Jump to content

Bob Crockett

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,773 Excellent

1 Follower

About Bob Crockett

  • Rank
    Brings Forth Plants

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

3,088 profile views
  1. I have not defamed anybody, petty or otherwise. Max Hall -- as far as I can see -- had nothing to do with the potential fraudster document.
  2. Maybe true although I don't assert that.
  3. There isn't likely going to be a standard. I tend to think of things in terms of evidence. Will Bagley relied heavily upon a document in the Church archives called "Discursive Remarks." Anonymous and very opposed to the Church. I questioned that reliability of the document and challenged Bagley in my review of his work. Bagley also cited several rumors against Brigham Young -- manipulating the attack etc. I asked about the value of that evidence. My article is here: https://bobcrockettlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/FARMS-A-Trial-Lawyer-Reviews-Will-Bagleys-Blood-of-the-Pr
  4. I am not pretending anything, not am I calling anybody a liar. I never have. I can see why you're upset with me pointing out substantial flaws with the first and second "Watson" letters, but I treat the analysis rather clinically. I've published a few papers on the adequacy of evidence and that is where I'm headed. That does not mean I am calling people "liars." I don't think you'll see that word in my posts. The two letters are inadequate evidence, for different reasons. But the problems with the second "Watson" letter are particularly problematic. That is, the face of the letter
  5. If I'm going to call somebody a fraud you'll see it. I forgot that Reel was on your Board. Sorry.
  6. Pretty funny! I'll keep pitching my views.
  7. I still think Mike is Bill Reel. But I'm guessing like everything else.
  8. That is a good lawyer question. Reduce the question so there can be only one answer. No. I don't think the fax is trivial. I think it counter productive to the mission of the church.
  9. Well, I have to confess I have relied upon my experience litigating altered faxes. This one has the indicators of such. But it could be legit as well. I would really like to take a closer look at this fax when I have the time. But I stand to my conclusion that there it is likely (but not more likely than not) that the fax is not legit. It is an interesting question worthy of more inspection and thinking.
  10. I don't see it that way. I have argued that the receipt of the fax is not in issue, really, and so neither is Mr. Hall. I don't challenge the integrity of anybody publicly associated with the fax but I do question Hamblin's and Roper's academic treatment of it after the fax. I think their treatment is absurd. I think they intentionally mispresented the fax ("Watson Second Letter") to make it what it was not. Why? I don't know but it looks dumb.
  11. Well, you've relied upon needless righteous indignation in the past, but here it isn't necessary. But you are entitled to think what you'd like. Think away. I'm pretty sure the pureness and legitimacy of the Book of Mormon does not need such puffed up support as the two letters; arm of flesh and all that.
  12. Well, you make a good point. Why go to all the effort to fraudulently create a fax that just quotes from the Encyclopedia? I don't know the answer to that. Remember, I don't know the answer to anything on this subject, I just point out major weaknesses in the two letters. My particular "shtick" when I wrote my Mountain Meadows Massacre articles was to point out the absurd weaknesses of some of Balgley's evidence; never would I have thought to email him or call him to clear things up. His book stood on its own two feet and I was out to demolish it for inadequate evidence. With respect
  13. I question the Watson letter. I think it is inadequate. We can discuss that. But you're interested in the fax. I have never once questioned Mr. Hall's integrity. Yes, I have subzero interest in chasing Mr. Hall down. He'll only say he received it and that is not enough. The Carla Ogden fax speaks for itself and I'm going with that. Yes, I know you are "appalled" at me. But I do not think the evidentiary support is adequate. You've probably had conflicts with lawyers in the past; I'm just another one. My personal record speaks for itself. I trust the church and its
  14. The envelope? That would be helpful. I indeed have significant doubts as to the Watson letter. Scott Lloyd informed me that the Church used a Wang processor so that could explain away much of my objections. Again, merely because I postulate that the Ogden fax was fabricated does not mean that I accuse any particular person. And my postulation comes from years of litigating questioned documents. But I also admit the heater possibility that the document is genuine. But, true, I have zero interest in chasing down Mr. Hall. Zero. Less than zero.
  15. So to summarize:. The fax from Carla Ogden may be a fraud or at best is not germane because: 1. The original Watson letter was from him and signed by him. You would have expected Watson to have sent a second corrective letter signed by him. 2. The Ogden document is on a mere fax cover sheet. We don't know who it is really from. Someone could have simply fabricated it from a prior fax form sent from the office. 3. The fax form is missing certain items, such as a fax strip. Also the form asks that things be inserted into form. They weren't. This suggests that the documen
  • Create New...