so
Jeff, let me understand you. Your comments about admissibility of certain evidence--Kevin's statement--wasn't intended to suggest that any lawsuit should, would or could be filed here. It's just meant to show that the law will allow such statements because they are deemed reliable. OK.
So are you telling us that this initial statement of Kevin's, the one cut and pasted at the beginning of this thread, is inherently reliable? And that his subsequent disavowal and claim that he made it up is in fact the lie? We should or must believe the first and disregard the second? Because if so I do not believe many here see it that way--several are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt or chalk it up to poor judgment and bravado. Moreover, if you are right and the first statement is true:
"I have made sure that each already has or will have an altered card in their collection "
then I expect specific instances will surface--hell, everyone's on notice to go check their cards right now--and it will indeed blow back on or fall down on Kevin. My thought is let's wait and see if that in fact happens. I'm curious to know how anyone thinks that was done to them or even could have been done to them. I am certainly willing to eat crow if necessary, but right now I just think this thing is WAAAAAAAAAY overblown.
|