In this post, @trubandloki seems to realize that when the transcript of the texts indicates an incoming text, the reader doesn’t know who the sender is.
Technically, it could be anybody, but here Trubandloki explicitly considers that it could be either RG or JK.
It’s gratifying to me that after only 10 repetitions, trubandloki seems to understand that one can’t just assume who the author of an incoming text is, simply because that is the person you want to taunt and denigrate.
Will she ever admit that there is similar ambiguity as to who wrote the “ha ha, maybe they’ll be homeless” text. Probably not.
You are yet again wrong. You might want to try to do better. Perhaps your out and out bias has affected your interpretation of hard facts. You might want to get that checked out.
Those texts (put the bug near the dumpster texts) are in the middle of a conversation between the three of them, Lauren Kanarek, Jonathan Kanarek, and Robert Guy Goodwin.
The text about laughing at making people homeless that I have posted before has a reason why it is Jonathan Kanarek (@Inigo-montoya) (which maybe you have not noticed, I will say every time you bring it up, so you must really want me to talk about it). These texts do not have the same information so I am not able to tell if it is Jonathan Kanarek or Robert Guy Goodwin who is demanding that Lauren Kanarek needs to put the bug by the dumpster and that they want it done that very day (in caps).
In case anyone has forgotten what text I am talking about where Jonathan Kanarek thinks it is funny to make someone homeless, here it is. (Haha…maybe they’ll be homeless.)
I am sorry @CurrentlyHorseless that you are unable to figure out how I determined who sent this text. But you not understanding does not make it look any less that Jonathan Kanarek texted that.
Unlike you, I am not willing to just lie, so I will not say there is any ambiguity.
Right, because once again, unlike what you are used to, I do not lie about these things.
If none of the recordings that have been handed over to date include what is in the transcripts to SS, does that mean that someone from the Kanarek family simply made up stuff for the SS report that was submitted (oh, that is a bad look for the Kanarek family, no?) or, are there recordings that they have not yet shared but are saying do not exist (so rock hard place, because this too makes the Kanarek family not look good).
They have also said that if it wasn’t produced to the mcpo, it doesn’t exist. But if MB of SGF try to bring in evidence that lk lied to SS to harm mb by introducing that report, Lk can object as its hearsay, because that report was written by someone at ss, if Lk told them the info.
So how does mb get that in? With the transcripts kk bragged about making and sending to SS herself or the report is admitted b to show the lying when compared with the actual recordings.
This is where Lk is slipping a bit, by claiming the evidence doesn’t exist, she’s opening herself up to a spoliation claim, because why would someone lie that extensively on SM? Why would Lk AND kk do that, repeat the same lies multiple times, unless they are shysters, or the evidence really DID exist.
It apparently quotes statements such as “I’m going to effing kill her”.
If the defense does not already have the actual recording of that quoted conversation, they could say “provide the recording that is the basis of these statements quoted in the SS report.”
Have they done that? No. Why? That conversation is among the 81 recordings they already have.
For anything quoted, or even alluded to, in the SS report, they could ask for receipts in terms of the original recordings. But undoubtedly they already have them.
If they have the SS report with specific quotes, and the underlying recordings, and they match, why do they need KKs intermediary transcripts?
I have the massage therapist coming today do you want me to send them over to see you next, with all the twisting and turning you do you got to have something out of wack.
If there were a subpoena to LK herself demanding any recordings that were quoted or even alluded to in the SS report, or if they subpoenaed her for “everything she sent to SS” that would be entirely reasonable.
Why do you think that’s not what they’re doing? I think it’s because they already have any recordings associated with the SS report.
