[calvindog]

Man, one red herring after another.

First, Peter, surely you know your example holds no water. Claiming that you shot JFK out of the blue -- as you just stated -- is meaningless. Compare that to the circumstances which existed wherein Kevin made his statements: he was in the midst of a private email correspondence with Elkins which he assumed would never be disclosed. He's well-known as someone with great skill in altering cards. He expressed his disgust with Net 54 members. He doesn't just make a statement out of the blue about targeting Net 54 members -- he claimed he did it and it cost him some money. Clearly some additional information was disclosed about how and why he was making such a statement about past fraud. He then expresses disappointment that he was not able to defraud me. Elkins does not challenge Kevin's claim; apparently he believed it as well. Do all of these factors lend a little more credence to the possibility that Kevin either engaged in fraud or wishes to engage in fraud than if he had just blurted out a single declaration against penal interest with nothing more? Of course.

As for Todd's position, it would certainly make sense if we were in a court of law and the quantum of proof necessary to convict was a beyond a reasonable doubt standard. But we're not in a court of law and Kevin has not been indicted. Wonka did not come on here and claim that he had irrefutable proof that Kevin defrauded Net 54 members ("I have no proof Kevin did this"); he simply laid out Kevin's own words which were made when he thought no one was watching, and argued that this was information that the collecting public had a right to know as it would appear that either Kevin admitted he committed fraud and/or that he wished to target Net 54 members with his fraud.

As for the declarations against penal interest made by Kevin, the point of noting this is simply to demonstrate that in context,when someone makes such an admission it can be used quite powerfully to prove that they, in fact, did do such a thing. As I noted above, a recorded declaration against penal interest made in a private moment carries a lot more weight than a claim of "I didn't do it!" when the declarant knows everyone is watching.

Finally, the secondary issue here is whether or not Kevin actually committed fraud (most of us would agree that it would be very tough, but not impossible, for him to accomplish this the way he laid out in his email to Elkins (as I noted above such a fraud is "probably not a major worry")); the bigger issue is whether Kevin is capable of or desires to commit fraud against Net 54 members. That's where his private statements to Elkins cause such consternation. And if that is the ultimate question -- not whether he did commit fraud but whether he wishes to and is capable of committing fraud --well, suddenly the case against him looks pretty bad.