back
Email Conversation with Adam Heath Avitable, Host of the "Angel at the Starlite Motel" Podcast
Fri 9/25/2020 10:47 AM
I am surprised that you pander so much to evil people in your podcast.
100 newspapers print a false allegation, a blood libel in today's culture, that Mandi had 7 pounds of GHB. I tell you the truth, you say you believe the newspapers.
Violent sociopathic strippers wish the maximum imaginable torture and death on an innocent peer of theirs based on almost nothing, you say oh that is totally justifiable.
The taxpayer pays violent felons to lie in court to incite a mob against an innocent person, this I have totally documented. And it is nothing new, it is something that has been documented long before I came along. You say no, these government employees and the human race is decent, there is no conspiracy.
Then I point out that James Mulrenin has been convicted of racketeering, with the underlying crimes being multiple counts of prostitution. And you say you didn't see anything like that in Google, the guy saying it is just an asshole who likes to say vicious things.
So over and over, evil aggressive violent people destroy Mandi with vicious lies, intended to make sport of her. And you sympathize and agree with that. But if I say something that is true, you just say I'm an paranoid asshole.
So you are a perfect example of the human race. No critical thinking. No individual thinking. No discovering or standing up for truth. Just reciting whatever the mob says to try to be popular.
Because whatever your reasons for saying it, lies should not be repeated and broadcast as truth even once, in a podcast by a person who imagines himself to be moral.
James Mulrenin was a sick asshole. Most people listening to your podcast know it. You discredit yourself by pandering to even one asshole one time.
I am surprised that you pander so much to evil people in your podcast.
100 newspapers print a false allegation, a blood libel in today's culture, that Mandi had 7 pounds of GHB. I tell you the truth, you say you believe the newspapers.
Violent sociopathic strippers wish the maximum imaginable torture and death on an innocent peer of theirs based on almost nothing, you say oh that is totally justifiable.
The taxpayer pays violent felons to lie in court to incite a mob against an innocent person, this I have totally documented. And it is nothing new, it is something that has been documented long before I came along. You say no, these government employees and the human race is decent, there is no conspiracy.
Then I point out that James Mulrenin has been convicted of racketeering, with the underlying crimes being multiple counts of prostitution. And you say you didn't see anything like that in Google, the guy saying it is just an asshole who likes to say vicious things.
So over and over, evil aggressive violent people destroy Mandi with vicious lies, intended to make sport of her. And you sympathize and agree with that. But if I say something that is true, you just say I'm an paranoid asshole.
So you are a perfect example of the human race. No critical thinking. No individual thinking. No discovering or standing up for truth. Just reciting whatever the mob says to try to be popular.
Because whatever your reasons for saying it, lies should not be repeated and broadcast as truth even once, in a podcast by a person who imagines himself to be moral.
James Mulrenin was a sick asshole. Most people listening to your podcast know it. You discredit yourself by pandering to even one asshole one time.
Fri 9/25/2020 11:00 AM
You are right that I believed the newspapers about the GHB at first, but then I saw your proof and admitted it on the podcast that you were right. The strippers wishing death on Scott and Mandi was just a form of grief. I'm not saying it was justified, but it was a reaction I'd expect out of emotionally unintelligent people.
I couldn't find anything on Mulrenin, and I didn't see any of the proof on your website other than the mugshots, so I had to go with what I was able to find myself. Like it or not, you are a biased source, and so you make assumptions sometimes that fit your version of the truth.
From what I read about James Mulrenin in Michigan, the cops investigated, found not enough evidence, and chose not to prosecute, and then Mulrenin won a defamation lawsuit, which has a much stricter standard of proof in a legal sense. I just haven't seen evidence of him being a piece of shit yet - as we keep reading, maybe I will, and my opinion will change, but so far, nothing I've seen shows that he's the monster you say he is. The next episode, where you blame him for the dancer dollars, is another example. I just don't think he was that evil and Mandi was that simple.
But as I continue reading and researching, if I find anything that changes my opinion, I'll definitely admit it. I don't think he was some great guy either, but I definitely don't think he was evil.
You are right that I believed the newspapers about the GHB at first, but then I saw your proof and admitted it on the podcast that you were right. The strippers wishing death on Scott and Mandi was just a form of grief. I'm not saying it was justified, but it was a reaction I'd expect out of emotionally unintelligent people.
I couldn't find anything on Mulrenin, and I didn't see any of the proof on your website other than the mugshots, so I had to go with what I was able to find myself. Like it or not, you are a biased source, and so you make assumptions sometimes that fit your version of the truth.
From what I read about James Mulrenin in Michigan, the cops investigated, found not enough evidence, and chose not to prosecute, and then Mulrenin won a defamation lawsuit, which has a much stricter standard of proof in a legal sense. I just haven't seen evidence of him being a piece of shit yet - as we keep reading, maybe I will, and my opinion will change, but so far, nothing I've seen shows that he's the monster you say he is. The next episode, where you blame him for the dancer dollars, is another example. I just don't think he was that evil and Mandi was that simple.
But as I continue reading and researching, if I find anything that changes my opinion, I'll definitely admit it. I don't think he was some great guy either, but I definitely don't think he was evil.
Fri 9/25/2020 4:49 PM
Let me tell you about these strip-club skanks. Their director of operations at Dollhouse Big Mike Garcia deleted almost all the video of Mandi at Dollhouse that night and previous nights. Whether to cover up Mandi's relationship with Mulrenin, to cover up Mulrenin selling Chris Dahl's coke to the big customers, or just because Big Mike is in a criminal enterprise that is more important to him than the truth and some girl's life. Manager was murdered and police are urgent to see the video to solve the crime? Um, we can't show it to you just yet, we need a few days to delete most of it.
And Mulrenin's bff, Dollhouse bartender and assistant manager Barbara Mellinger, she straight lied to the court to cover up that Mandi was at the strip club the previous night. Manager was murdered, murderer came looking for him the previous night? Mellinger saw fit to hide that from police and from the court. Something is more important to her than the truth, when her best friend is supposedly murdered. She doesn't particularly care what really happened to her best friend. Either that or she knows Mandi didn't murder him, and a young girl's life is worth zilch to her. Mellinger obfuscated when it came to the dancer dollars money the girls never got, Mellinger herself probaby pocketed it and blamed Mandi.
Mulrenin's other friend, regular stripper Neisha Cintron? She straight lied to the court, to cover up that Mandi seemed to already know Mulrenin, and to cover up Mandi's obvious and undeniable plan to come work for him the next day, not to rob him. Sleazeball skank Cintron also lied to the court that Mulrenin never took the girls home with him. When it comes to the truth about what happened to her friend and boss, Neisha is on planet I don't give a fuck. She just wants to hurt Mandi because she is a jealous skank. That is all she cares about.
And all these other Dollhouse losers, Ferrara, Gorewitz, Carico, they say "Come on man, Jim can have any girl he wants! Any girl he wants!" Oh, but they tell the jury that Mandi tricked him to bring her home, GQ Jim NEVER took a girl home before. And the jury convicted her of it! Burglary defined as trespassing, where she was invited but secured her invitation by deceiving the wily old manager. And the Veigles who hired Mulrenin, known to ruin the lives of young girls, known to be involved in racketeering and GHB and prostitution, all things people in Orange County do not want their daughters signed up for. They are sick, sick slimeballs who must be making some political contributions to even lower slimeballs.
And Mandi's lawyer did not point out any of this why? One of the reasons is it would all lead back to Chris Dahl. And Chris Dahl's lawyer basically bribed Mandi's lawyer $100k, by getting the conflict waiver that enabled her to stay on the case and keep her $100k retainer when she was in the hospital and couldn't even work on the case. Mandi's lawyer never told Mandi about that. And The Florida Bar told me legally I was not allowed to tell Mandi about that. And if it came out that Mandi was at the club on previous nights, eventually Chris Dahl would be in court. And it would come out that Adam Reiss who suborned their star witness testimony, straight lies against Mandi, was Chris Dahl's lawyer and Carrie took a bribe from him to hide all that.
And so all of that is hidden. All to torture and make sport of a young girl for what? All because her boss made her come up to his room to get money for her dancer dollars, so he could have his dick sucked. All of these Dollhouse sleazeballs are lower than lab animals. They use a young girl and it is not enough to just throw her away so they can go back to their dingy lives. They also think it is cool to hide the truth so she can be locked in a box and tortured for the next 70 years. And then some willfully ignorant human jokes come along and say these are just decent people who are angry their manager is dead.
So far as Mulrenin not being evil, you are basing that on nothing but being a contrary asshole who likes me less than the truth. You never met him, I did. I have researched him for four years, you have a book on him which you choose not to read before commenting. He was convicted of racketeering, you pretend it didn't happen because you don't personally know it, and I said it. So you call me biased. It is true I could have made footnotes for every detail. But I never imagined an honest person would take the position that I was lying, without any actual evidence that I am wrong. While automatically assuming that evil slimeballs are sincere when they say Mandi is evil. Because you went spent a few hours with Mandi five years ago. Sick man you are.
Fri 9/25/2020 4:59 PM
What is my bias supposedly, what is my motive?
Let me tell you about these strip-club skanks. Their director of operations at Dollhouse Big Mike Garcia deleted almost all the video of Mandi at Dollhouse that night and previous nights. Whether to cover up Mandi's relationship with Mulrenin, to cover up Mulrenin selling Chris Dahl's coke to the big customers, or just because Big Mike is in a criminal enterprise that is more important to him than the truth and some girl's life. Manager was murdered and police are urgent to see the video to solve the crime? Um, we can't show it to you just yet, we need a few days to delete most of it.
And Mulrenin's bff, Dollhouse bartender and assistant manager Barbara Mellinger, she straight lied to the court to cover up that Mandi was at the strip club the previous night. Manager was murdered, murderer came looking for him the previous night? Mellinger saw fit to hide that from police and from the court. Something is more important to her than the truth, when her best friend is supposedly murdered. She doesn't particularly care what really happened to her best friend. Either that or she knows Mandi didn't murder him, and a young girl's life is worth zilch to her. Mellinger obfuscated when it came to the dancer dollars money the girls never got, Mellinger herself probaby pocketed it and blamed Mandi.
Mulrenin's other friend, regular stripper Neisha Cintron? She straight lied to the court, to cover up that Mandi seemed to already know Mulrenin, and to cover up Mandi's obvious and undeniable plan to come work for him the next day, not to rob him. Sleazeball skank Cintron also lied to the court that Mulrenin never took the girls home with him. When it comes to the truth about what happened to her friend and boss, Neisha is on planet I don't give a fuck. She just wants to hurt Mandi because she is a jealous skank. That is all she cares about.
And all these other Dollhouse losers, Ferrara, Gorewitz, Carico, they say "Come on man, Jim can have any girl he wants! Any girl he wants!" Oh, but they tell the jury that Mandi tricked him to bring her home, GQ Jim NEVER took a girl home before. And the jury convicted her of it! Burglary defined as trespassing, where she was invited but secured her invitation by deceiving the wily old manager. And the Veigles who hired Mulrenin, known to ruin the lives of young girls, known to be involved in racketeering and GHB and prostitution, all things people in Orange County do not want their daughters signed up for. They are sick, sick slimeballs who must be making some political contributions to even lower slimeballs.
And Mandi's lawyer did not point out any of this why? One of the reasons is it would all lead back to Chris Dahl. And Chris Dahl's lawyer basically bribed Mandi's lawyer $100k, by getting the conflict waiver that enabled her to stay on the case and keep her $100k retainer when she was in the hospital and couldn't even work on the case. Mandi's lawyer never told Mandi about that. And The Florida Bar told me legally I was not allowed to tell Mandi about that. And if it came out that Mandi was at the club on previous nights, eventually Chris Dahl would be in court. And it would come out that Adam Reiss who suborned their star witness testimony, straight lies against Mandi, was Chris Dahl's lawyer and Carrie took a bribe from him to hide all that.
And so all of that is hidden. All to torture and make sport of a young girl for what? All because her boss made her come up to his room to get money for her dancer dollars, so he could have his dick sucked. All of these Dollhouse sleazeballs are lower than lab animals. They use a young girl and it is not enough to just throw her away so they can go back to their dingy lives. They also think it is cool to hide the truth so she can be locked in a box and tortured for the next 70 years. And then some willfully ignorant human jokes come along and say these are just decent people who are angry their manager is dead.
So far as Mulrenin not being evil, you are basing that on nothing but being a contrary asshole who likes me less than the truth. You never met him, I did. I have researched him for four years, you have a book on him which you choose not to read before commenting. He was convicted of racketeering, you pretend it didn't happen because you don't personally know it, and I said it. So you call me biased. It is true I could have made footnotes for every detail. But I never imagined an honest person would take the position that I was lying, without any actual evidence that I am wrong. While automatically assuming that evil slimeballs are sincere when they say Mandi is evil. Because you went spent a few hours with Mandi five years ago. Sick man you are.
Fri 9/25/2020 4:59 PM
What is my bias supposedly, what is my motive?
Fri 9/25/2020 5:05 PM
My guess is that they were covering up drug deals that were on camera, and that it was less about Mandi and more about keeping the club from being shut down and everyone being arrested. I believe you that there was shady shit going on, but when it comes to the law and lawyers bribing other lawyers? That's less likely - they have a lot to lose in those cases.
I don't think you're lying. I just think that you want to see Mandi as being completely innocent, so you're going to focus on that and work backwards. I'm working forwards, step by step, and my opinion and consideration of the events are changing as I go. I can see your theory and it does seem viable, but a bunch of flawed people doing the flawed shit they've always done doesn't always add up to a conspiracy either. Sometimes it's just a fucked up world. I don't think Mandi deserves to be where she is, so I agree with you on that, and beyond that, my mind is open as I learn more and more.
My guess is that they were covering up drug deals that were on camera, and that it was less about Mandi and more about keeping the club from being shut down and everyone being arrested. I believe you that there was shady shit going on, but when it comes to the law and lawyers bribing other lawyers? That's less likely - they have a lot to lose in those cases.
I don't think you're lying. I just think that you want to see Mandi as being completely innocent, so you're going to focus on that and work backwards. I'm working forwards, step by step, and my opinion and consideration of the events are changing as I go. I can see your theory and it does seem viable, but a bunch of flawed people doing the flawed shit they've always done doesn't always add up to a conspiracy either. Sometimes it's just a fucked up world. I don't think Mandi deserves to be where she is, so I agree with you on that, and beyond that, my mind is open as I learn more and more.
Fri 9/25/2020 5:14 PM
According to you, they are not actually angry enough about the death to take evidence or the truth seriously. And nor do they want people to go to prison for crime. All that is left is they are vicious skanks who want to torture a young girl.
According to you, they are not actually angry enough about the death to take evidence or the truth seriously. And nor do they want people to go to prison for crime. All that is left is they are vicious skanks who want to torture a young girl.
Fri 9/25/2020 5:15 PM
I think they're just emotionally immature women like Mandi who were viciously reacting to someone being killed. You see it anytime someone's arrested for murder - their social media is filled with people calling them all types of names.
I think they're just emotionally immature women like Mandi who were viciously reacting to someone being killed. You see it anytime someone's arrested for murder - their social media is filled with people calling them all types of names.
Fri 9/25/2020 5:23 PM
So a person with viciously sadistic fantasies that run counter to the mainstream of human ethics cannot be criticized, but rather approved as emotionally immature. That's sexist, just say skanks. But Mandi doesn't get that benefit of the doubt, she is "not that simple." She never said she wished for Mulremin to suffer and die, but we still think she is the evil one.
So a person with viciously sadistic fantasies that run counter to the mainstream of human ethics cannot be criticized, but rather approved as emotionally immature. That's sexist, just say skanks. But Mandi doesn't get that benefit of the doubt, she is "not that simple." She never said she wished for Mulremin to suffer and die, but we still think she is the evil one.
Fri 9/25/2020 5:26 PM
I don't think she's evil either. It's not exactly a black and white situation.
I don't think she's evil either. It's not exactly a black and white situation.
Fri 9/25/2020 5:30 PM
It was pretty black and white to those skanks.
Fri 9/25/2020 5:47 PM
You don't appreciate or care that there is zero evidence that Mandi did what she is accused of. Because you don't believe that. Without actually knowing, and without being curious enough to try to find out the truth, you assume.
I'm telling you that you are wrong. And not a person in a world of six billion people will take the other side or tell you otherwise or dispute what I am telling you.
Let one of these vicious skanks tell you what happened that night. Invite a cop to be interviewed or a prosecutor. I don't know why you give the benefit of the doubt to people who won't and can't defend their allegations, and wouldn't even talk to you. Are you a pathetic masochist?
Invite those vicious skanks on yoiur podcast and let them tell you what happened. You don't hold evil people to any kind of standard.
Fri 9/25/2020 9:42 PM
You are listening to those hippies at Ale House, they don't know jack. And being liked by your local dipshits is more important to you than the truth.
In his apartment, Mulremin had not so much as a book or a laptop or a pet or a tennis racket or a girlfriend. All he had was viagra and testosterone, and the things he used to lure young girls to his house and have sex with them. It wasn't for the girls' benefit. It was because he had a stunted wooden personality, and felt like he needed to validate himself every day. At age 52. With a 21yo girl with a boyfriend.
All these people who liked him so much, not one was at his apartment thar night. Not Barbara Mellinger, not anyone from Ale House. He didn't want then there, and they didn't want to be there. He wanted Mandi, and only got Mandi because she was dumb and willing.
But if you don't like the truth, don't waste your time making some pussy applesauce podcast for people with no teeth to gum through.
I'm sure a coke addict battery DUI ball buster from an OBT shithole was the world's nicest guy. That is why he worked his way down the corporate ladder for 20 years and lived alone.
Your podcast is some gay applesauce. You are not qualified to talk about anything but sex.
Fri 9/25/2020 9:47 PM
The most ridiculous part is you hate me. But the things you hate me for, Mulremin was way worse.
It was pretty black and white to those skanks.
Fri 9/25/2020 5:47 PM
You don't appreciate or care that there is zero evidence that Mandi did what she is accused of. Because you don't believe that. Without actually knowing, and without being curious enough to try to find out the truth, you assume.
I'm telling you that you are wrong. And not a person in a world of six billion people will take the other side or tell you otherwise or dispute what I am telling you.
Let one of these vicious skanks tell you what happened that night. Invite a cop to be interviewed or a prosecutor. I don't know why you give the benefit of the doubt to people who won't and can't defend their allegations, and wouldn't even talk to you. Are you a pathetic masochist?
Invite those vicious skanks on yoiur podcast and let them tell you what happened. You don't hold evil people to any kind of standard.
Fri 9/25/2020 9:42 PM
You are listening to those hippies at Ale House, they don't know jack. And being liked by your local dipshits is more important to you than the truth.
In his apartment, Mulremin had not so much as a book or a laptop or a pet or a tennis racket or a girlfriend. All he had was viagra and testosterone, and the things he used to lure young girls to his house and have sex with them. It wasn't for the girls' benefit. It was because he had a stunted wooden personality, and felt like he needed to validate himself every day. At age 52. With a 21yo girl with a boyfriend.
All these people who liked him so much, not one was at his apartment thar night. Not Barbara Mellinger, not anyone from Ale House. He didn't want then there, and they didn't want to be there. He wanted Mandi, and only got Mandi because she was dumb and willing.
But if you don't like the truth, don't waste your time making some pussy applesauce podcast for people with no teeth to gum through.
I'm sure a coke addict battery DUI ball buster from an OBT shithole was the world's nicest guy. That is why he worked his way down the corporate ladder for 20 years and lived alone.
Your podcast is some gay applesauce. You are not qualified to talk about anything but sex.
Fri 9/25/2020 9:47 PM
The most ridiculous part is you hate me. But the things you hate me for, Mulremin was way worse.
Fri 9/25/2020 9:55 PM
I don't think Mulrenin was a good guy. I never met him. And I don't hate you. I've never met you either. I definitely don't think Mandi is evil either, and she doesn't belong in prison, especially with that sentence, so I think you have plenty of good points regarding the case so far. I just don't always agree with your depiction of people or events leading up to different scenarios. Like the credit card chapter we just finished for the next episode - I think she understood it more than you realize, and she's not completely innocent. But she's also not evil.
I don't think Mulrenin was a good guy. I never met him. And I don't hate you. I've never met you either. I definitely don't think Mandi is evil either, and she doesn't belong in prison, especially with that sentence, so I think you have plenty of good points regarding the case so far. I just don't always agree with your depiction of people or events leading up to different scenarios. Like the credit card chapter we just finished for the next episode - I think she understood it more than you realize, and she's not completely innocent. But she's also not evil.
Fri 9/25/2020 10:34 PM
You are also a pussy. You have no problem calling Mandi stuck for 70 years in prison a fresh strawberry, or me a middle-aged psycho, or laugh about my white trash line. But one airhead from Ale House says Mulrenin was nice, and you run the other way from calling him a dirtbag. I guarantee you there are a lot of Ale House airheads who found Mandi to be pretty nice, but they won't tell you about that.
I really loathe the sort of "good guy" facade that quid-pro-quo sleazy people put on.
Your entire religion, progresivism, has as like its eighth commandmnent that bosses are not supposed to make the young employees come home with them. But because Mulrenin had the fake facade of Gary Ridgway, you are too much of a pussy to scratch the surface.
I promise you Mandi has a simple mind with the cards. The poor thing was shattered last Spring, because she is convinced I am a millioniare and I treat her like dirt by not giving her a million dollars. It makes no sense to her, it makes her feel like nothing. If she had my credit card, she would assume she could withdraw $100,000 and I would not even notice. And she has no idea where it comes from. I tell her the truth, and it bounces right off her, there is no structure to fit it to in her mind. She honestly thinks there is just like a million dollars in free money that someone like me has access to on my card, and not based on anything I did. And not even associated with anything else in my life. I could live in a tent, she would still think it is there on the card and it is free to me. If I were to say "Look, I got evicted, my car was repossessed, I live in a tent!" she would cry that I have abandoned her for lying to her like that.
But that's the crazy thing with your opinions, you never had any of these experiences with her. So you just project some preconception onto Mandi.
There really is no second explanation. Mandi is a total space cadet using a dead guy's credit cards. Just like they tried to come up with some rational explanation for Mulrenin going over the balcony. But you can't find such an explanation in the evidence.
Fri 9/25/2020 10:38 PM
The even weirder part is I had sent her the book, with the chapter where I call her a space cadet for acting like that. So she is either such a space cadet that she didn't read the book. Or such a space cadet that she read a chapter where I made fun of her for thinking that way, and she learned absolutely zero from it, and still did the same thing!
Sat 9/26/2020 4:03 AM
You have gone back to your Twitter thing, where you are just inventing stuff about Mandi Jackson. I would say inventing for clicks, except nobody will click on something that says what anybody would assume about a person. People already have their assumptions about a person they haven't met. They are not entertained to hear yours, which are the same as theirs. The Twitter thing was only entertaining because you had a unique experience. So it was about you. It was inaccurate, and it made sport of a person using inaccuracies. But it was unique. Talking about yourself, by saying you think Mandi Jackson has a normal concept of a credit card, is not interesting.
Your experience is just wrong. I remember this one stripper drove us to another state in my car. I don't remember why, and probably the reason is because she was just manic. But I didn't get that at the time, I thought there was some designed point. And when we got there, she took my card into the department store and started buying stuff. I said if you buy that item, we won't have any gas to get back. She didn't believe me, and she bought it. I told her we are stuck here, we don't have any more money for a motel. She literally ran screaming into the night.
She eventually made it back to Florida, but I wouldn't let her into my house. She kept trying, until like a year later someone who didn't know her and thought she seemed perfectly normal let her in. I had no physical way to throw her out, and I did not want to get her arrested, so I had sex with her and she stayed. Not long after, she started driving my car west one night. I told her I have no money for gas, and if you keep driving we will run out of gas and be stuck. I would have thought the second time she would believe me. But she didn't believe that I had no money. She just thought I wanted to lie to her because that is what guys do to girls to get over on them and take advantage of them.
And it wasn't just her, there were many other girls who made similar mistakes thinking I was rich. I got to wondering, is there something about me that girls assume I am rich? Because it was really screwing up my relationships. Nothing insults girls more, or makes them feel less wanted, than if they think you are a millionaire but they are just not worth any money to you.
But the general irrationality of strippers has long been a curoisity to me. I would say there is a reason they become strippers, their minds are not functional. You are stuck on your own experience, that strippers are normal girls who are really independent-minded and not inhibited and choose to strip. You have an agenda to normalize sex work. That has nothing to do with who Mandi Jackson is.
My acquaintance is dating a stripper, and we joke about her suicidal cluelessness. She is mentally ill, and will be homeless when she loses her looks. This guy lost all his money because of the virus. And this girl calls him selfish and greedy, because he won't give her money for xyz. She is insulted. She lived with him until she ran off screaming. She knows all his jobs and businesses got ruined by the virus. She knows his car broke down. But she is from Latin America, and has bought into this thing in the media every day "white privilege." She is convinced that because he is white, there is basically free money on his credit card. And he could spend it on her if he liked her, basically at no cost to him.
And she makes other irrational self-destructive decisions every day that make no sense, based on nothing a normal person could guess, and gets arrested. And then she doesn't show up to court because she is on her own planet. You would argue she knows what a court date is, she must understand if she doesn't show up she will get a warrant. But life is not that easy to navigate for her, she is not capable of making rational actions. She is smart, and in some sense she knows A and B, and how A leads to B. But in practice, when she acts, it is as if there is no connection or she is following something invisible. People who meet her think she seems smart and normal like a totally functional person. They are surprised when they see her acting as if she knows nothing, walking off a cliff.
Sat 9/26/2020 3:39 PM
And so far as saying my "theory" is viable, you don't even know my theory. But unlike what Mandi was convicted of, my theory is documented. And what she was convicted of, I have documented as not viable.
But six months after getting the book, you don't know any of that. But you should refrain from calling my theory a joke, which theory you don't even know, when claiming to care about Mandi or truth or justice.
Sat 9/26/2020 3:55 PM
And there is a difference between thinking someone is biased and trying to prove him wrong, and just assuming someone is lying because he is biased. I am the witness. I know Mandi. I was an old guy who Mandi used my credit cards, as did other similar girls. I am the one whom Mandi asks for money at least every month, to where I know what her concept of it is.
And what I am saying is corroborated by the known facts. Who uses a dead guy's card to buy a playstation? A space cadet, with no concept of it. Did Mandi feel betrayed by Mulrenin? I suspect she did. But it is not in her nature or prior behavior to think to use someone's credit cards, or to steal at Walmart. That was Scott's idea. Mandi's psychology is that in half the time it would take to go to Walmart and go to the pawnshop, she could walk down the sidewalk and get picked up by a guy in a Mercedes and get $500 cash. So you have no basis to dispute what I am saying.
Employed people don't do credit card fraud, or rob people to get credit cards to do fraud, for less than they make at their job. A skinny 21-year-old blonde girl with all her teeth and something she is willing to sell over and over, is employed.
Sat 9/26/2020 4:36 PM
But you alleged that I have a bias, a motive, an agenda, without saying what it is. I will tell you my motive. I sat in a courtroom and watched dangerous felons, and police, and witnesses, tell lie after lie after lie, with the end result being that a 21-year-old girl got life without parole. That is SHOCKING! That is heinous! People have no idea. And even worse, I learned that this is business as usual. I was like wow, this is an anomaly! But I found out that it is not. People tell lie after lie after lie in court, and have no fear of any consequence. They know there is no possible consequence.
People watch all these TV shows about CSI's examing evidence, to figure out what happened. This experienced and respected CSI, Alison Smolarek, just went up on the stand and said whatever the hell she wanted! She had no attachment to the truth, just to getting a conviction. That seems unusual, but she is defended. Because police think there is a "war on cops". So they have circled the wagons, and if you say this CSI lied, their answer is "fuck you." And of course the only people initiating investigations into police are criminals, so who will listen.
And you have all these people, especially Republicans, with this utopian notion of the justice system. They are like okay, a person who does X should get sentence Y. They are investing their hopes for utopia, in something that is worse than the post office or DMV! It's insane! So my motive is to discredit the justice system, which should be discredited, because it is a scam, garbage. It is 180 degrees out of step with the ideal that people imagine it is supposed to be. Like this jailhouse witness thing, it is just a total pure scam with no gray area whatsoever, and it is standard practice.
We literally have people mobbing in the streets, burning down buildings, because they have firsthand experience with this piece of garbage populated by scammers and used car salesmen, the justice system. The thing is entrenched like a cancer. I am just one of many millions of people who are disgusted with it. And you have people who have never sat through a murder trial, never had a family member charged with a serious crime, never tried making a complaint to The Bar, saying oh I don't believe all this complaining, these people are just biased.
So I have laid out my case, and documented how an entire murder trial can be based on garbage. I have documented police lying, for anyone to look at my documentation and say "yes, that cop lied" or "no, I am not convinced based on what you showed me that a cop lied." But that is not how human beings work. They are insulated to learning things which defy their preconceptions. Because someone who opposes their preconceptions is thereby discredited, before he makes his case.
Facts may be marshalled for a position already taken, but that is very different from systematically testing opposing theories by evidence. Discordant evidence may be dismissed as isolated anomalies, or as something tendentiously selected by opponents, or it may be explained away ad hoc by a theory having no empirical support whatever -- except that this ad hoc theory is able to sustain itself and gain acceptance because it is consistent with the overall vision.
Sat 9/26/2020 5:11 PM
Another undesirable aspect of the justice system, is people straight making up gossip to slander strangers and incite a mob against them, as you have done and approve of.
See, Mandi was charged with murder. That makes this a "capital case." According to the Stela of Hammurabi:
"If a man has borne false witness in a trial, or has not established the statement that he has made, if that case be a capital trial, that man shall be put to death."
But you have no problem speaking before you research. I have hundreds of pages and web pages, for anyone to disagree with. I can find more falsehoods in your podcast, than you have found in all my hundreds of pages. I don't bother, because it is mostly not serious stuff. But you attack my findings, according to a much different standard than you require to support your own statements, or other people's statements.
You have no problem saying things that can be proven false. At the same time, you will discredit the things I say, without even making an effort to prove them false. You just say my statement disagrees with your preconceptions, so I must be wrong.
Sat 9/26/2020 5:17 PM
It takes a lot of work to come up with things that are bulletproof against dispute. I have worked very hard to come up with things like that, so that you can sell what I have written for free. But you would rather throw away the higher-grade more labor-intensive product, and sell some mid-grade stuff you prepared more casually.
If you want to say any of my stuff is garbage, then one day I am going to stack it all up and measure it, and see whose stuff is garbage. It is all labor-intensive.
Sun 9/27/2020 1:46 AM
It makes no sense to try to falsely discredit the book you are reading. Because then there is no reason to listen to your podcast, if the statements in the book are not true.
Like it is interesting that they didn't pay the girls for their dancer dollars. The bartender assistant manager said they didn't (and it is even more interesting if you speculate she is dishonest). There is a lot of the book that spins off that, you might even say it is one of the most important details in the book.
But if you just come out for no reason and say I am wrong about that, then the whole point of the book is lost. The book is primarily interesting not for the sex, but for the idea that this poor girl was trashed with gossip by evil people, and here is the truth. If you say the truth is not true, then you are just the next evil person to come along and spread gossip and trash the girl with no basis Like every sleazy guy before. Just a part of a mob with an opinion, but no interest in the truth.
I don't see you having any curiosity about the truth, based on many of the things you have said in your podcast. You are like the 10,000th person to spread whatever gossip you want about Mandi Jackson. That is boring
Sun 9/27/2020 3:25 AM
It grows on me what a tragic turn this has taken. Because you have invested a lot of time in this podcast. By choosing to disagree with the truth, you significantly reduce the value of your own podcast. A podcast that says things which are not true, is less valuable in the long run, than one that says things which are true. But even worse, you have decided to attempt to discredit key details of the book, and therefore the book itself, based on nothing. You just pick random things in the book which are true and which are important elements in the story, and say they are not true. Like peeing on your own fruit stand. You are attempting to artificially the devalue the very book, which you have invested time to spend your life on. And for what, so that so that Mulrenin's waiter at Ale House, or some local strip club skanks you never met will like you?
It is tragic. It is like you said "I am going to throw away months of work, so as not to get on the bad side of some local idiot who doesn't like Mandi Jackson based on gossip he heard about her."
Sun 9/27/2020 7:55 AM
This paradigm where the people around you nudge you to portray Mulrenin in a positive light, and at the same time you perceive a reward for straight inventing who Mandi was, is exactly why people from out of town get railroaded in shitholes like Seminole County. And here you are claiming to be this liberal free-thinking rational person. But you will immediately caucus with your prejudiced backwoods neighbors to mimick their low-information opinions, to invent your own theories about an outsider, and make sport of a young girl you don't know and maintain favor with your local peers. Just like a local cop who pays no price for lying, and is in fact rewarded for it at the Ale House a block from both Mulrenin's house and the police station. It took you how long, in your search for truth, to be dragged back down to the existing prejudices and preconceptions of Seminole County?
Sun 9/27/2020 8:41 AM
You literally pick and choose what is true and false from the book, based on the popular preconceptions of Seminole County. And you substitute those preconceptions for the truth. And you say Mandi is good at sales, giving away her pussy that sells itself. Why doesn't she tell me what happened? Mandi gets held without bond, so she can't compete with people at the Ale House. She can't even tell her parents what happened on the jail phone. Because police will choose to not send evidence to the lab based on what she says, to avoid producing evidence that could exonerate her.
There was a knife sitting on the recliner where Mulrenin sat and bled. They took a DNA swab from the handle of that knife, but they never sent it to the lab. They took two DNA swabs supposedly from at least eight blue gloves, though the exact number is obfuscated. They labeled the swabs "gloves" and "blue gloves" so they could explain what those labels mean after they get the results. There was a white pill cut into Mulrenin's cocaine, but they never tested it to see what it was. A dog walker was supposedly there when Mandi drove up, and let Love in the building to do the murder. The lead detective deleted that video, says he does not know who that dog walker is, doesn't know his name, never spoke to him.
So the evidence is not only shaped based on preconceptions. They will also shape it further based on anything Mandi says. Like you, they will attack what is true, substitute what is false, pick and choose, and attack Mandi based on whatever she says, to defend the popular preconceptions, the gossip, of Seminole County.
You are also a pussy. You have no problem calling Mandi stuck for 70 years in prison a fresh strawberry, or me a middle-aged psycho, or laugh about my white trash line. But one airhead from Ale House says Mulrenin was nice, and you run the other way from calling him a dirtbag. I guarantee you there are a lot of Ale House airheads who found Mandi to be pretty nice, but they won't tell you about that.
I really loathe the sort of "good guy" facade that quid-pro-quo sleazy people put on.
Your entire religion, progresivism, has as like its eighth commandmnent that bosses are not supposed to make the young employees come home with them. But because Mulrenin had the fake facade of Gary Ridgway, you are too much of a pussy to scratch the surface.
I promise you Mandi has a simple mind with the cards. The poor thing was shattered last Spring, because she is convinced I am a millioniare and I treat her like dirt by not giving her a million dollars. It makes no sense to her, it makes her feel like nothing. If she had my credit card, she would assume she could withdraw $100,000 and I would not even notice. And she has no idea where it comes from. I tell her the truth, and it bounces right off her, there is no structure to fit it to in her mind. She honestly thinks there is just like a million dollars in free money that someone like me has access to on my card, and not based on anything I did. And not even associated with anything else in my life. I could live in a tent, she would still think it is there on the card and it is free to me. If I were to say "Look, I got evicted, my car was repossessed, I live in a tent!" she would cry that I have abandoned her for lying to her like that.
But that's the crazy thing with your opinions, you never had any of these experiences with her. So you just project some preconception onto Mandi.
There really is no second explanation. Mandi is a total space cadet using a dead guy's credit cards. Just like they tried to come up with some rational explanation for Mulrenin going over the balcony. But you can't find such an explanation in the evidence.
Fri 9/25/2020 10:38 PM
The even weirder part is I had sent her the book, with the chapter where I call her a space cadet for acting like that. So she is either such a space cadet that she didn't read the book. Or such a space cadet that she read a chapter where I made fun of her for thinking that way, and she learned absolutely zero from it, and still did the same thing!
Sat 9/26/2020 4:03 AM
You have gone back to your Twitter thing, where you are just inventing stuff about Mandi Jackson. I would say inventing for clicks, except nobody will click on something that says what anybody would assume about a person. People already have their assumptions about a person they haven't met. They are not entertained to hear yours, which are the same as theirs. The Twitter thing was only entertaining because you had a unique experience. So it was about you. It was inaccurate, and it made sport of a person using inaccuracies. But it was unique. Talking about yourself, by saying you think Mandi Jackson has a normal concept of a credit card, is not interesting.
Your experience is just wrong. I remember this one stripper drove us to another state in my car. I don't remember why, and probably the reason is because she was just manic. But I didn't get that at the time, I thought there was some designed point. And when we got there, she took my card into the department store and started buying stuff. I said if you buy that item, we won't have any gas to get back. She didn't believe me, and she bought it. I told her we are stuck here, we don't have any more money for a motel. She literally ran screaming into the night.
She eventually made it back to Florida, but I wouldn't let her into my house. She kept trying, until like a year later someone who didn't know her and thought she seemed perfectly normal let her in. I had no physical way to throw her out, and I did not want to get her arrested, so I had sex with her and she stayed. Not long after, she started driving my car west one night. I told her I have no money for gas, and if you keep driving we will run out of gas and be stuck. I would have thought the second time she would believe me. But she didn't believe that I had no money. She just thought I wanted to lie to her because that is what guys do to girls to get over on them and take advantage of them.
And it wasn't just her, there were many other girls who made similar mistakes thinking I was rich. I got to wondering, is there something about me that girls assume I am rich? Because it was really screwing up my relationships. Nothing insults girls more, or makes them feel less wanted, than if they think you are a millionaire but they are just not worth any money to you.
But the general irrationality of strippers has long been a curoisity to me. I would say there is a reason they become strippers, their minds are not functional. You are stuck on your own experience, that strippers are normal girls who are really independent-minded and not inhibited and choose to strip. You have an agenda to normalize sex work. That has nothing to do with who Mandi Jackson is.
My acquaintance is dating a stripper, and we joke about her suicidal cluelessness. She is mentally ill, and will be homeless when she loses her looks. This guy lost all his money because of the virus. And this girl calls him selfish and greedy, because he won't give her money for xyz. She is insulted. She lived with him until she ran off screaming. She knows all his jobs and businesses got ruined by the virus. She knows his car broke down. But she is from Latin America, and has bought into this thing in the media every day "white privilege." She is convinced that because he is white, there is basically free money on his credit card. And he could spend it on her if he liked her, basically at no cost to him.
And she makes other irrational self-destructive decisions every day that make no sense, based on nothing a normal person could guess, and gets arrested. And then she doesn't show up to court because she is on her own planet. You would argue she knows what a court date is, she must understand if she doesn't show up she will get a warrant. But life is not that easy to navigate for her, she is not capable of making rational actions. She is smart, and in some sense she knows A and B, and how A leads to B. But in practice, when she acts, it is as if there is no connection or she is following something invisible. People who meet her think she seems smart and normal like a totally functional person. They are surprised when they see her acting as if she knows nothing, walking off a cliff.
Sat 9/26/2020 3:39 PM
And so far as saying my "theory" is viable, you don't even know my theory. But unlike what Mandi was convicted of, my theory is documented. And what she was convicted of, I have documented as not viable.
But six months after getting the book, you don't know any of that. But you should refrain from calling my theory a joke, which theory you don't even know, when claiming to care about Mandi or truth or justice.
Sat 9/26/2020 3:55 PM
And there is a difference between thinking someone is biased and trying to prove him wrong, and just assuming someone is lying because he is biased. I am the witness. I know Mandi. I was an old guy who Mandi used my credit cards, as did other similar girls. I am the one whom Mandi asks for money at least every month, to where I know what her concept of it is.
And what I am saying is corroborated by the known facts. Who uses a dead guy's card to buy a playstation? A space cadet, with no concept of it. Did Mandi feel betrayed by Mulrenin? I suspect she did. But it is not in her nature or prior behavior to think to use someone's credit cards, or to steal at Walmart. That was Scott's idea. Mandi's psychology is that in half the time it would take to go to Walmart and go to the pawnshop, she could walk down the sidewalk and get picked up by a guy in a Mercedes and get $500 cash. So you have no basis to dispute what I am saying.
Employed people don't do credit card fraud, or rob people to get credit cards to do fraud, for less than they make at their job. A skinny 21-year-old blonde girl with all her teeth and something she is willing to sell over and over, is employed.
Sat 9/26/2020 4:36 PM
But you alleged that I have a bias, a motive, an agenda, without saying what it is. I will tell you my motive. I sat in a courtroom and watched dangerous felons, and police, and witnesses, tell lie after lie after lie, with the end result being that a 21-year-old girl got life without parole. That is SHOCKING! That is heinous! People have no idea. And even worse, I learned that this is business as usual. I was like wow, this is an anomaly! But I found out that it is not. People tell lie after lie after lie in court, and have no fear of any consequence. They know there is no possible consequence.
People watch all these TV shows about CSI's examing evidence, to figure out what happened. This experienced and respected CSI, Alison Smolarek, just went up on the stand and said whatever the hell she wanted! She had no attachment to the truth, just to getting a conviction. That seems unusual, but she is defended. Because police think there is a "war on cops". So they have circled the wagons, and if you say this CSI lied, their answer is "fuck you." And of course the only people initiating investigations into police are criminals, so who will listen.
And you have all these people, especially Republicans, with this utopian notion of the justice system. They are like okay, a person who does X should get sentence Y. They are investing their hopes for utopia, in something that is worse than the post office or DMV! It's insane! So my motive is to discredit the justice system, which should be discredited, because it is a scam, garbage. It is 180 degrees out of step with the ideal that people imagine it is supposed to be. Like this jailhouse witness thing, it is just a total pure scam with no gray area whatsoever, and it is standard practice.
We literally have people mobbing in the streets, burning down buildings, because they have firsthand experience with this piece of garbage populated by scammers and used car salesmen, the justice system. The thing is entrenched like a cancer. I am just one of many millions of people who are disgusted with it. And you have people who have never sat through a murder trial, never had a family member charged with a serious crime, never tried making a complaint to The Bar, saying oh I don't believe all this complaining, these people are just biased.
So I have laid out my case, and documented how an entire murder trial can be based on garbage. I have documented police lying, for anyone to look at my documentation and say "yes, that cop lied" or "no, I am not convinced based on what you showed me that a cop lied." But that is not how human beings work. They are insulated to learning things which defy their preconceptions. Because someone who opposes their preconceptions is thereby discredited, before he makes his case.
Facts may be marshalled for a position already taken, but that is very different from systematically testing opposing theories by evidence. Discordant evidence may be dismissed as isolated anomalies, or as something tendentiously selected by opponents, or it may be explained away ad hoc by a theory having no empirical support whatever -- except that this ad hoc theory is able to sustain itself and gain acceptance because it is consistent with the overall vision.
Sat 9/26/2020 5:11 PM
Another undesirable aspect of the justice system, is people straight making up gossip to slander strangers and incite a mob against them, as you have done and approve of.
See, Mandi was charged with murder. That makes this a "capital case." According to the Stela of Hammurabi:
"If a man has borne false witness in a trial, or has not established the statement that he has made, if that case be a capital trial, that man shall be put to death."
But you have no problem speaking before you research. I have hundreds of pages and web pages, for anyone to disagree with. I can find more falsehoods in your podcast, than you have found in all my hundreds of pages. I don't bother, because it is mostly not serious stuff. But you attack my findings, according to a much different standard than you require to support your own statements, or other people's statements.
You have no problem saying things that can be proven false. At the same time, you will discredit the things I say, without even making an effort to prove them false. You just say my statement disagrees with your preconceptions, so I must be wrong.
Sat 9/26/2020 5:17 PM
It takes a lot of work to come up with things that are bulletproof against dispute. I have worked very hard to come up with things like that, so that you can sell what I have written for free. But you would rather throw away the higher-grade more labor-intensive product, and sell some mid-grade stuff you prepared more casually.
If you want to say any of my stuff is garbage, then one day I am going to stack it all up and measure it, and see whose stuff is garbage. It is all labor-intensive.
Sun 9/27/2020 1:46 AM
It makes no sense to try to falsely discredit the book you are reading. Because then there is no reason to listen to your podcast, if the statements in the book are not true.
Like it is interesting that they didn't pay the girls for their dancer dollars. The bartender assistant manager said they didn't (and it is even more interesting if you speculate she is dishonest). There is a lot of the book that spins off that, you might even say it is one of the most important details in the book.
But if you just come out for no reason and say I am wrong about that, then the whole point of the book is lost. The book is primarily interesting not for the sex, but for the idea that this poor girl was trashed with gossip by evil people, and here is the truth. If you say the truth is not true, then you are just the next evil person to come along and spread gossip and trash the girl with no basis Like every sleazy guy before. Just a part of a mob with an opinion, but no interest in the truth.
I don't see you having any curiosity about the truth, based on many of the things you have said in your podcast. You are like the 10,000th person to spread whatever gossip you want about Mandi Jackson. That is boring
Sun 9/27/2020 3:25 AM
It grows on me what a tragic turn this has taken. Because you have invested a lot of time in this podcast. By choosing to disagree with the truth, you significantly reduce the value of your own podcast. A podcast that says things which are not true, is less valuable in the long run, than one that says things which are true. But even worse, you have decided to attempt to discredit key details of the book, and therefore the book itself, based on nothing. You just pick random things in the book which are true and which are important elements in the story, and say they are not true. Like peeing on your own fruit stand. You are attempting to artificially the devalue the very book, which you have invested time to spend your life on. And for what, so that so that Mulrenin's waiter at Ale House, or some local strip club skanks you never met will like you?
It is tragic. It is like you said "I am going to throw away months of work, so as not to get on the bad side of some local idiot who doesn't like Mandi Jackson based on gossip he heard about her."
Sun 9/27/2020 7:55 AM
This paradigm where the people around you nudge you to portray Mulrenin in a positive light, and at the same time you perceive a reward for straight inventing who Mandi was, is exactly why people from out of town get railroaded in shitholes like Seminole County. And here you are claiming to be this liberal free-thinking rational person. But you will immediately caucus with your prejudiced backwoods neighbors to mimick their low-information opinions, to invent your own theories about an outsider, and make sport of a young girl you don't know and maintain favor with your local peers. Just like a local cop who pays no price for lying, and is in fact rewarded for it at the Ale House a block from both Mulrenin's house and the police station. It took you how long, in your search for truth, to be dragged back down to the existing prejudices and preconceptions of Seminole County?
Sun 9/27/2020 8:41 AM
You literally pick and choose what is true and false from the book, based on the popular preconceptions of Seminole County. And you substitute those preconceptions for the truth. And you say Mandi is good at sales, giving away her pussy that sells itself. Why doesn't she tell me what happened? Mandi gets held without bond, so she can't compete with people at the Ale House. She can't even tell her parents what happened on the jail phone. Because police will choose to not send evidence to the lab based on what she says, to avoid producing evidence that could exonerate her.
There was a knife sitting on the recliner where Mulrenin sat and bled. They took a DNA swab from the handle of that knife, but they never sent it to the lab. They took two DNA swabs supposedly from at least eight blue gloves, though the exact number is obfuscated. They labeled the swabs "gloves" and "blue gloves" so they could explain what those labels mean after they get the results. There was a white pill cut into Mulrenin's cocaine, but they never tested it to see what it was. A dog walker was supposedly there when Mandi drove up, and let Love in the building to do the murder. The lead detective deleted that video, says he does not know who that dog walker is, doesn't know his name, never spoke to him.
So the evidence is not only shaped based on preconceptions. They will also shape it further based on anything Mandi says. Like you, they will attack what is true, substitute what is false, pick and choose, and attack Mandi based on whatever she says, to defend the popular preconceptions, the gossip, of Seminole County.
Sun 9/27/2020 9:57 AM
As I dive into the evidence section of the book, I'm sure I'll have plenty of new information that will shed light more on the case. I've told you several times that I believe your theory is entirely possible, and I am also capable of believing that Mandi was railroaded while also remaining pessimistic about a greater conspiracy happening. Everyone has their own perspective and viewpoint of the events that happened and the people who were involved, and all I can do is just absorb all of it, not just from your book, but from additional sources, too, and arrive at my own conclusions.
As I dive into the evidence section of the book, I'm sure I'll have plenty of new information that will shed light more on the case. I've told you several times that I believe your theory is entirely possible, and I am also capable of believing that Mandi was railroaded while also remaining pessimistic about a greater conspiracy happening. Everyone has their own perspective and viewpoint of the events that happened and the people who were involved, and all I can do is just absorb all of it, not just from your book, but from additional sources, too, and arrive at my own conclusions.
Sun 9/27/2020 10:20 AM
You are going to invent a motive and a state of mind for Mandi that is contrary to actual experience and os based on your imagination. Why not posit that the people at Ale House are cousins or girlfriends of police, or are Mulrenin's hooker customers?
You are going to invent a motive and a state of mind for Mandi that is contrary to actual experience and os based on your imagination. Why not posit that the people at Ale House are cousins or girlfriends of police, or are Mulrenin's hooker customers?
Sun 9/27/2020 10:29 AM
Because I know they're not. I'm very familiar with the people who knew him as their customer - some of them I've known for ten years.
Because I know they're not. I'm very familiar with the people who knew him as their customer - some of them I've known for ten years.
Sun 9/27/2020 10:33 AM
I am the one familiar with Mandi. So you can say what you want about people you know. And if I were to start inventing stuff about them, you would look down on that. But you feel the safety of the herd, to straight invent stuff about how Mandi thinks about credit cards.
Tue 9/29/2020 7:37 PM
Your podcast is basically over. Because after this point in the book, I don't participate in events. I primarily just record events. So I am not a character.
But we have these actual characters, such as strippers a who worked at Dollhouse. And most importantly Mulrenin himself. Mulrenin was in there that night he went over the balcony. But when I portray these characters, you don't accept the portrayal because it comes from me.
You could say who was this guy Mulrenin? What was this domestic battery about? What was this racketeering about? But instead you say never mind about the main character, let's keep talking about the author. Let's see what somebody said about him.
So essentially you have thrown away all your main characters. You say never mind who this individual Mandi Jackson was, let's just assume she was like everyone else I've met.
The rest of the book is all me saying what other people did. You are going to say you don't believe it, and you are not going to even try to find out yourself. You are just going to guess based on the gossip and news that is already out there before my book came along. Three podcast seasons of I don't believe him.
None of the stuff in the first chapter about me and Mandi in motels was in the paper. And it was about me and Mandi. So you were able to have a story to tell. But once we get into stuff that was in the paper, your podcast is going to be ignore the book, believe the first article that comes up in Google.
So from your point of view, the book has nothing left to tell you, it's over.
I am the one familiar with Mandi. So you can say what you want about people you know. And if I were to start inventing stuff about them, you would look down on that. But you feel the safety of the herd, to straight invent stuff about how Mandi thinks about credit cards.
Tue 9/29/2020 7:37 PM
Your podcast is basically over. Because after this point in the book, I don't participate in events. I primarily just record events. So I am not a character.
But we have these actual characters, such as strippers a who worked at Dollhouse. And most importantly Mulrenin himself. Mulrenin was in there that night he went over the balcony. But when I portray these characters, you don't accept the portrayal because it comes from me.
You could say who was this guy Mulrenin? What was this domestic battery about? What was this racketeering about? But instead you say never mind about the main character, let's keep talking about the author. Let's see what somebody said about him.
So essentially you have thrown away all your main characters. You say never mind who this individual Mandi Jackson was, let's just assume she was like everyone else I've met.
The rest of the book is all me saying what other people did. You are going to say you don't believe it, and you are not going to even try to find out yourself. You are just going to guess based on the gossip and news that is already out there before my book came along. Three podcast seasons of I don't believe him.
None of the stuff in the first chapter about me and Mandi in motels was in the paper. And it was about me and Mandi. So you were able to have a story to tell. But once we get into stuff that was in the paper, your podcast is going to be ignore the book, believe the first article that comes up in Google.
So from your point of view, the book has nothing left to tell you, it's over.
Tue 9/29/2020 7:39 PM
I don't think that's true. It'll just be an adjustment for us - we already recorded the credit card chapter, and that's one that I had a hard time believing, but I don't think that's going to be the whole thing. At any rate, healthy disbelief is important! It's good to question everything and form your own conclusions.
I don't think that's true. It'll just be an adjustment for us - we already recorded the credit card chapter, and that's one that I had a hard time believing, but I don't think that's going to be the whole thing. At any rate, healthy disbelief is important! It's good to question everything and form your own conclusions.
Tue 9/29/2020 8:00 PM
We could argue about what is healthy and unhealthy disbelief. I might say disbelieving things that are true for no reason without bothering to look them up is unhealthy. Whereas more rational skepticism is healthy, and investigating preexisting and common prejudices and preconceptions is healthy.
But that is not what I'm getting at. I'm saying that as a practical matter, the level of skepticism you think is healthy makes hosting the rest of the story unviable. If you only say "I believe the author" when he says Scott Love is bad because everybody already believes that, you are saying to your listeners let's just ignore the book. Nobody wants to sit in a restaurant while the waiter tells him most of the meat is inedible, course after course.
There is other stuff in there about evidence. But I don't think it captivates you enough to do anything more than sort of frame it as insignificant tedium, and over dramatized by the author. There is also the cell tower map and a few little things. But it's a long book. And those few things that you will think have value, will be lost in a sea of things I say, and you say throw away.
Tue 9/29/2020 8:26 PM
You could go to a different format where you just go to parts of the book you find interesting. Or you could do a podcast about me and you might get like three listeners.
Wed 9/30/2020 1:11 AM
Your definition of healthy disbelief is believe anything someone other than me tells you even if that person is biased, not in a position to know, and wrong, believe any libel about Mandi Jackson, make any positive assumption about anybody else, give everyone except Mandi Jackson the benefit of the doubt, never learn anything new about things that you think you already know, substitute things that you straight invented for things I know, and seek comfort in and parrot the herd which has no relevant information.
Wed 9/30/2020 3:14 AM
At its most boiled down level, the book is about people in Seminole County forming incorrect opinions about something they know nothing about, based on their preconceptions, Sadly you became part of the story by repeating that process.
There are people outside Seminole County who agree with everything I say as obvious. They think the themes I present are so common, there is not much point writing this example of them, in an effort to sensationalize something common and well understood from a pointlessly crude angle.
There are people who have never met Mandi Jackson who understand her, and what they did to her, and the kind of people who did it, better than me. The stuff you say is my own crazy conspiracy theory, other people say how is this new or surprising to you, were you born yesterday?
That has become the story to me, what people believe. It is not a story of events, an angel at the Starlite motel. It is a story about perceptions of the events. The fact that 100 papers said something false about GHB was the story. But to you the false perceptions are correct, it is a sex and murder story, neither of which I portray in the rest of the book.
Wed 9/30/2020 9:00 AM
In some ways I liked you becoming part of the story. I thought this is too perfect, a balding middle-aged man from Seminole County with "crude ambitions", making a sex podcast and selling pictures of Mandi Jackson on Patreon. Is he trying to illustrate my take on the human race? The podcast guy even gets angry when Mandi Jackson doesn't answer his emails and starts imagining things about her, just like the guys in the book.
But it becomes unviable if you miss the point of it or try to discredit too much of the book you are trying to present and are left with nothing. You crap all over your own story and tell your listeners "nothing to see here."
In the end you will hate Mandi Jackson like other people hate Mandi Jackson, and you will want to punish her, and you will use a fake murder story as the vehicle.
And of course I am still the same guy in the book, wishing bad luck on people who I perceive as taking advantage of my angel baby's unusual nature and giving her a bad deal.
Wed 9/30/2020 10:06 AM
When they are literally and undeniably letting dangerous felons out of prison as a reward for lying about Mandi Jackson, that is not anything rational or truth-searching. That is a feeding frenzy which her own grandmother is forced to watch, not just crying but heaving with tears in the courtroom, because she knows exactly what is going on. Few people are forced to watch felons victimize their granddaughter while sheriffs stand guard to make sure it happens. And you are prohibited from explaining to the jury what is going on.
Fri 10/2/2020 7:58 AM
My first day at work at one of America's largest companies, my manager said "Friday is Hawaiian Shirt Day." I made a joke, I said "You know in Hawaii, they just call it shirt day." He was speechless for a few seconds.
But that's how it is for a person in Seminole County reading my book.
I went to Texas on business. The people I met said you are from Miami Beach? You eat a lot of Cuban food? I said no, never, I don't even know what is Cuban food. They said black beans, fried plantains, roast pork... I said oh, I actually eat that every day. But in Miami we just call that food.
So other people call it a hooker, you call it a sex worker.
Fri 10/2/2020 10:25 AM
You talk about a "conspiracy", but there is in fact a universal mindset. People on the East Coast say it goes back to Eric Garner. People on the West Coast say it goes back to Rodney King. I believe it primarily goes back to Big Mike Brown, and was crystallized in June 2016 by Heather MacDonald in her book "The War On Cops."
Heather MacDonald wrote a chapter "Handcuffing The Police." The result is everyone who reads that book or talks to someone who did, comes away with this impression that anyone who complains about police misconduct is part of some scam movement to "handcuff the police" and undermine law and order. So it is a universal mindset that anyone who tries to hold police accountable is a marxist, and recording allegations of police misconduct is irresponsible and will lead to crime and death. This mindset is uniform, having been reproduced in every city in America, where police can now break any law, and say "don't handcuff me" and their supporters will circle the wagons.
So it is not just about one dumb cop or one dumb girl. It is a facet of the particular social forces of the time.
We could argue about what is healthy and unhealthy disbelief. I might say disbelieving things that are true for no reason without bothering to look them up is unhealthy. Whereas more rational skepticism is healthy, and investigating preexisting and common prejudices and preconceptions is healthy.
But that is not what I'm getting at. I'm saying that as a practical matter, the level of skepticism you think is healthy makes hosting the rest of the story unviable. If you only say "I believe the author" when he says Scott Love is bad because everybody already believes that, you are saying to your listeners let's just ignore the book. Nobody wants to sit in a restaurant while the waiter tells him most of the meat is inedible, course after course.
There is other stuff in there about evidence. But I don't think it captivates you enough to do anything more than sort of frame it as insignificant tedium, and over dramatized by the author. There is also the cell tower map and a few little things. But it's a long book. And those few things that you will think have value, will be lost in a sea of things I say, and you say throw away.
Tue 9/29/2020 8:26 PM
You could go to a different format where you just go to parts of the book you find interesting. Or you could do a podcast about me and you might get like three listeners.
Wed 9/30/2020 1:11 AM
Your definition of healthy disbelief is believe anything someone other than me tells you even if that person is biased, not in a position to know, and wrong, believe any libel about Mandi Jackson, make any positive assumption about anybody else, give everyone except Mandi Jackson the benefit of the doubt, never learn anything new about things that you think you already know, substitute things that you straight invented for things I know, and seek comfort in and parrot the herd which has no relevant information.
Wed 9/30/2020 3:14 AM
At its most boiled down level, the book is about people in Seminole County forming incorrect opinions about something they know nothing about, based on their preconceptions, Sadly you became part of the story by repeating that process.
There are people outside Seminole County who agree with everything I say as obvious. They think the themes I present are so common, there is not much point writing this example of them, in an effort to sensationalize something common and well understood from a pointlessly crude angle.
There are people who have never met Mandi Jackson who understand her, and what they did to her, and the kind of people who did it, better than me. The stuff you say is my own crazy conspiracy theory, other people say how is this new or surprising to you, were you born yesterday?
That has become the story to me, what people believe. It is not a story of events, an angel at the Starlite motel. It is a story about perceptions of the events. The fact that 100 papers said something false about GHB was the story. But to you the false perceptions are correct, it is a sex and murder story, neither of which I portray in the rest of the book.
Wed 9/30/2020 9:00 AM
In some ways I liked you becoming part of the story. I thought this is too perfect, a balding middle-aged man from Seminole County with "crude ambitions", making a sex podcast and selling pictures of Mandi Jackson on Patreon. Is he trying to illustrate my take on the human race? The podcast guy even gets angry when Mandi Jackson doesn't answer his emails and starts imagining things about her, just like the guys in the book.
But it becomes unviable if you miss the point of it or try to discredit too much of the book you are trying to present and are left with nothing. You crap all over your own story and tell your listeners "nothing to see here."
In the end you will hate Mandi Jackson like other people hate Mandi Jackson, and you will want to punish her, and you will use a fake murder story as the vehicle.
And of course I am still the same guy in the book, wishing bad luck on people who I perceive as taking advantage of my angel baby's unusual nature and giving her a bad deal.
Wed 9/30/2020 10:06 AM
When they are literally and undeniably letting dangerous felons out of prison as a reward for lying about Mandi Jackson, that is not anything rational or truth-searching. That is a feeding frenzy which her own grandmother is forced to watch, not just crying but heaving with tears in the courtroom, because she knows exactly what is going on. Few people are forced to watch felons victimize their granddaughter while sheriffs stand guard to make sure it happens. And you are prohibited from explaining to the jury what is going on.
Fri 10/2/2020 7:58 AM
My first day at work at one of America's largest companies, my manager said "Friday is Hawaiian Shirt Day." I made a joke, I said "You know in Hawaii, they just call it shirt day." He was speechless for a few seconds.
But that's how it is for a person in Seminole County reading my book.
I went to Texas on business. The people I met said you are from Miami Beach? You eat a lot of Cuban food? I said no, never, I don't even know what is Cuban food. They said black beans, fried plantains, roast pork... I said oh, I actually eat that every day. But in Miami we just call that food.
So other people call it a hooker, you call it a sex worker.
Fri 10/2/2020 10:25 AM
You talk about a "conspiracy", but there is in fact a universal mindset. People on the East Coast say it goes back to Eric Garner. People on the West Coast say it goes back to Rodney King. I believe it primarily goes back to Big Mike Brown, and was crystallized in June 2016 by Heather MacDonald in her book "The War On Cops."
Heather MacDonald wrote a chapter "Handcuffing The Police." The result is everyone who reads that book or talks to someone who did, comes away with this impression that anyone who complains about police misconduct is part of some scam movement to "handcuff the police" and undermine law and order. So it is a universal mindset that anyone who tries to hold police accountable is a marxist, and recording allegations of police misconduct is irresponsible and will lead to crime and death. This mindset is uniform, having been reproduced in every city in America, where police can now break any law, and say "don't handcuff me" and their supporters will circle the wagons.
So it is not just about one dumb cop or one dumb girl. It is a facet of the particular social forces of the time.
Fri 10/2/2020 11:53 AM
I definitely support holding police accountable for misconduct. I think they're poorly trained and most of them are just bullies.
I definitely support holding police accountable for misconduct. I think they're poorly trained and most of them are just bullies.
10/3/2020 1:09 PM
If the crime of perjury doesn't matter, then no other law matters. Police can lie on search warrants, they can lie on the stand. Then the law becomes whatever the local institutions trusted with regulating their police friends wants it to be. The law is just the capricious demand of the local political establishment, using the power of the State, to lock up whomever the public approves of locking up.
After Ferguson, and with the spread of body cameras, Heather MacDonald wrote this academic book "The War On Cops". Her thesis is that holding police accountable, hassling them, leads to an increase in crime, to death. She constructed a moral basis to ignore police misconduct. She said we have to insulate police from being hassled, or else criminals will run free and murders will rise. This was stacked on top of a moral basis which already existed to ignore prosecutor misconduct. People don't like it when OJ or Casey Anthony walks. People don't like it when the cops who shot Breonna Taylor walk. They don't like it when Philip Brailsford walks. Ultimately they don't like the unelected, unaccountable power that juries have. So they greenlight prosecutors to predetermine the outcome of trials, with any means necessary.
And so they have constructed a moral basis, and a system, to do what they did to Mandi, build a case that is fake from end to end, from the arrest affidavit, to the closing arguments. So Mandi's guilt is literally decided at Ale House, a block from Mulrenin's house and the police station, based on gossip not evidence. You say that is a crazy conspiracy. I say that is standard, normal, common, popular, democratically preferred, throughout human history.
Sun 10/4/2020 10:45 AM
The Republican policy position, after Ferguson and expressed by Heather MacDonald, is 1) the costs of imperfect policing are fake or absorbed by undesirables, and 2) the costs of trying to improve policing are real and absorbed by white suburban Karens and their families. I predicted In 2019 this was a brewing political disaster for Republicans, four to six years out.
My take is we are looking at the political disaster I predicted, sooner than I expected. And Republicans still think it is fake and hopped up by agitators, Soros astroturf not grassroots.
Tue 10/6/2020 9:50 AM
In some ways it is the opposite of a conspiracy. I suspect the policy to automatically shield police from all allegations of misconduct developed at all suburban and rural police departments around the country, quietly and independently of each other, after Ferguson. I have uncovered two things talking about this in different forums around the web:
1) My insight into the process is correct. At least five or six different times I have had cops tell me anonymously "I know you're a cop. You're just angry that you got caught." In other words, they were saying only a cop would know the things that I know. But for some reason I wasn't protected, maybe it was on video or I victimized the wrong person, the mayor's son. And so now I am bitter because everyone else gets away with it and is protected, but for some reason I was singled out and thrown overboard.
2) Many of the same cops don't believe misconduct being protected is as widespread and uniform as it is. They know they are faking evidence and committing perjury in their own department. And they know their local political structure has signaled a policy that they will stand by them and defend what they are doing against any consequnces. But they don't know that the exact same thing is going on the next town or the next county over. They think they have their own secret little thing going, their own special arrangement they thought up themselves.
One thing you see that may support this idea, is the number of police who keep shooting black people, even while the country is burning over it every day on the news. There are a lot of cops and a lot of suspects, so anything is bound to happen any day. But consider this cop Shaun David Lucas who was just charged with murder for shooting this black guy, Jonathan Price. I haven't seen the video, but everyone says it is plain murder. So how can a cop shoot a black guy for no reason, when every day on TV that is the only news, it must be the main topic in every precinct.
One explanation is he believes he has this special arrangement in his own department, in his own community, where he is protected. So he has this experience of his misconduct being shielded from consequence every day, he thinks the trouble those other cops get in won't happen to him. He has learned from experience that his local community grants him immunity.
If the crime of perjury doesn't matter, then no other law matters. Police can lie on search warrants, they can lie on the stand. Then the law becomes whatever the local institutions trusted with regulating their police friends wants it to be. The law is just the capricious demand of the local political establishment, using the power of the State, to lock up whomever the public approves of locking up.
After Ferguson, and with the spread of body cameras, Heather MacDonald wrote this academic book "The War On Cops". Her thesis is that holding police accountable, hassling them, leads to an increase in crime, to death. She constructed a moral basis to ignore police misconduct. She said we have to insulate police from being hassled, or else criminals will run free and murders will rise. This was stacked on top of a moral basis which already existed to ignore prosecutor misconduct. People don't like it when OJ or Casey Anthony walks. People don't like it when the cops who shot Breonna Taylor walk. They don't like it when Philip Brailsford walks. Ultimately they don't like the unelected, unaccountable power that juries have. So they greenlight prosecutors to predetermine the outcome of trials, with any means necessary.
And so they have constructed a moral basis, and a system, to do what they did to Mandi, build a case that is fake from end to end, from the arrest affidavit, to the closing arguments. So Mandi's guilt is literally decided at Ale House, a block from Mulrenin's house and the police station, based on gossip not evidence. You say that is a crazy conspiracy. I say that is standard, normal, common, popular, democratically preferred, throughout human history.
Sun 10/4/2020 10:45 AM
The Republican policy position, after Ferguson and expressed by Heather MacDonald, is 1) the costs of imperfect policing are fake or absorbed by undesirables, and 2) the costs of trying to improve policing are real and absorbed by white suburban Karens and their families. I predicted In 2019 this was a brewing political disaster for Republicans, four to six years out.
My take is we are looking at the political disaster I predicted, sooner than I expected. And Republicans still think it is fake and hopped up by agitators, Soros astroturf not grassroots.
Tue 10/6/2020 9:50 AM
In some ways it is the opposite of a conspiracy. I suspect the policy to automatically shield police from all allegations of misconduct developed at all suburban and rural police departments around the country, quietly and independently of each other, after Ferguson. I have uncovered two things talking about this in different forums around the web:
1) My insight into the process is correct. At least five or six different times I have had cops tell me anonymously "I know you're a cop. You're just angry that you got caught." In other words, they were saying only a cop would know the things that I know. But for some reason I wasn't protected, maybe it was on video or I victimized the wrong person, the mayor's son. And so now I am bitter because everyone else gets away with it and is protected, but for some reason I was singled out and thrown overboard.
2) Many of the same cops don't believe misconduct being protected is as widespread and uniform as it is. They know they are faking evidence and committing perjury in their own department. And they know their local political structure has signaled a policy that they will stand by them and defend what they are doing against any consequnces. But they don't know that the exact same thing is going on the next town or the next county over. They think they have their own secret little thing going, their own special arrangement they thought up themselves.
One thing you see that may support this idea, is the number of police who keep shooting black people, even while the country is burning over it every day on the news. There are a lot of cops and a lot of suspects, so anything is bound to happen any day. But consider this cop Shaun David Lucas who was just charged with murder for shooting this black guy, Jonathan Price. I haven't seen the video, but everyone says it is plain murder. So how can a cop shoot a black guy for no reason, when every day on TV that is the only news, it must be the main topic in every precinct.
One explanation is he believes he has this special arrangement in his own department, in his own community, where he is protected. So he has this experience of his misconduct being shielded from consequence every day, he thinks the trouble those other cops get in won't happen to him. He has learned from experience that his local community grants him immunity.
Tue 10/6/2020 5:43 PM
I agree with that. Many cops think that they're protected behind the blue wall.
I agree with that. Many cops think that they're protected behind the blue wall.
Wed 10/7/2020 8:41 AM
Anyway, I think your podcast has some problems:
1) Narrowcasting; You will shape the story around feedback from your local community in Seminole County. For example, you will steer wide clear of criticizing some local figures, but you will feel totally safe trashing Mandi Jackson locked up in prison. A person in another state or country would trash everyone equally. A story that has two sides, where you introduce new material is more interesting. To be more pleasing to people around you, you will tell a story that better fits what they want to hear, introduces less new material, and is therefore less interesting to people in other places. You are captive to the same local forces as the police who probably live less than a mile from you.
2) What is the story? Is the story that someone wrote a crazy book? Is the story that police lie a lot? It seems you have gotten deep into the podcast without having much curiosity what actually happened, and therefore what might be interesting about it. A bunch of druggies doing drugs in a motel, or sex, is not interesting. 100 newspapers printing a fake story about a girl with a gun and date rape drugs in a moral panic, is sort of interesting. But you missed that story. At the end of the chapter, you said what really happened here? Some people drove to Georgia and got arrested. No, the story is a false accusation started a chain of events that would end in Mandi Jackson getting life in prison for a crime that didn't happen. I did not write these chapters because I like talking about sex, quite the opposite. It is sadly necessary to expose the whole process.
People thinking a hooker is a drug dealer (or an armed robber) is sort of interesting, because the way any criminals blend in with their surroundings is interesting. And the sort of shame and stigma of being what you call a "sex worker" is sort of interesting. But you became part of that story, you said Mandi Jackson used to run cocaine up from Miami, or something which never happened. She drove up from Miami with my money, and said she got it running cocaine. So you begin by thinking you know something. But you are just repeating popular misconceptions, which people can get just by searching Google.
It is sort of interesting that a 100-pound girl rides big motorcycles. But before you found out that was true, you said Mandi is a sales girl developing rapport, lying to this motorcycle guy that she rides motorcycles. When the real story is completely opposite, here was a girl just rambling on a park bench about fluff with no selling whatsoever. Which would ordinarily be all that is needed to sell herself to a sexual predator. And the reason is because she has a brain injury, probably partly from riding motorcycles. But you say she doesn't have a brain injury from riding motorcycles which makes her incapable of sales, she is a capable sales girl who doesn't ride motorcycles but says she does as part of the sales process. So you take something interesting that you know nothing about, and paint over it with something mundane that fits your preconceptions.
The main issue, I think, is a lack of curiosity on your part. You started out saying you wanted to get at the truth. But it ended up being a lot of work. So now you just pick random things that are true and say they are not, and call that healthy skepticism. And you get pictures of Mandi Jackson from high school. Which don't have much relevance to any story that might be interesting. Whereas you don't even try to find something like Mulrenin's violation of probation mugshot, to figure out who this person was and how he ended up at Dollhouse and what he did there and what happened that night and why.
I have spent 4500 hours researching and analyzing the facts in this case, and talking to people about them. And before that I spent many hours at strip clubs, and specifically around the people involved in this story. But like with your first episodes where you just walk up and say "Luke doesn't exist", for some reason you think it is interesting to say some people had sex and do drugs, and other than that there is no story here. You don't even have a curiosity to look at court websites and at actual documents. And for that reason, I think your curiosity does not align well with the curiosity of your listeners.
Wed 10/7/2020 9:15 AM
The process of misperceiving unusual stuff is so strange and pervasive.
Without doing some scratch work like I did for a previous email, I owned a car for probably less than a year during the five years from 2012 through 2016. Apparenty this is unusual, because they suspended my drivers license when I sold a truck I owned for a few months in 2013. The computer saw I had a license plate, but no insurance, and automatically suspended my drivers license. So apparently it was very unusual in a state the size of Florida, for someone to own a motorcycle but no car. Like I was the first person in the computer to do that.
Somehow after your readers asked about how I got around with two dogs and a motorcycle and no car, it got normalized to I did have a car most of the time. You said I rented a car for an extended period. I rented a car for I think five days once to drive from Miami to Orlando. And I rented a Uhaul truck just to drive some stuff to Orlando from Melbourne.
It is not relevant to this story that I owned a motorcycle and no car for years. But it is interesting that people look at something unusual, such as Mandi Jackson and what she was doing that night, or me owning a motorcycle and no car, and replace it with something incorrect that makes more sense to them.
Anyway, I think your podcast has some problems:
1) Narrowcasting; You will shape the story around feedback from your local community in Seminole County. For example, you will steer wide clear of criticizing some local figures, but you will feel totally safe trashing Mandi Jackson locked up in prison. A person in another state or country would trash everyone equally. A story that has two sides, where you introduce new material is more interesting. To be more pleasing to people around you, you will tell a story that better fits what they want to hear, introduces less new material, and is therefore less interesting to people in other places. You are captive to the same local forces as the police who probably live less than a mile from you.
2) What is the story? Is the story that someone wrote a crazy book? Is the story that police lie a lot? It seems you have gotten deep into the podcast without having much curiosity what actually happened, and therefore what might be interesting about it. A bunch of druggies doing drugs in a motel, or sex, is not interesting. 100 newspapers printing a fake story about a girl with a gun and date rape drugs in a moral panic, is sort of interesting. But you missed that story. At the end of the chapter, you said what really happened here? Some people drove to Georgia and got arrested. No, the story is a false accusation started a chain of events that would end in Mandi Jackson getting life in prison for a crime that didn't happen. I did not write these chapters because I like talking about sex, quite the opposite. It is sadly necessary to expose the whole process.
People thinking a hooker is a drug dealer (or an armed robber) is sort of interesting, because the way any criminals blend in with their surroundings is interesting. And the sort of shame and stigma of being what you call a "sex worker" is sort of interesting. But you became part of that story, you said Mandi Jackson used to run cocaine up from Miami, or something which never happened. She drove up from Miami with my money, and said she got it running cocaine. So you begin by thinking you know something. But you are just repeating popular misconceptions, which people can get just by searching Google.
It is sort of interesting that a 100-pound girl rides big motorcycles. But before you found out that was true, you said Mandi is a sales girl developing rapport, lying to this motorcycle guy that she rides motorcycles. When the real story is completely opposite, here was a girl just rambling on a park bench about fluff with no selling whatsoever. Which would ordinarily be all that is needed to sell herself to a sexual predator. And the reason is because she has a brain injury, probably partly from riding motorcycles. But you say she doesn't have a brain injury from riding motorcycles which makes her incapable of sales, she is a capable sales girl who doesn't ride motorcycles but says she does as part of the sales process. So you take something interesting that you know nothing about, and paint over it with something mundane that fits your preconceptions.
The main issue, I think, is a lack of curiosity on your part. You started out saying you wanted to get at the truth. But it ended up being a lot of work. So now you just pick random things that are true and say they are not, and call that healthy skepticism. And you get pictures of Mandi Jackson from high school. Which don't have much relevance to any story that might be interesting. Whereas you don't even try to find something like Mulrenin's violation of probation mugshot, to figure out who this person was and how he ended up at Dollhouse and what he did there and what happened that night and why.
I have spent 4500 hours researching and analyzing the facts in this case, and talking to people about them. And before that I spent many hours at strip clubs, and specifically around the people involved in this story. But like with your first episodes where you just walk up and say "Luke doesn't exist", for some reason you think it is interesting to say some people had sex and do drugs, and other than that there is no story here. You don't even have a curiosity to look at court websites and at actual documents. And for that reason, I think your curiosity does not align well with the curiosity of your listeners.
Wed 10/7/2020 9:15 AM
The process of misperceiving unusual stuff is so strange and pervasive.
Without doing some scratch work like I did for a previous email, I owned a car for probably less than a year during the five years from 2012 through 2016. Apparenty this is unusual, because they suspended my drivers license when I sold a truck I owned for a few months in 2013. The computer saw I had a license plate, but no insurance, and automatically suspended my drivers license. So apparently it was very unusual in a state the size of Florida, for someone to own a motorcycle but no car. Like I was the first person in the computer to do that.
Somehow after your readers asked about how I got around with two dogs and a motorcycle and no car, it got normalized to I did have a car most of the time. You said I rented a car for an extended period. I rented a car for I think five days once to drive from Miami to Orlando. And I rented a Uhaul truck just to drive some stuff to Orlando from Melbourne.
It is not relevant to this story that I owned a motorcycle and no car for years. But it is interesting that people look at something unusual, such as Mandi Jackson and what she was doing that night, or me owning a motorcycle and no car, and replace it with something incorrect that makes more sense to them.
Wed 10/7/2020 3:45 PM
People have questions and curiosity about a lot of different areas that we might not consider. And I'll be reading all of the court documents as we get to those sections, but I'm trying to treat this as a reader, not as an expert, and with that, skepticism and questioning is healthy until the story presents the information. I post photos of Mandi from high school because people want to know more about Mandi - they are intrigued by her and want to know what she was like beyond your book.
People have questions and curiosity about a lot of different areas that we might not consider. And I'll be reading all of the court documents as we get to those sections, but I'm trying to treat this as a reader, not as an expert, and with that, skepticism and questioning is healthy until the story presents the information. I post photos of Mandi from high school because people want to know more about Mandi - they are intrigued by her and want to know what she was like beyond your book.
Wed 10/14/2020 7:41 PM
You don't appreciate that you are exposed to an army of people who have been told this guy was the victim of some Charles Manson crime. And their natural reflex is to recite some "he was a nice guy he didn't deserve that" refrain, just to sing along, regardless of what the truth is or if they even know anything.
Wed 10/14/2020 7:55 PM
There was some weirdo I used to see wobbling up the bike lane on OBT on like a garage sale cruiser bike. The bike lane was just the gutter. And the two actual lanes were not wide enough for the semi trucks that rolled up there all day.
One night the street was blocked off. Finally the cops let us pass, and that bike was lying there bent. And the guy was dead. In my mind, he was a nice guy who just rode his bike and it is sad that he is dead. I imagine him just pushing along like he did, with an earnest and innocent sentiment.
But that's all in my head. I didn't know him. He may been a serial killer who shouted all day. The light in which you imagine a person who was helpless and died in an unfortunate accident is not real. It is just your imagination of humanity in the face of death.
So people saying Mulrenin was a nice guy are not actually providing information. They are displaying a reflexive and universal human sentiment that is standard upon death, no matter who the person was who died.
-----------------------------
Sat 11/21/2020 7:11 PM
As a general concept, why did you change me to him?
You don't appreciate that you are exposed to an army of people who have been told this guy was the victim of some Charles Manson crime. And their natural reflex is to recite some "he was a nice guy he didn't deserve that" refrain, just to sing along, regardless of what the truth is or if they even know anything.
Wed 10/14/2020 7:55 PM
There was some weirdo I used to see wobbling up the bike lane on OBT on like a garage sale cruiser bike. The bike lane was just the gutter. And the two actual lanes were not wide enough for the semi trucks that rolled up there all day.
One night the street was blocked off. Finally the cops let us pass, and that bike was lying there bent. And the guy was dead. In my mind, he was a nice guy who just rode his bike and it is sad that he is dead. I imagine him just pushing along like he did, with an earnest and innocent sentiment.
But that's all in my head. I didn't know him. He may been a serial killer who shouted all day. The light in which you imagine a person who was helpless and died in an unfortunate accident is not real. It is just your imagination of humanity in the face of death.
So people saying Mulrenin was a nice guy are not actually providing information. They are displaying a reflexive and universal human sentiment that is standard upon death, no matter who the person was who died.
-----------------------------
Sat 11/21/2020 7:11 PM
As a general concept, why did you change me to him?
Sat 11/21/2020 7:37 PM
In the section about the Russian stripper's mom? It didn't make sense that it was you, so I was confused. Why would you know the Russian stripper's mom? It made sense that she sent the stripper to live in Florida with her dad to find a husband.
In the section about the Russian stripper's mom? It didn't make sense that it was you, so I was confused. Why would you know the Russian stripper's mom? It made sense that she sent the stripper to live in Florida with her dad to find a husband.
Sat 11/21/2020 7:48 PM
If I said her mom sent her to me, then her mom must know that I exist.
To me it is bizarre that you would imagine if you don't know it, then it isn't true and probably something more normal is true instead. It is the pattern I mentioned, of substituting preconceptions of common things for odd realities.
Do girls whose Daddys are alive and work for NASA need sugar daddies? I know you have this preconception that desperate brain damaged strippers are actually just liberated normal girls.
Girls with functional fathers don't work at Club Madonna and have all their stuff thrown in the street.
Sat 11/21/2020 7:51 PM
If it is odd and it is not a bias then it has to be a typo.
If I said her mom sent her to me, then her mom must know that I exist.
To me it is bizarre that you would imagine if you don't know it, then it isn't true and probably something more normal is true instead. It is the pattern I mentioned, of substituting preconceptions of common things for odd realities.
Do girls whose Daddys are alive and work for NASA need sugar daddies? I know you have this preconception that desperate brain damaged strippers are actually just liberated normal girls.
Girls with functional fathers don't work at Club Madonna and have all their stuff thrown in the street.
Sat 11/21/2020 7:51 PM
If it is odd and it is not a bias then it has to be a typo.
Sat 11/21/2020 7:53 PM
In the context of your writing, you made it seem like you encountered her on the street outside of the club and hired her to build websites. If you knew her mother, and she was sent to live with you, that would have been a story element that should have been introduced because it otherwise requires the reader to make assumptions that are extremely odd. It has nothing to do with preconceptions of who strippers are, but with the elements in the storytelling that are lacking, so the reader has to fill in details. And the simplest answer is that it was a typo, and you meant that she was sent to live with her father, but presumably had no interest and ran off to strip instead.
I know plenty of girls with functional fathers who dance. Dads who are CEOs and lawyers and construction company owners. Even millionaires. If she has a bad home experience, she'll do whatever she wants to.
In the context of your writing, you made it seem like you encountered her on the street outside of the club and hired her to build websites. If you knew her mother, and she was sent to live with you, that would have been a story element that should have been introduced because it otherwise requires the reader to make assumptions that are extremely odd. It has nothing to do with preconceptions of who strippers are, but with the elements in the storytelling that are lacking, so the reader has to fill in details. And the simplest answer is that it was a typo, and you meant that she was sent to live with her father, but presumably had no interest and ran off to strip instead.
I know plenty of girls with functional fathers who dance. Dads who are CEOs and lawyers and construction company owners. Even millionaires. If she has a bad home experience, she'll do whatever she wants to.
Sun 11/22/2020 12:14 AM
You introduced a story element that is not true, that you no have no evidence for, and that misleads the reader as to the kind of girls in my story. You say you did it because you don't know how her mom was aware of me. You also don't know that she went to stay with her dad, but that doesn't bother you.
I provided the fact that was relevant to the story. If readers don't believe odd things exist, then they can just imagine the book without reading it, as a collection of their own anecdotes.
Why would I ramble about stuff this girl did that does not build my narrative of why I came to sit over and over in a room with James Mulrenin? It was about my formative experience, not random irrelevant events in some girl's family.
It is not relevant how her mom was aware of me. It is only an irrelevant inference that she must have been, which one can derive from the list of elements of my formative experience.
It is even a slightly funny story. Which would make it a rambling distraction in a story about Mandi. And which story I might tell to someone who posts everything I say on the web, if she weren't dead and her mother presumably still alive.
I have met a lot of strippers also, and zero of them whose fathers were millionaires. I can't recall any reason to believe any of their fathers were even alive, and none anywhere nearby before Mandi.
Sun 11/22/2020 1:18 AM
If I wanted to write a book about me meeting strippers, I could have done that 10 years ago. This is a painstaking construction of the world Mulrenin lived in. You say you never went to Cabaret Internationale and Dollhouse. I went to strip clubs which I found were the most conducive to meeting girls with no daddy, and who were therefore forced to negotiate.if a girl has a millionaire dad and strips for fun, she will not be so desperate as to have sex with the manager or stay at my house.
I am also the tool given to the reader for the examination of a dead person, James Mulrenin. So it is necessary to first completely examine the tool itself, so as to understand which are the properties of the tool and the object.
Sun 11/22/2020 1:19 AM
Ms Maggie McGill
She lived on a hill
Her daddy got drunk
And left her no will
So she went down
Down to Tangy Town
People down there
Really like to get it on
Sun 11/22/2020 1:55 AM
I had two Turkish girls staying at my house, when two Russian girls jumped in my car and I let them move in also. They said in Turkey these are called Natashas, Russian girls whose fathers or husbands died in war, and they come down to Turkey and wreck our homes.
They didn't say these are usually the daughters of Russian businessmen who come to Turkey to have a fun time.
Tue 2/2/2021 7:53 AM
You are no antifa person. You are a Harvey Weinstein Democrat. You trash a young girl and her family all year, expose her most private secrets, and sell pictures of her on the web. But then you refuse to read a chapter about a man whose gluttony for female employees destroyed so many lives. And what you do say about him, you lie. You say things like you can't find anywhere that this guy was convicted of racketeering with the underlying crime of prostitution.
It is the Bill Clinton formula. Trash the slut publicly. Lie about who the guy is. Hide the real story. Typical Democrat male.
That slimeball Mulrenin killed himself with cocaine and a bunch of other things, and that is what the witnesses saw. But you want to amuse yourself at the expense of Mandi Jackson, without ever getting to the truth. You claim you are so uninterested in the truth, you are not even curious to read it.
You introduced a story element that is not true, that you no have no evidence for, and that misleads the reader as to the kind of girls in my story. You say you did it because you don't know how her mom was aware of me. You also don't know that she went to stay with her dad, but that doesn't bother you.
I provided the fact that was relevant to the story. If readers don't believe odd things exist, then they can just imagine the book without reading it, as a collection of their own anecdotes.
Why would I ramble about stuff this girl did that does not build my narrative of why I came to sit over and over in a room with James Mulrenin? It was about my formative experience, not random irrelevant events in some girl's family.
It is not relevant how her mom was aware of me. It is only an irrelevant inference that she must have been, which one can derive from the list of elements of my formative experience.
It is even a slightly funny story. Which would make it a rambling distraction in a story about Mandi. And which story I might tell to someone who posts everything I say on the web, if she weren't dead and her mother presumably still alive.
I have met a lot of strippers also, and zero of them whose fathers were millionaires. I can't recall any reason to believe any of their fathers were even alive, and none anywhere nearby before Mandi.
Sun 11/22/2020 1:18 AM
If I wanted to write a book about me meeting strippers, I could have done that 10 years ago. This is a painstaking construction of the world Mulrenin lived in. You say you never went to Cabaret Internationale and Dollhouse. I went to strip clubs which I found were the most conducive to meeting girls with no daddy, and who were therefore forced to negotiate.if a girl has a millionaire dad and strips for fun, she will not be so desperate as to have sex with the manager or stay at my house.
I am also the tool given to the reader for the examination of a dead person, James Mulrenin. So it is necessary to first completely examine the tool itself, so as to understand which are the properties of the tool and the object.
Sun 11/22/2020 1:19 AM
Ms Maggie McGill
She lived on a hill
Her daddy got drunk
And left her no will
So she went down
Down to Tangy Town
People down there
Really like to get it on
Sun 11/22/2020 1:55 AM
I had two Turkish girls staying at my house, when two Russian girls jumped in my car and I let them move in also. They said in Turkey these are called Natashas, Russian girls whose fathers or husbands died in war, and they come down to Turkey and wreck our homes.
They didn't say these are usually the daughters of Russian businessmen who come to Turkey to have a fun time.
Tue 2/2/2021 7:53 AM
You are no antifa person. You are a Harvey Weinstein Democrat. You trash a young girl and her family all year, expose her most private secrets, and sell pictures of her on the web. But then you refuse to read a chapter about a man whose gluttony for female employees destroyed so many lives. And what you do say about him, you lie. You say things like you can't find anywhere that this guy was convicted of racketeering with the underlying crime of prostitution.
It is the Bill Clinton formula. Trash the slut publicly. Lie about who the guy is. Hide the real story. Typical Democrat male.
That slimeball Mulrenin killed himself with cocaine and a bunch of other things, and that is what the witnesses saw. But you want to amuse yourself at the expense of Mandi Jackson, without ever getting to the truth. You claim you are so uninterested in the truth, you are not even curious to read it.
back