Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Racial Slur at BYU Game - Real or Hoax?


Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

Absent corroborating evidence, it would be nice at some point for her to concede it could have been a mistake what she thought she heard. Regardless, my suspicion is that others will suggest that even though she could be wrong, this experience is at least a reminder that we (i.e., USA, BYU, the Church) have a long way to go in righting the wrongs of the past. In other words, they'll thank her for the reminder even though she could have been mistaken. Yuck. 

I guess it depends on how strong her perception of racial taunting is. I'm trying to think of an analogy for myself. I guess the closest is the daily abuse we missionaries endured for the crime of being North American, ranging from name-calling (pretty much happened every day of my mission) to death threats, rocks being thrown (at my wife and her companion), and a couple of years later the actual murder of two missionaries. I remember walking through downtown La Paz and passing a large demonstration of the Revolutionary Workers' Party. I didn't think much of it until I heard the speaker start shouting about "yanqui asesinos." I figured it was time to get out of there, so we did. I'm positive I heard him say those words, and I still can see and hear what happened 38 years later. Now, is it possible I misheard amid all the shouting and chanting that was going on? Sure. It could have been that I was expecting folks like that to say something hostile or threatening to and about us, as had happened many times before. If someone were to somehow ask all the participants if they heard it, and they said no, I would likely still believe I heard what I think I heard. In the same way, this young woman has probably been told by someone or other that Mormons and BYU have a somewhat fraught relationship with African Americans (to whatever degree that is true or false is kind of irrelevant). If that's what she was told, I'm assuming she would have put her guard up for any sign of racial hostility, and it's quite easy to understand how she could have "heard" something that wasn't said. I keep thinking of how, in a noisy SFH, chants of "Cougars!" might sound like something else.

Whatever happened, I'm perfectly happy to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, that she said what she thought she heard and that the BYU crowd did not say what is alleged. None of that justifies calling it a "race hoax." 

Edited by jkwilliams
Link to comment
1 minute ago, Amulek said:

I don't believe it's a hoax. A hoax is when somebody is intentionally misleading people, but I don't know that that's the case here.

I guess we differ a bit in terms of what "hoax" means.  The basic definition is "something intended to deceive or defraud," but I think Wikipedia's explanation is a bit more nuanced:

Quote

A hoax is a widely publicized falsehood so fashioned as to invite reflexive, unthinking acceptance by the greatest number of persons of the most varied social identities and of the highest possible social pretensions to gull its victims into putting up the highest possible social currency in support of the hoax.[1]

Whereas the promoters of frauds, fakes, and scams devise them so that they will withstand the highest degree of scrutiny customary in the affair, hoaxers are confident, justifiably or not, that their representations will receive no scrutiny at all. They have such confidence because their representations belong to a world of notions fundamental to the victims' views of reality, but whose truth and importance they accept without argument or evidence, and so never question.

My preliminary assessment here is that Rachel Richardson fabricated the accusations, but she underestimated how quickly the narrative would grow beyond her control.

1 minute ago, Amulek said:

I genuinely believe that she thinks she heard someone use a racial slur, at least at one point during the game.

Maybe.  But she (and her "godmother") went far beyond an accusation of "a racial slur ... at one point during the game."  See my bullet points here.

1 minute ago, Amulek said:

And I don't have a problem with her reporting what she heard.

Nor do I.

I do, however, have a problem with fabrications about racial slurs.  And that seems to be where the evidence is going.

1 minute ago, Amulek said:

Now, I am more than a little bit skeptical about whether or not somebody was actually hurling racial epithets (repeatedly?) during the game and, even if they were, I find it suspicious that she was the only one to hear them.

Same here.  I am also skeptical about "maybe she just mis-heard something"-type explanations, as she was quite specific in publicly declaring that she “very distinctly” heard a “very strong and negative racial slur” come from the student section during Friday’s match while she was serving, which she said escalated throughout the match and “grew into threats which caused [her] to feel unsafe.”

1 minute ago, Amulek said:

Maybe she has supersonic hearing or something, because I've been to packed volleyball games in the Smith Fieldhouse before, and once the score gets past 15 the crowd gets up and gets loud - I'm talking really, flippin', loud - and it doesn't let off until the game ends. Maybe she was able to pick out that one word among the din, but (again) I have some doubts. I think it far more likely that she simply misheard something in the heat of the moment.

But we aren't talking about "heat of the moment."  She said the racial slurs were repeated every time she served, throughout the game.  And that they came from the student section, yet nobody in that section, nor the police officer posted nearby, nor the four ushers, heard anything.  And the recording of the game does not include any audible racial slurs.  And her godmother said it was the n-word, and that it was used repeatedly.  How credible is that, in 2022 in Provo?  Plus a bunch of guys from BYU's b-ball team (several of whom are black) were sitting next to the student section, and none of them have corroborated her story.  None of her teammates have publicly corroborated her story, either.

The evidence so far does not support either a straightfoward approach (that racial slurs were used) or an "inadvertent error" approach (she mis-heard something).

I am fine with examining evidence as it comes in, but I also see no problem with drawing preliminary and rebuttable conclusions.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I guess we differ a bit in terms of what "hoax" means.  The basic definition is "something intended to deceive or defraud," but I think Wikipedia's explanation is a bit more nuanced:

My preliminary assessment here is that Rachel Richardson fabricated the accusations, but she underestimated how quickly the narrative would grow beyond her control.

Maybe.  But she (and her "godmother") went far beyond an accusation of "a racial slur ... at one point during the game."  See my bullet points here.

Nor do I.

I do, however, have a problem with fabrications about racial slurs.  And that seems to be where the evidence is going.

Same here.  I am also skeptical about "maybe she just mis-heard something"-type explanations, as she was quite specific in publicly declaring that she “very distinctly” heard a “very strong and negative racial slur” come from the student section during Friday’s match while she was serving, which she said escalated throughout the match and “grew into threats which caused [her] to feel unsafe.”

But we aren't talking about "heat of the moment."  She said the racial slurs were repeated every time she served, throughout the game.  And that they came from the student section, yet nobody in that section, nor the police officer posted nearby, nor the four ushers, heard anything.  And the recording of the game does not include any audible racial slurs.  And her godmother said it was the n-word, and that it was used repeatedly.  How credible is that, in 2022 in Provo?  Plus a bunch of guys from BYU's b-ball team (several of whom are black) were sitting next to the student section, and none of them have corroborated her story.  None of her teammates have publicly corroborated her story, either.

The evidence so far does not support either a straightfoward approach (that racial slurs were used) or an "inadvertent error" approach (she mis-heard something).

I am fine with examining evidence as it comes in, but I also see no problem with drawing preliminary and rebuttable conclusions.

Thanks,

-Smac

My problem is simply with the assignation of intent. A hoax is "intended to deceive or defraud." I don't see how you can conclude that she intended to deceive based on the evidence thus far, let alone compare her to the execrable (no pun intended) Tawana Brawley. This overheated rhetoric helps no one, and it certainly doesn't help BYU.

Edited by jkwilliams
Link to comment
3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Whatever happened, I'm perfectly happy to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, that she said what she thought she heard and that the BYU crowd did not say what is alleged. None of that justifies calling it a "race hoax." 

I was perfectly happy to give everyone the benefit of the doubt at the beginning. My mind started to change when I heard her story from her. She described a pervasive racially charged atmosphere where both her and her black teammate were mistreated. At the scale she described it’s hard to make an innocent mistake. Then she went into a mini-monologue on how we white folks need to be educated etc. Besides being incredibly condescending, that speech sounded orchestrated to me.

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

I also think there would be droves of others who came down on the alleged instigator for saying what s/he allegedly yelled - I know I certainly would have. I find it hard to believe someone could hurl these awful descriptors and get away with no one knowing s/he did. 

And in the new, social media world we live in, if such behavior was really going on (repeatedly, as reported), I find it hard to believe that there wouldn't be someone out there with a cell phone recording.

Or maybe there is, and they are in the process of brokering a deal for the highest dollar.

 

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

My preference would be something that doesn't suggest it could only be a hoax.

I think everyone would prefer that.  But the evidence so far - including her own statements and those of her godmother (which she has not publicly refuted/corrected/clarified) - is leaning away from an innocuous explanation, which would have to be along the lines of "I guess I mis-heard the special needs UVU student shouts about hitting the ball into the net as him 'very distinctly' repeatedly shouting the n-word at me every time I served, which slurs then grew into threats which caused me to feel unsafe."

My preference would be error or misunderstanding too.  But it looks like she fabricated the accusations, leaned way into it, let (or encouraged) her godmother to spout off about it in very inflammatory ways, and then . . . the narrative got away from her once the police and news investigation of evidence started coming in, at which point she went radio silent.

17 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

She seemed like a nice young lady.

I agree.  She seems quite earnest.  But she also seems to have an agenda, so a Machiavellian motive seems plausible.  

17 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

She could simply be sorely mistaken.

Given the evidence, this is looking increasingly less likely.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, JarMan said:

I was perfectly happy to give everyone the benefit of the doubt at the beginning. My mind started to change when I heard her story from her. She described a pervasive racially charged atmosphere where both her and her black teammate were mistreated. At the scale she described it’s hard to make an innocent mistake. Then she went into a mini-monologue on how we white folks need to be educated etc. Besides being incredibly condescending, that speech sounded orchestrated to me.

I guess I don't see myself ever accusing someone of a deliberate hoax unless there is clear evidence. I'm not seeing it. I think I shall bow out of this. No point in simply repeating the same thing over and over. 

Link to comment
28 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

Absent corroborating evidence, it would be nice at some point for her to concede it could have been a mistake what she thought she heard. Regardless, my suspicion is that others will suggest that even though she could be wrong, this experience is at least a reminder that we (i.e., USA, BYU, the Church) have a long way to go in righting the wrongs of the past. In other words, they'll thank her for the reminder even though she could have been mistaken. Yuck. 

I think you’ve actually stumbled into the reason that race hoaxes occur. People are trying to bring attention to the wrongs of the past. The church certainly is guilty of plenty of these, so this entire episode could have been orchestrated to bring attention to them. I think “good” people could feel justified in orchestrating a hoax if they think the ends justify the means. 

Link to comment
1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

I guess I don't see myself ever accusing someone of a deliberate hoax unless there is clear evidence. I'm not seeing it. I think I shall bow out of this. No point in simply repeating the same thing over and over. 

I’m not accusing anyone of a hoax. I’m simply showing that it could be an explanation for what happened. Maybe it didn’t. But we ought to try to expose it if it did. 

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

My problem is simply with the assignation of intent. A hoax is "intended to deceive or defraud."

Okay.  An "ends justify the means" intention to deceive or defraud could be less serious than a self-interested or malevolent intention to deceive.

So far the evidence about the what (the allegations of racial slurs being yelled) is not holding up very well at all, and is increasingly contravened by the absence of corroborating evidence.

Evidence as to the why (assuming that she fabricated the accusations, her reasons for doing so) more sparse, and I'm not as presently interested in that aspect.

4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I don't see how you can conclude that she intended to deceive based on the evidence thus far,

She said X.  X has, so far, not been corroborated or supported by competent evidence, and instead is belied by the extant evidence and the absence of corroboration.

It is reasonable, at this point, to say that X is false.  Why she said X is more speculative.

4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

let alone compare her to the execrable (no pun intended) Tawana Brawley.

I thought the comparison was fair.  It's not a one-to-one.  I said I was "reminded" of Brawley.  And the broad contours fit both: a race hoax based on an ulterior (but not malevolent) motive which quickly got out of hand.

4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

This overheated rhetoric helps no one, and it certainly doesn't help BYU.

I don't think my rhetoric has been overheated.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Ms. Richardson's allegations do not seem to be holding up to scrutiny.  I am reminded of the Tawana Brawley incident:

So...

  • A provocative story about racial animus against a black woman?  Check.
  • Zero evidence, save the purported victim's say-so, of the racial animus?  Check.
  • Substantial countervailing evidence undermining the purported victim's say-so?  Check.
  • Deliberate high-profile news/media coverage?  Check?
  • "Dogpile"-style tactics by the purported victim's family?  Check.
  • Apparent exploitation of the purported victim by others for their own purposes/ends?  Check.
  • Substantial ulterior motive for the purported victim (and family)?  Check.
  • Aggravation of racial tensions?  Check.
  • Convenient indifference by many (including the media outlets that uncritically trumpeted the initial story) to whether the allegations were factually true?  Check.
  • The purported victim refusing to participate in further inquiries about the allegations?  Check.

How many of these apply to Rachel Richardson?

  • Purported victim had an obvious motive to create this story as it was a ploy to escape impending abuse?

No check?

How did that get left off of the list?

Link to comment
40 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

There's a huge difference between understanding that supporting evidence is lacking and insisting it's a "hoax."

I am not "insisting."  You keep resorting to strawmen here.

40 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

The latter implies intent, evil or otherwise.

It does not.  Tawana Brawley apparently perpetrated a hoax, but likely not for "evil" purposes:

Quote

Possible motives[edit]

Much of the grand jury evidence pointed to a possible motive for Brawley's falsifying the incident: trying to avoid violent punishment from her mother and particularly her stepfather, Ralph King. Witnesses testified that Glenda Brawley had previously beaten her daughter for running away, and for spending nights with boys. King had a history of violence that included stabbing his first wife 14 times, which later escalated into him shooting and killing her. There was considerable evidence that King could and would violently attack Brawley: when Brawley had been arrested on a shoplifting charge the previous May, King attempted to beat her for the offense while at the police station. Witnesses also described King as having talked about his stepdaughter in a sexualizing manner.[28]

On the day of her alleged disappearance, Brawley had skipped school to visit her boyfriend, Todd Buxton, who was serving a six-month jail sentence. When Buxton's mother (with whom she had visited Buxton in jail) urged her to get home before she got in trouble, Brawley told her, "I'm already in trouble." She described how angry King was over a previous incident of her staying out late.[29]

Neighbors also told the grand jury that in February they overheard Glenda Brawley saying to King, “You shouldn't have took the money because after it all comes out, they're going to find out the truth.” Another neighbor heard Mrs. Brawley say, “They know we're lying, and they're going to find out and come and get us.”[28]

In April 1989, New York Newsday published claims by a boyfriend of Brawley's, Daryl Rodriguez, that she had told him the story was fabricated, with help from her mother, in order to avert the wrath of her stepfather.[30] Writing about the case in a 2004 book on perceptions of racial violence, sociologist Jonathan Markovitz concluded that "it is reasonable to suggest that Brawley's fear and the kinds of suffering that she must have gone through must have been truly staggering if they were enough to force her to resort to cutting her hair, covering herself in feces, and crawling into a garbage bag."[6]

Again, I am presently not particularly interested in the why, but rather the what.

I think the what is . . . a race hoax.  Discussing the why calls for a bit too much speculation at this point.

40 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

That you compare it to Tawana Brawley merely strengthens the accusation of evil intent.

Nonsense.  I specifically quoted the above "Possible Motives" section previously, and have done so again in this post.  

If anything, a comparison to Tawana Brawley would indicate a non-evil intent.

40 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I understand that there is so far no supporting evidence, but that does not mean she engaged in a hoax.

I think there is, at this point, sufficient evidence to reasonably conclude that her accusations are a race hoax.  YMMV.

40 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

There are all kinds of possibilities here, and it's dismaying that so far, there are really only two camps, each condemning the other. 

Tawana Brawley did an awful, but in retrospect apparently understandable, thing in propagating a race hoax.  

As for Rachel Richardson, I'm presently inclined to A) concluding that her accusations are a race hoax, and B) she may have had a well-intentioned-but-substantially-misguided motive for propagating it.  That second part is pretty speculative.  The first part is provisional, but so far seems reasonable based on the evidence.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:
Quote

It is reasonable, at this point, to say that X is false.  Why she said X is more speculative.

Exactly. If you can't determine why, you can't assign intent.

I haven't assigned intent.  I have provisionally determined that her accusations are false.  Her intent/motive for making false accusations is not yet apparent.

8 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

It's not that difficult. I'm out. 

Okay.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
1 hour ago, JarMan said:

I want to give this girl the benefit of the doubt but it’s really starting to look like this is a hoax and maybe even an orchestrated attack. 

What is orchestrated about it? Where is the premeditation? The young woman most likely mishears something and because she is worried about, she starts hearing more things.  Because it isn’t resolved for sure, she is left hanging and that adds to the anxiety.  She shares her concerns with her family, including sharing it with her godmother, who unfortunately for whatever reason chooses to ramp it up.  Her father echoes what he heard her say through the filter of his own experience and the desire to protect his daughter out of love.  And instead of waiting till an investigation is done, some others automatically jump to conclusions (some that it is fact as described and others it is a hoax)and some even act on them.

Nothing needs to be coordinated for what has happened so far.

I just do not see the advantage of assuming the worst or even speculating it could be a hoax or fraud, etc.  What good does it do anyone?  And I can see a lot of bad that it does.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
Just now, Calm said:

What is orchestrated about it. Where is the premeditation? The young woman most likely mishears something and because she is worried about, she starts hearing more things.  Because it isn’t resolved for sure, she is left hanging and that adds to the anxiety.  She shares her concerns with her family, including sharing it with her godmother, who unfortunately for whatever reason chooses to ramp it up.  Her father echoes what he heard her say through the filter of his own experience and the desire to protect his daughter out of love.  And instead of waiting till an investigation is done, some others automatically jump to conclusions (some that it is fact as described and others it is a hoax)and some even act on them.

Nothing needs to be coordinated for what has happened so far.

I just do not see the advantage of assuming the worst or even speculating it could be a hoax or fraud, etc.  What good does it do anyone?  And I can see a lot of bad that it does.

Thank you for putting it so well. Something can be false without being a hoax. I see no reason to conclude she has deliberately deceived anyone. That would involve mind-reading. 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Vanguard said:

Absent corroborating evidence, it would be nice at some point for her to concede it could have been a mistake what she thought she heard.

Well, when people are comparing her to Tawana Brawley and Smollett, is it any wonder that she might double down?  When you start being attacked as a liar when you know you haven’t been lying, do you feel all tolerant and accepting of those calling you a liar and want to make them happy by admitting you are wrong (especially when many will assume that means they are right about you being a liar) or do you perhaps feel defensive and a need to protect yourself from attacks, refusing to give anything that could be used as an excuse to do so.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Again, I am presently not particularly interested in the why, but rather the what.

Why not interested in the why?  When someone brings up a tragedy in the Church, do you ignore the context?

Link to comment
39 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I guess I don't see myself ever accusing someone of a deliberate hoax unless there is clear evidence. I'm not seeing it. I think I shall bow out of this. No point in simply repeating the same thing over and over. 

Let's take a look at how the law in Utah (which is pretty mainstream) breaks down a claim of "fraud":

Quote

The elements of fraud in Utah are: "(1) a representation; (2) concerning a presently existing material fact; (3) which was false; (4) which the representor either (a) knew to be false, or (b) made recklessly, knowing that he [or she] had insufficient knowledge on which to base such representation; (5) for the purpose of inducing the other party to act upon it; (6) that the other party, acting reasonably and in ignorance of its falsity; (7) did in fact rely upon it; (8) and was thereby induced to act; (9) to his [or her] injury and damage."

So:

  • (1) a representation;
  • (2) concerning a presently existing material fact;
  • (3) which was false;
  • (4) which the representor either (a) knew to be false, or (b) made recklessly, knowing that he [or she] had insufficient knowledge on which to base such representation;
  • (5) for the purpose of inducing the other party to act upon it;
  • (6) that the other party, acting reasonably and in ignorance of its falsity;
  • (7) did in fact rely upon it;
  • (8) and was thereby induced to act;
  • (9) to his [or her] injury and damage.

So there are sort of three subgroupings here: 

Part A - The Statement:

  • (1) a representation;
  • (2) concerning a presently existing material fact;
  • (3) which was false;

Part B - The Motive/Intent Behind the Statement:

  • (4) which the representor either (a) knew to be false, or (b) made recklessly, knowing that he [or she] had insufficient knowledge on which to base such representation;
  • (5) for the purpose of inducing the other party to act upon it;

Part C - The Effect of the Statement:

  • (6) that the other party, acting reasonably and in ignorance of its falsity;
  • (7) did in fact rely upon it;
  • (8) and was thereby induced to act;
  • (9) to his [or her] injury and damage.

I have reached a preliminary / provisional / rebuttable conclusion as to Part A, but not as much as to Part B.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
Just now, smac97 said:

Let's take a look at how the law in Utah (which is pretty mainstream) breaks down a claim of "fraud":

So:

  • (1) a representation;
  • (2) concerning a presently existing material fact;
  • (3) which was false;
  • (4) which the representor either (a) knew to be false, or (b) made recklessly, knowing that he [or she] had insufficient knowledge on which to base such representation;
  • (5) for the purpose of inducing the other party to act upon it;
  • (6) that the other party, acting reasonably and in ignorance of its falsity;
  • (7) did in fact rely upon it;
  • (8) and was thereby induced to act;
  • (9) to his [or her] injury and damage.

So there are sort of three subgroupings here: 

Part A - The Statement:

  • (1) a representation;
  • (2) concerning a presently existing material fact;
  • (3) which was false;

Part B - The Motive/Intent Behind the Statement:

  • (4) which the representor either (a) knew to be false, or (b) made recklessly, knowing that he [or she] had insufficient knowledge on which to base such representation;
  • (5) for the purpose of inducing the other party to act upon it;

Part C - The Effect of the Statement:

  • (6) that the other party, acting reasonably and in ignorance of its falsity;
  • (7) did in fact rely upon it;
  • (8) and was thereby induced to act;
  • (9) to his [or her] injury and damage.

I have reached a preliminary / provisional / rebuttable conclusion as to Part A, but not as much as to Part B.

Thanks,

-Smac

So all you can really say is the allegation is false. That she deliberately and knowingly made a false statement is required for it to be fraud. So, maybe you should back off the fraud accusation and just say you think the allegation is false. Why is it so important that she be lying? 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

My problem is simply with the assignation of intent. A hoax is "intended to deceive or defraud." I don't see how you can conclude that she intended to deceive based on the evidence thus far, let alone compare her to the execrable (no pun intended) Tawana Brawley. This overheated rhetoric helps no one, and it certainly doesn't help BYU.

I am out of points.  This can not be said enough, imo.  (Except I think Brawley should be looked at with compassion as a victim of abuse…her murderer of a stepfather is the one who was execrable imo and why would a woman ever marry someone who killed his first wife, especially when she has children she should be protecting…and then of adults who should have known better coming up with actual suspects for their own agendas rather than someone trying to deceive for personal or political gain, she was only 15).

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
Just now, Calm said:

I am out of points.  This can not be said enough, imo.  (Except I think Bradley should be looked at with compassion as a victim of abuse…her murderer of a stepfather is the one who was execrable imo and why would a woman ever marry someone who killed his first wife, especially when she has children she should be protecting…and then of adults who should have known better coming up with actual suspects for their own agendas rather than someone trying to deceive for personal or political gain, she was only 15).

I had forgotten the context of the Bradley case, so thank you for the reminder. Undoubtedly the people who used her case for personal or political gain merit the term “execrable.”

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, Calm said:
Quote

Again, I am presently not particularly interested in the why, but rather the what.

Why not interested in the why?  

Note that I said I am not presently interested in the why.

And the reason for that is this: the why can often have a very different investigative methodology and path than the what.

I have litigated fraud many dozens of times.  The first and biggest priority is to assess the what:

  • (1) a representation;
  • (2) concerning a presently existing material fact;
  • (3) which was false.

Did Richardson (and her godmother) make "representations?"  Yep.

Were those representations about "facts" (as opposed to opinions/guesses, etc.)?  Yep.

Where those representations about presently-existing "facts" (as opposed to prospective statements)?  Yep.

Where those representations about presently-existing and material facts (as in important, significant)?  Yep.

Where those representations . . . false?  Presently, it looks like they are.

The evidence at hand is, in my view, sufficient to draw a reasonable conclusion that Richardson's representations (and those of her godmother) are false.  

The evidence at hand is not, I think, sufficient to ascertain the next part of the analysis:

  • (4) which the representor either (a) knew to be false, or (b) made recklessly, knowing that he [or she] had insufficient knowledge on which to base such representation;
  • (5) for the purpose of inducing the other party to act upon it;

Did Richardson (and her godmother) make the (apparently) false representations knowingly ("knew to be false")?  Hard to say, as I don't think we have enough evidence on that point.

Did Richardson (and her godmother) make the (apparently) false representations recklessly?  Again, hard to say given the currently-available evidence.

Intent, the why, is formed between Richardson's ears, and so is going to be harder to ascertain.

However, the what is considerably more testable, particularly in 2022, where there were many witnesses, a good audio/video recording, law enforcement on hand, etc.

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

When someone brings up a tragedy in the Church, do you ignore the context?

No.  What makes you think I am ignoring context?

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Calm said:
Quote

My problem is simply with the assignation of intent. A hoax is "intended to deceive or defraud." I don't see how you can conclude that she intended to deceive based on the evidence thus far, let alone compare her to the execrable (no pun intended) Tawana Brawley. This overheated rhetoric helps no one, and it certainly doesn't help BYU.

I am out of points.  This can not be said enough, imo.  

In a legal context, analysis of the representation is distinguishable from analysis of the motive/intent of the maker of that representation.

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

(Except I think Bradley should be looked at with compassion as a victim of abuse…her murderer of a stepfather is the one who was execrable imo and why would a woman ever marry someone who killed his first wife, especially when she has children she should be protecting…and then of adults who should have known better coming up with actual suspects for their own agendas rather than someone trying to deceive for personal or political gain, she was only 15).

Yep.  I have provided contextual information to justify this.  Twice.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...