the threads, leave those and go take the "guided tour" through her "Unauthorized History of 3ABN" which you will find pinned at the top.

But don't stop there. Remember that all the time she was putting those up, other threads were running concurrently. Try to work your way through them all. But do it slowly. It simply can't be done in a day.

And as you read, keep in mind the two sets of letters that you read. When you come across a post that speaks to some point on those letters ... either side .... make a note of it. One way I have found helpful is to click on the post number, which gives me the exact url of that post, which I can then paste into a document, along with a sentence or two about the contents. Eventually you will run across the "confirming evidence" that I mentioned above. Once you have picked these out you will be in a position to decide which "side" has the most credibility.

And once you have decided who is lying and who is telling the truth, the liars will not be able to bewilder you any more.

[PeacefulBe]

Yes, I have indeed "had more time to weigh the evidence", and not only that, I started with the advantage of being a long time friend of Johann's, of working with him in several venues, and of having confidence in his honesty and kindly character. So when I asked him for an explanation of what was meant by the terse announcements on the 3abn webpage in May and June, 2004, there was no question in my mind whose version of the story to believe. But of course there is no way for me to hand you my confidence in Johann....

What I can do, however, is to make a few suggestions as to how to go about studying the material and making decisions as to who to believe. First of all, there are no real shortcuts .... this is one more situation which proves the truth of the old saw, "The long way around is the shortest way home." And another .... "The best place to begin is at the beginning.... that's the very best place to start."

Here, then, are some suggestions. They will require some note taking, a printer, and lots of patience.

Thank you for your recommendations on how to look for the truth. I have already done some of what you have suggested. I haven't gone clear back to the beginning but have tried to pay close attention to comparing letters, etc.

Thanks again.

[Panama_Pete]

And as you read, keep in mind the two sets of letters that you read. When you come across a post that speaks to some point on those letters ... either side .... make a note of it. One way I have found helpful is to click on the post number, which gives me the exact url of that post, which I can then paste into a document, along with a sentence or two about the contents. Eventually you will run across the "confirming evidence" that I mentioned above. Once you have picked these out you will be in a position to decide which "side" has the most credibility.

And once you have decided who is lying and who is telling the truth, the liars will not be able to bewilder you any more.

About comparing letters.

You may also have to ask questions.

For instance, Walter Thompson mentions Linda's "lady friend." This "lady friend" glides off of Dr. Thompson's tongue quite easily. Who is she? I have found you really have to seriously question every noun and adjective in Thompson's letters.

Our committee of the board invited a lady friend [Kuzma] of Linda's to sit with us, thinking that, being a woman, she would be able to make Linda comfortable. As soon as she heard Linda's story, she confided to Linda that she was wrong, and needed to correct the problem. Linda requested her to query some of the 3ABN leadership to hear their views. she did this, only to find that Linda used the negative feedback she received as evidence she was not a friend to her cause. Linda would not talk to her again - the same as she had done to the friend [Walsh] that went with her to Norway.

Thompson mentions these two, Kuzma and Walsh, as Linda's friends.

Kuzma wrote an e-mail to Calvin located here:

http://www.blacksda.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=1664

where Kuzma stated,

Although I will not comment further about what happened to lead up to Linda's departure from 3ABN, we know that the other man had been to the States and spent time with Linda before she left Danny, and that immediately after she left Danny, the other man was with Linda. A few weeks later they spent time traveling together through Europe.

Did Linda really go travelling through Europe with Arild Abrahamsen as Kay said?

Notice how Thompson's subsequent letter differs:

One of the things was that Linda had made arrangements to meet the doctor in Norway to spend 10 days with him touring the pretty places in the country during the following June.

Danny and Linda were divorced by June 26, 2004, so you can see how this travelling did not take place "the following June."

This is important, because the 3ABN Board, undoubtedly, was told about the romantic romps through Europe. They were encouraged to vote based on false information. Why should the board discount such an esteemed Adventist Review contributor such as the illustrious Kay Kuzma?

You have to look really closely (almost under a microscope) with Thompson, unlike his own 3ABN appointed "fact finder" Kay Kuzma. Thompson doesn't say that Abrahamsen and Linda Shelton travelled anywhere. This is an important change in the story. Why don't these Kuzma and Thompson stories match on a topic so damaging and so critical to Linda's reputation?

Well, of course, Linda Shelton refused further calls from this Kuzma "3ABN fact-finder committee" woman when she saw this hatchet job under way. You would, too, if your "friend" implied to strangers you were travelling around Europe with your lover.

Those are the types of questions you will have to ask yourself. You have to say, if Linda Shelton and Arild Abrahamsen did not travel through Europe for 10 days, why would Linda's supposed "lady friend" be sending out e-mail saying that they did?


You also need to know that Danny, shortly thereafter, put Kay Kuzma in charge of 3ABN Books. Does Danny tolerate people who are sympathetic to his ex-wife? Ask yourself questions. The fact that Kay Kuzma remained in the good graces of Danny Shelton may tell you on which side of the pizza Kay Kuzma's cheese was melting. Same goes for the Linda's other "friend" mentioned.

So, you will have to read all of the letters very carefully and note the changes and where they don't match the other letters and ask yourself why.

This post has been edited by Panama_Pete: Sep 14 2006, 08:30 PM

[justme]

3ABN BOOKS: A real money maker. And Kuzma is in charge of it. You may remember that her very first "new" projects was to RE-WRITE the "history of 3ABN. It very conveniently "forgot" what Linda did for 3ABN.



Re: SKY ANGEL ... Danny acts like SKY ANGEL's rejection of 3ABN is no big deal. SO few viewers and so on. It was SKY ANGEL that literally put 3ABN on the map across the USA. AND SKY ANGEL offered "LIFETIME MEMBERSHIP SUBSCRIPTIONS" to get enough funds to get DOMINION SKY ANGEL Progamming really going. Robert, founder of Dominion SKY ANGEL need start-up money, which came mostly from SDA's by virtue of the interest in 3ABN. Then DISH came along and offered the viewer a smaller, more compact DISH ANTENNA at 19-inches across instead of the 6-7 feet mesh dishes used earlier.

For Danny to downplay the importance of Dominion SKY ANGEL is to deny the reality of it all.

To see the importance of the loss of SKY ANGEL a satellite system installer told me he could not get the new "HOPE" systems in fast enough to keep with the demand.

HOWEVER, it now is dropped off to a stand-still. No one want 3ABN anymore, but they love "HOPE".

Kuzma is trying really hard to justify her job there ay 3ABN, so far, playing "fast-n-loose" with the "facts" that go into the books makes it easier to become a P.R. tool for 3ABN rather than an evangelistic tool for God. Her books glorify 3ABN staff and individuals that appear there.

[PeacefulBe]

About comparing letters.

You may also have to ask questions.

For instance, Walter Thompson mentions Linda's "lady friend." This "lady friend" glides off of Dr. Thompson's tongue quite easily. Who is she? I have found you really have to seriously question every noun and adjective in Thompson's letters.
Thompson mentions these two, Kuzma and Walsh, as Linda's friends.

Kuzma wrote an e-mail to Calvin located here:

http://www.blacksda.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=1664

where Kuzma stated,
Did Linda really go travelling through Europe with Arild Abrahamsen as Kay said?

Notice how Thompson's subsequent letter differs:
Danny and Linda were divorced by June 26, 2004, so you can see how this travelling did not take place "the following June." This is important, because the 3ABN Board, undoubtedly, was told about the romantic romps through Europe. They were encouraged to vote based on false information. Why should the board discount such an esteemed Adventist Review contributor such as the illustrious Kay Kuzma?

snip

So, you will have to read all of the letters very carefully and note the changes and where they don't match the other letters and ask yourself why.

I found it quite easy to figure out that the letter was refering to Kay and Brenda.

I just don't see how you can conclude that Linda and Arild couldn't have traveled through Europe because Danny and Linda were divorced by June 26, 2004. How does the divorce make a trip impossible? Am I missing something?

[beartrap]

I found it quite easy to figure out that the letter was refering to Kay and Brenda.

I just don't see how you can conclude that Linda and Arild couldn't have traveled through Europe because Danny and Linda were divorced by June 26, 2004. How does the divorce make a trip impossible? Am I missing something?

Danny claims that they travelled through Europe while he they were married... LIE! It never happened, but if it did after the divorce, is it any worse than Danny spending nights with Brenda Walsh, and moving Brandy into the house across the street form him (Way out in the woods where ther is privacy) and then marrying her after whaterver the time across the street (in privacy) may have produced? Alot of people seem to be obssesed with pounding square pegs through round holes to try and fit their fallacious hypothesis, but round is round, and square is square. No matter how you pound, twist, turn, or otherwise attempt to create a nice, neat fit, it won't happen.

[Johann]

I found it quite easy to figure out that the letter was refering to Kay and Brenda.

I just don't see how you can conclude that Linda and Arild couldn't have traveled through Europe because Danny and Linda were divorced by June 26, 2004. How does the divorce make a trip impossible? Am I missing something?

I have asked Walt Thompson what evidence he has that this visit took place. He replied there was good evidence. I asked him if he had seen it. He admitted he had not, but that he had heard it. . . .

My wife and I were spending most of our time in the vicinity of Dr. Arild Abrahamsen, she received frequent treratments from him, and we were in daily communication with Arild. It would have been a millionth of a chance we could have missed Linda's visit to Europe during that period. This is merely one more of a multitude of lies emanating from 3ABN. So what can you trust of whata they say?

[Guest_vonessa_*]

I have truly enjoyed reading this topic. Even though the subject is sad, it has been fun putting the pieces together and seeing the whole picture. Thanks for all the people who have spent time doing this - it has been amazing to see it all!

Again, I know that it is sad and what not, but it is a true story, and we can now talk to the real people who were there and saw it happen. Much better than 99% of what's on television, including 3ABN!

[inga]

About comparing letters.

You may also have to ask questions.

For instance, Walter Thompson mentions Linda's "lady friend." This "lady friend" glides off of Dr. Thompson's tongue quite easily. Who is she? I have found you really have to seriously question every noun and adjective in Thompson's letters.
Thompson mentions these two, Kuzma and Walsh, as Linda's friends.

This "lady friend" in Thompson's latest letter had me puzzled. Now I can't believe that he actually called Kay Kuzma a lady friend!! Was she ever a friend to Linda??

I can understand calling Brenda Walsh a "friend," because Linda apparently really thought that Brenda was a friend. But Kay??

Thanks for this analysis, Pete.

This post has been edited by inga: Sep 15 2006, 12:39 AM

[Panama_Pete]

I found it quite easy to figure out that the letter was refering to Kay and Brenda.

I just don't see how you can conclude that Linda and Arild couldn't have traveled through Europe because Danny and Linda were divorced by June 26, 2004. How does the divorce make a trip impossible? Am I missing something?

Perhaps you're thinking that all of this refers to after the divorce.

Kay says, "Immediately after she left Danny, the other man was with Linda. A few weeks later they spent time traveling together through Europe."

Immediately, according to the dicitonary: "Without delay or hesitation; with no time intervening."

Thompson only says there were travel plans made for June, 2004, after a divorce was filed. Divorces always involve a time interval - even a quickie divorce on Guam.

Thompson doesn't even write that those travel plans ever became a reality. So, where does Kay Kuzma's travel information come from?

[Panama_Pete]

I have asked Walt Thompson what evidence he has that this visit took place. He replied there was good evidence. I asked him if he had seen it. He admitted he had not, but that he had heard it. . . .

My wife and I were spending most of our time in the vicinity of Dr. Arild Abrahamsen, she received frequent treatments from him, and we were in daily communication with Arild. It would have been a millionth of a chance we could have missed Linda's visit to Europe during that period. This is merely one more of a multitude of lies emanating from 3ABN. So what can you trust of whata they say?

And certainly, if Arild and Linda had left to do some "traveling together through Europe" his patients would have noticed he was missing.

[Uncle Sam]

[quote name='beartrap' date='Sep 14 2006, 08:58 PM' post='151963']
Danny claims that they travelled through Europe while he they were married... LIE! It never happened, but if it did after the divorce, is it any worse than Danny spending nights with Brenda Walsh, and moving Brandy into the house across the street form him (Way out in the woods where ther is privacy) and then marrying her after whaterver the time across the street (in privacy) may have produced?

Did Linda and the Dr ever "vacation" together? After the divorce?

[watchbird]

And certainly, if Arild and Linda had left to do some "traveling together through Europe" his patients would have noticed he was missing.

Yes, indeed, and Arild's patient records would be a good source for someone seriously interested in researching his exact location during the times he is rumored to have been with Linda on some other continent. There are two problems with doing this, however.... one is that Arild is a very private person and is not noted for granting interviews to reporters, and the other is that those who make accusation have been very vague in their dates as to when he was, according to the accusation, spending time with Linda in some place in the US.

But back to the "traveling together through Europe" story.... I would guess that this has its "seed of truth" in one of the medical appointments that Linda had with Abrahamson ... that we discussed elsewhere at some length. (Sorry I don't have time to search for the exact urls of that discussion, maybe someone else can find it and bring it to this place.) To refresh the memories who were here for the discussion.... when Linda was left with no medical insurance, and no stateside friends to help her out, Dr Abrahamsen offered to treat her without charge. At the time of her divorce, he was "on location" with patients in Switzerland, so this is where she went (after her divorce) for her medical treatments. When finished she joined Irmgard and Johann in Norway, where she spent some additional time in "retreat" at their home.

The interesting (almost ironic) thing about this trip is that Danny was having her trailed by Private Investigators all the way..... which means that he was effectively (and unwittingly) providing her with a set of "chaparones" .... or should we say a rock solid protection against false accusations. For surely, had there been any shadow of a doubt in the PI minds about her morality on that trip, they would have reported it to Danny and he would have been waving it in triumph ever since.

So I think in this case, we have not only the affirmations of Linda, Arild, Johann, and Irmgard, that she was not following up on a "romantic liason" but we can rest assured that she was so impeccable in her behaviour that even a professional PI team could "find no fault in her" to report to their employers.

Could this be a case of a fulfillment of God's promise that he would not only protect against the "snares of the enemy" but would turn such attempts to snare into a wall of protection for the righteous?

In response to Uncle Sam's question, Linda vacationed with Johann and Irmgard at times during the next year or so after the divorce. They lived in Norway. Not anywhere near Arild's clinic. But at times they ALL went to Arild's clinic, as both Irmgard and Linda were taking treatments from Dr. Abrahamson. (Again ... this is all by way of review. Johann has described these times elsewhere on BSDA, and doubtless he will do so again.) So yes, Linda vacationed in Norway. No she did not vacation with Arild .... with the implications that this carries of them being alone together for extended periods of time.

This post has been edited by watchbird: Sep 15 2006, 08:51 AM