jkwilliams Posted September 8, 2022 Posted September 8, 2022 1 minute ago, smac97 said: In a legal context, analysis of the representation is distinguishable from analysis of the motive/intent of the maker of that representation. Yep. I have provided contextual information to justify this. Twice. Thanks, -Smac But you still have not provided evidence of knowingly making a false representation. That means you can’t assert fraud.
smac97 Posted September 8, 2022 Author Posted September 8, 2022 (edited) 31 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: So all you can really say is the allegation is false. Yes. Provisionally. As a preliminary and rebuttable conclusion, yes, I think her accusations are false. 31 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: That she deliberately and knowingly made a false statement is required for it to be fraud. More than that. There are nine elements. 31 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: So, maybe you should back off the fraud accusation What "fraud accusation" are you talking about? I have said, provisionally, that this incident looks like a race hoax. 31 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: and just say you think the allegation is false. I have said that. Many time. 31 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: Why is it so important that she be lying? I have said that. I think it is important that we ascertain whether the accusations are false. Thanks, -Smac Edited September 8, 2022 by smac97 1
smac97 Posted September 8, 2022 Author Posted September 8, 2022 16 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: But you still have not provided evidence of knowingly making a false representation. I acknowledge that. 16 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: That means you can’t assert fraud. I have not asserted "fraud." I have provisionally concluded that her accusations amount to a hoax, as that term is elaborated on in Wikipedia: 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. Note that this distinguishes between "hoaxes" and "frauds." Thanks, -Smac 1
Calm Posted September 8, 2022 Posted September 8, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, smac97 said: 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. No. What makes you think I am ignoring context? Thanks, -Smac Not dealing with the why when making assumptions about intent is ignoring context, imo. Because 4 and 5 deal with intent, as soon as you consider something to be probably a hoax, you are making assumptions about intent. Presenting Brawley correctly as a victim of abuse does not justify using her case as comparison (accusing innocent men of raping and torturing her) with Richardson’s accusation (racial slurs yelled at her from a distance in a crowd). Edited September 8, 2022 by Calm
jkwilliams Posted September 8, 2022 Posted September 8, 2022 3 minutes ago, smac97 said: Yes. Provisionally. As a preliminary and rebuttable conclusion, yes, I think her accusations are false. More than that. There are nine elements. What "fraud accusation" are you talking about? I have said, provisionally, that this incident looks like a race hoax. I have said that. Many time. I have said that. I think it is important that we ascertain whether the accusations are false. Thanks, -Smac Can you please explain how you differentiate between a fraud and a hoax? Intent and fraud are inherent in a hoax. hoax (noun) 1: an act intended to trick or dupe : IMPOSTURE \\ the victim of a cruel hoax \\ assumed the bomb threat was just a hoax 2: something accepted or established by fraud or fabrication \\ believes the Loch Ness Monster is a hoax \\ a literary hoax
Calm Posted September 8, 2022 Posted September 8, 2022 5 minutes ago, smac97 said: I acknowledge that. I have not asserted "fraud." I have provisionally concluded that her accusations amount to a hoax, as that term is elaborated on in Wikipedia: Note that this distinguishes between "hoaxes" and "frauds." Thanks, -Smac Unless she “(a) knew [the accusation] to be false, or (b) [believed it was] made recklessly, knowing that [she] had insufficient knowledge on which to base such representation”, how could it qualify as a hoax? Unless she has the intent to that her “representations will receive no scrutiny at all”, which she would not if she believed it really happened, how would it qualify as a “hoax”? 2
Vanguard Posted September 8, 2022 Posted September 8, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, smac97 said: My preference would be something that doesn't suggest it could only be a hoax. 1 hour ago, smac97 said: 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." This is all so unfortunate. Others speaking on her behalf (her godmother and other public figures in particular) and inserting their own bias on such a racially-charged alleged incident only fans the flame of confirmation bias for so many. After throwing the gauntlet down against BYU as they already have, it would be all the harder for this young lady to admit to any possibility of misrepresenting what she actually experienced. In other words, the machine has taken over and now too much dictates how this all plays out. And I get your point about how much she would have to recant. It does seem not only unlikely but also almost unbelievable that she would then disavow the certainty she once had about everything she alleges. : ( Be that as it may, it all goes down as unsubstantiated until such time evidence is presented. It reminds me of a typical atheist position that unless you 'believers' can offer evidence of the supernatural, your claims must be relegated to the trash heap of not only things unsubstantiated but many times, false. Edited to add: I can't figure out how to fix the first quote? It should read 'Vanguard said'. Edited September 8, 2022 by Vanguard
smac97 Posted September 8, 2022 Author Posted September 8, 2022 1 minute ago, Vanguard said: This is all so unfortunate. Yes. 1 minute ago, Vanguard said: Others speaking on her behalf (her godmother and other public figures in particular) and inserting their own bias on such a racially-charged alleged incident only fans the flame of confirmation bias for so many. Yep. 1 minute ago, Vanguard said: After throwing the gauntlet down against BYU as they already have, it would be all the harder for this young lady to admit to any possibility of misrepresenting what she actually experienced. In other words, the machine has taken over and now too much dictates how this all plays out. Yep. I bet Tawana Brawley didn't expect her accusations to spin out of control, yet they did. 1 minute ago, Vanguard said: And I get your point, about how much she would have to recant. It does seem not only unlikely but also almost unbelievable that she would then disavow the certainty she once had about everything she alleges. : ( And her godmother's accusations as well. And since her godmother is running for office in Texas, implicating her (the godmother) in a race hoax would be . . . deleterious to her electioneering efforts. 1 minute ago, Vanguard said: Be that as it may, it all goes down as unsubstantiated until such time evidence is presented. Unless, of course, BYU's Athletic Dept. and/or administration sweeps it under the rug, hoping that the story dies, thus alleviating the need to present evidence. Thanks, -Smac
Calm Posted September 8, 2022 Posted September 8, 2022 1 minute ago, Vanguard said: it would be all the harder for this young lady to admit to any possibility of misrepresenting what she actually experienced. There is a good chance she will feel like she is betraying her loved ones if she speaks out as well as all those who threw themselves into her defense. It sounds like her father is most concerned about her, I hope they can talk about a mistake being a possibility together and in the end help contribute to a narrative that lets those who want to move forward and restore healthy relationships with BYU because they don’t believe anyone should be judged guilty without strong evidence of guilt. I suspect it is too much tied into politics for her godmother to want to join that kind of effort unfortunately. I hope I am mistaken about her.
teddyaware Posted September 8, 2022 Posted September 8, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, Calm said: Why not interested in the why? When someone brings up a tragedy in the Church, do you ignore the context? It’s obvious to me that the only way to investigate this likely hoax is to leave speculations about possible motives out of the discussion for now. Why? Because an army of corporate media spinmeisters will be champing at the bit to excoriate any who dare to seek an actual a motive for the hoax as hateful racists who are mercilessly attacking a sweet, disadvantaged, already traumatized 19 year-old girl. Edited September 8, 2022 by teddyaware
Calm Posted September 8, 2022 Posted September 8, 2022 (edited) 39 minutes ago, smac97 said: . I bet Tawana Brawley didn't expect her accusations to spin out of control, yet they did. Be sure and drop Brawley’s name at least twice a post, got to make sure that link is cemented between Richardson and Brawley. Edited September 8, 2022 by Calm 3
Calm Posted September 8, 2022 Posted September 8, 2022 2 minutes ago, teddyaware said: It’s obvious to me that the only way to investigate this likely hoax is to leave speculations about possible motives out of the discussion for now. Why? Because an army of corporate media spinmeisters are champing at the bit to excoriate any who dare to seek an actual a motive as hateful racists who are mercilessly attacking a sweet, disadvantaged, traumatized 19 year-old girl. As soon as you label it a hoax, it is about intent since the evidence doesn’t require it to be a hoax. 4
jkwilliams Posted September 8, 2022 Posted September 8, 2022 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Calm said: As soon as you label it a hoax, it is about intent since the evidence doesn’t require it to be a hoax. Snark deleted. Edited September 8, 2022 by jkwilliams
Vanguard Posted September 8, 2022 Posted September 8, 2022 1 minute ago, Calm said: There is a good chance she will feel like she is betraying her loved ones if she speaks out as well as all those who threw themselves into her defense. It sounds like her father is most concerned about her, I hope they can talk about a mistake being a possibility together and in the end help contribute to a narrative that lets those who want to move forward and restore healthy relationships with BYU because they don’t believe anyone should be judged guilty without strong evidence of guilt. I suspect it is too much tied into politics for her godmother to want to join that kind of effort unfortunately. I hope I am mistaken about her. Absolutely, though I would edit to say, '...those who threw themselves into her offense '. ; ) And yes, unfortunately, her godmother has co-opted (as have many others) the entire incident to validate/vindicate a platform they carry and no one, wants to admit ever making a mistake of that kind. ; (
Vanguard Posted September 8, 2022 Posted September 8, 2022 5 minutes ago, Calm said: Be sure and drop Bradley’s name at least twice a post, got to make sure that link is cemented between Richardson and Bradley. Do you mean to type Brawley or am I missing something about who this Bradley is? Bradley has been typed now multiple times so I think I'm out of the loop about something.
Calm Posted September 8, 2022 Posted September 8, 2022 24 minutes ago, Vanguard said: Absolutely, though I would edit to say, '...those who threw themselves into her offense '. ; ) And yes, unfortunately, her godmother has co-opted (as have many others) the entire incident to validate/vindicate a platform they carry and no one, wants to admit ever making a mistake of that kind. ; ( If you mean to say she took a positive, proactive stance towards attacking racism (and unfortunately likely misperceived as racism behaviour) and not wrongdoing, I can go along with that…but I think it too ambiguous to use.
Calm Posted September 8, 2022 Posted September 8, 2022 (edited) 30 minutes ago, Vanguard said: Do you mean to type Brawley or am I missing something about who this Bradley is? Bradley has been typed now multiple times so I think I'm out of the loop about something. Yep, thanks for pointing that out. I need to take a break actually. My brain needs a reset….added: not my brain, my tablet…autocorrect. Added: I think I caught all the typos. If you see it again, let me know, though I think now I know it does that, I will catch it. I wish that meant my iPad wouldn’t correct a correct name, but since it is still insisting after years to ‘correct’ all my “added”s to “padded”s, I doubt it. Edited September 8, 2022 by Calm 1
JarMan Posted September 8, 2022 Posted September 8, 2022 1 hour ago, 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. She described in no uncertain terms a pattern of behavior toward her and her black teammate, not an isolated incident. It’s hard for what she described to be an honest mistake. Then she gave this condescending speech to us Mormon racists that we needed to be educated. If she can assume the worst about us and state it on national tv, we sure as heck can look into this to see if it’s a hoax. Her little speech had the hallmarks of being fed to her by people who specialize in the type of re-education she was talking about. If this is a hoax, she and her handlers need to face the music. Blind allegiance and apologizing for this sends the message that if you do want to do a racial hoax then people have your back. 1
Calm Posted September 8, 2022 Posted September 8, 2022 (edited) 48 minutes ago, JarMan said: It’s hard for what she described to be an honest mistake. Not that hard since I have done it (described it) several times (in this thread). Edited September 8, 2022 by Calm
JarMan Posted September 8, 2022 Posted September 8, 2022 3 minutes ago, Calm said: Not that hard since I have done it several times. Weird, I missed all the press coverage. 1
Calm Posted September 8, 2022 Posted September 8, 2022 (edited) 42 minutes ago, JarMan said: Weird, I missed all the press coverage. Did you read what I wrote or are you responding randomly? Perhaps you misread it. I had added words for clarity. Edited September 8, 2022 by Calm
Vanguard Posted September 8, 2022 Posted September 8, 2022 32 minutes ago, Calm said: If you mean to say she took a positive, proactive stance towards attacking racism (and unfortunately likely misperceived as racism behaviour) and not wrongdoing, I can go along with that…but I think it too ambiguous to use. I actually meant how those around her (family) and other public figures have gone on the offensive.
Calm Posted September 8, 2022 Posted September 8, 2022 18 minutes ago, Vanguard said: I actually meant how those around her (family) and other public figures have gone on the offensive. I certainly agree with that.
Amulek Posted September 8, 2022 Posted September 8, 2022 (edited) 5 hours ago, smac97 said: I guess we differ a bit in terms of what "hoax" means. I can accept that. Though I think your version may be a bit more broad than most people may be willing to accept. 5 hours ago, smac97 said: My preliminary assessment here is that Rachel Richardson fabricated the accusations, but she underestimated how quickly the narrative would grow beyond her control. I can agree that she underestimated how much attention this would garner. However, I'm not convinced she fabricated her accusations - at least, not the ones she made herself. I can think of one that might be exaggerated a bit, but I think even on that one there is some wiggle room for sincerity on her part. Which accusation(s) do you believe were fabricated by Richardson? 5 hours ago, smac97 said: 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. I don't hold Richardson responsible for the false accusations made by her family and near-family. If her godmother fabricated a statement about what happened during the game, that's on her. And if the media misrepresented the facts, then that's on them. Richardson isn't responsible for her godmother's comments or those made by the media, and she isn't under any special obligation to expressly correct them, especially if her actual comments are already on the record. 5 hours ago, smac97 said: I do, however, have a problem with fabrications about racial slurs. And that seems to be where the evidence is going. I'm leaning toward her simply mishearing something and then sincerely acting on what she heard. 5 hours ago, smac97 said: 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.” Yeah, she misheard something on at least two occasions. I don't believe she said the racial slurs escalated throughout the match though. Like I said before, BYU volleyball games get really loud. If she thought she heard someone using racial epithets in that environment, I can see how that might have affected her. 5 hours ago, smac97 said: But we aren't talking about "heat of the moment." She said the racial slurs were repeated every time she served, throughout the game. I don't believe that is correct. I thought that is what her godmother said. My understanding is that Richardson only referenced hearing racial slurs on the two occasions - though both of which did happen to take place while she was serving. 5 hours ago, smac97 said: 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. Have you never had an experience where you heard somebody say something that they didn't actually say? Maybe I was a drummer for too many years, but I can believe she perceived a word being shouted even if nobody actually shouted the perceived word. That doesn't make her a hoaxter though - it makes her sincerely mistaken. If you want to blame the media for pushing a racial hoax though, that's something I would be much more inclined to agree with. 5 hours ago, smac97 said: 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. Again, which means that it may not be true that somebody actually yelled the n-word, not that she didn't perceive somebody yelling that word at some point during the game. 5 hours ago, smac97 said: 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 don't see how we can possibly know what she experienced. I remember when my family did that Yanny or Laurel thing that was popular a while back. I don't believe my family members who didn't hear what I heard were fabricating their experiences. They really heard something different (which was actually there). There are auditory illusions which people can experience where they hear something even when the word is not actually there, and I believe that's what happened in this case. 5 hours ago, smac97 said: I am fine with examining evidence as it comes in, but I also see no problem with drawing preliminary and rebuttable conclusions. I've got no problem with that either. I just think we have come to different (preliminary) conclusions based on how we are viewing and weighing the evidence available at this point. Edited September 8, 2022 by Amulek 3
JarMan Posted September 8, 2022 Posted September 8, 2022 (edited) For those who don't believe this can possibly be a hoax, help me understand what this woman (the Duke volleyball player) is saying: Quote This is an opportunity to dig deep into closed cultures which tolerate amoral racist acts, such as those exhibited Friday night, and change them for the better. It is not enough to indicate that you are not racist, instead you must demonstrate that you are anti-racist. Actually, I think I know what she is saying. Something like this: "Because I know that I can say anything I want and still be defended by hoards of true believers, you racist backward Mormons listen to me. It doesn't matter if what I said actually occurred or not. The point is that you're a closed culture infested with racists. This exposure will be good for you, a true blessing in disguise. Trust me on this. You'll all be better people once we come shine a bright light on your racist past and help you understand all the white guilt you've been missing out on. If you resist in the slightest, there is an entire industry whose sole purpose is to tear down evil institutions like yours." Edited September 8, 2022 by JarMan 2
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now