Mr Joy's Creditability, Owner of save3abn.com Options

[Fran]

The defense attorney stood to begin his closing arguments. As he took a few, measured steps towards the jury box, he reflected on his case. It didn't look good for his client. The man had been caught leaning over the lifeless body of his wife, her blood on his arms and chest, the murder weapon in his hand and dozens of witnesses in the next room who had heard them fighting moments before.

Occasionally, as he quietly pled the circumstantial nature of the case against his client before those twelve men and women, he would pause and nervously, expectantly gaze at the courtroom door. Finally, just before he was about to sit down, a man strode through the door and handed the attorney a note. The attorney read it briefly, put it into his pocket and smiled.

"What would you say if I told you that my team has found the actual murderer of my client's wife? That this man was able to slip by the witnesses, unnoticed, viciously stab an innocent woman and then slip back out again? What would you say if I told you that my investigators have that man right outside this courtroom, ready to bring him in through those very doors?"

He flourishes his right arm in that direction and all heads turn to the doors to watch the real killer make his entrance. They wait, in hushed expectation, and wait, and wait. Finally, the clever defense attorney redirects the jury's attention back onto himself.

"Of course, there is no man waiting just outside the courtroom doors. The point is, you all looked. That shows you have reasonable doubt that my client is the actual murderer. You must, therefore, find him 'Not guilty'."

Is that what is happening here? Is this information, as yet simply unverified hearsay to this date, that was found posted on the Adventist Tomorrow forum being used as a diversion, turning attention away from the real issues? Is it an attempt to shift the guilt and focus away from some and onto others? I don't know. It would be nice if the man who made the posts would confirm or deny their credibility with some form of documentation, but he remains silent.

Is it just a convenient ploy?

BTW, the above story is a reworking of one my husband and I saw on a legal series that we follow. It's what came to my mind as this topic has unfolded.

I saw that too! I saw it on Boston Legal. I get a lot of great laughs when I watch that program. Allen Shore is such a funny hoot !

Sad thing was, the jury let a guilty person go free!

[princessdi]

I watch this show, also.. William Shatner and James Spader are just certifiable! They are just hilarious! I saw this episode also, if I am nto mistaken it was last week"s episode. The acused was actually a woman, her and Alan used to work together(with benefits). She had actually taken on some woman's identity,a nd Alan had tried looking ofr the woman. Anyway at the end they never found the woman becuase the defendent had killed her a year or so before when she tracked the defendant down to tell her she wanted her life back. Allan figured it all out and convince her to take the reduced sentence he was able to get for her(he had to tell the truth about the murder being an officer of the court, but he did n't tell about the identity theft and the murder of the orginal woman). One of the reasons he figured it out was because she didn't look at the door like very one else.

And the answer to your questions is yes....their whole point appearance here at BSDA is a diversion. They really can't disprove anything, so they shift blame, and try to discredit. However, the truth is the truth anyhow!

I saw that too! I saw it on Boston Legal. I get a lot of great laughs when I watch that program. Allen Shore is such a funny hoot !

Sad thing was, the jury let a guilty person go free!

[PeacefulBe]

I watch this show, also.. William Shatner and James Spader are just certifiable! They are just hilarious! I saw this episode also, if I am nto mistaken it was last week"s episode. The acused was actually a woman, her and Alan used to work together(with benefits). She had actually taken on some woman's identity,a nd Alan had tried looking ofr the woman. Anyway at the end they never found the woman becuase the defendent had killed her a year or so before when she tracked the defendant down to tell her she wanted her life back. Allan figured it all out and convince her to take the reduced sentence he was able to get for her(he had to tell the truth about the murder being an officer of the court, but he did n't tell about the identity theft and the murder of the orginal woman). One of the reasons he figured it out was because she didn't look at the door like very one else.

And the answer to your questions is yes....their whole point appearance here at BSDA is a diversion. They really can't disprove anything, so they shift blame, and try to discredit. However, the truth is the truth anyhow!

Di, Fran,

It is a great show. A favorite of mine and my husband. That show and that particular case were what leapt to my mind as I followed this topic.

He fooled the jury with his slick ploy, but that didn't change the truth!

[LadyTenor]

That stint only works on TV...and I first saw that on an old episode of Matlock....where there was no body...and Matlock said, here is the victim alive, and gestured with all due drama toward the doors. No one came in...and he said the same thing...you have reasonable doubt.....

...folks, in the real world, not any and all doubt is "reasonable"....the key word in the phrase is REASONABLE..........

[sister]

It seems like FHB, Bastander and Co. are silent, they must be regrouping for the next barrage.

[PeacefulBe]

That stint only works on TV...and I first saw that on an old episode of Matlock....where there was no body...and Matlock said, here is the victim alive, and gestured with all due drama toward the doors. No one came in...and he said the same thing...you have reasonable doubt.....

...folks, in the real world, not any and all doubt is "reasonable"....the key word in the phrase is REASONABLE..........

LT,
The prosecutor on the show made the connection to Matlock! And you are right, it does only work on TV. Here in this real world it's not so easy to fool folks, as Bystander and wwjd are discovering.

Sister,
They have fallen silent, haven't they...

[LadyTenor]

LT,
The prosecutor on the show made the connection to Matlock! And you are right, it does only work on TV. Here in this real world it's not so easy to fool folks, as Bystander and wwjd are discovering.

Interesting! I haven't seen much of Boston Legal since the early years when it spun off of one of my all-time favorites, The Practice.

[princessdi]

Yeah!1 I forgot about that! It is really good. Allan and Denny have unique relationship. Candice Bergen is good, too!

Interesting! I haven't seen much of Boston Legal since the early years when it spun off of one of my all-time favorites, The Practice.

[Bystander]

Based on what I recall Gailon telling me yesterday about the car repossession issue:

• Gailon does not own the car in question.
• Gailon co-signed on a loan for a car.
• The owner paid the loan down to $1600.
• The owner had trouble paying off the rest.
• The lender wanted Gailon to pay up.
• Gailon suggested that they half the payments down to $160, and let the owner pay that each month.
• The lender refused.
• Gailon said, "Fine. Take it to court."
• The lender did.
• The court decided that the owner had to pay up, $160 a month.
• The owner has paid that amount, and the car has not been repossessed.

Okay, now if one looks through this thread, the ones who either claim to know about or have talked to sources about an automobile of Gailon's being repossessed are:[list]
[*]Bystander
[*]WWJD
[*]Pickle
[*]Gailon

The court document had know other name on it than Gailon Arthur Joy. The amount said 3,946.66 with interest and fees, not 1,600.00. Amount owed to Primus Financial Services.

Not to mention that you first told wwjd that Gailon did not even know what we were referring to. A little later, it seems he did know, except the figures are different and there was no other name on the judgment.

[Pickle]

The court document had know other name on it than Gailon Arthur Joy. The amount said 3,946.66 with interest and fees, not 1,600.00. Amount owed to Primus Financial Services.

Not to mention that you first told wwjd that Gailon did not even know what we were referring to. A little later, it seems he did know, except the figures are different and there was no other name on the judgment.

1) Post the court document so we can see it.

2) I'm fairly sure you have your facts wrong. I can't locate any such post where I said any such thing. But I don't mind being corrected.

[Hawk]

Look out your Thompsonville window and see a tornado approaching. You can hear a roar that sounds like a freight train. The telephone rings and a man who has lost a car in a repo situation, a man who has fallen behind in rent a few years ago, is telling you that there is a tornado and warning you should to get into the basement. You scoff and say "he lost a car and is behind on rent. Of course there is no tornado." How could someone who got behind on rent and lost a car tell the truth about anything? Mercillations! How could a person who has had a financial difficulty be anything but a liar? (Uh oh! That went back too far. Edited for pre-3ABN content)

This post has been edited by Hawk: Mar 29 2007, 10:57 PM

[princessdi]

In the absence of our Official Heathen Family Langwest. DrRe" I take Princess authority to give you for the proper us of a BSDAism!

Look out your Thompsonville window and see a tornado approaching. You can hear a roar that sounds like a freight train. The telephone rings and a man who has lost a car in a repo situation, a man who has fallen behind in rent a few years ago, is telling you that there is a tornado and warning you should to get into the basement. You scoff and say "he lost a car and is behind on rent. Of course there is no tornado." How could someone who got behind on rent and lost a car tell the truth about anything? Mercillations! How could a person who has had a financial difficulty be anything but a liar? Hmmmm. Does the BS care to comment on Danny's move to Michigan and why? Oh, how about the move back to Illinois? Does the BS care to comment on that? Was there any situation that included.... bancruptcy? Ahhh! Does the name Rusk & Hardin ring a bell? With the BS?

[Johann]

Look out your Thompsonville window and see a tornado approaching. You can hear a roar that sounds like a freight train. The telephone rings and a man who has lost a car in a repo situation, a man who has fallen behind in rent a few years ago, is telling you that there is a tornado and warning you should to get into the basement. You scoff and say "he lost a car and is behind on rent. Of course there is no tornado." How could someone who got behind on rent and lost a car tell the truth about anything? Mercillations! How could a person who has had a financial difficulty be anything but a liar? (Uh oh! That went back too far. Edited for pre-3ABN content)

[Hawk]

If one holds Gailon as non-credible for having had any financial difficulties in the past, one must hold Danny even more non-credible for having had even larger financial difficulties in the past... as a number of people from the past WILL testify to. And as the BS knows, that testimony will be quite comprehensive in a number of areas.

[mozart]

Right!

well it seem to be their typical MO. when people rub them the wrong way or get too close to the truth, they start spinning the smear campaign. it's conniving, pathetic behavior. some folks have got some serious dues to pay and the pit just keeps getting deeper. there heads must be like bricks.