|
In Reply to: Re: KG = Katherine Gambrill? posted by yeah but... on June 02, 2006 at 16:21:41:
Did you actually read the excerpt from the affidavit by KG in the Ward judgment that I provided? Have you even read the Ward judgment? There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the KG referred to by Ward is Crystal. There are clues in that excerpt that absolutely convince me that it is Crystal. There is no one else that could've written that affidavit. She, along with Michael, was in charge of Mene and other so-called DTs. Mene lived in the same cottage as Crystal and Michael. This is not conjecture. I know, I was there.
Are you the same person that was giving Mr. Don and others such a hard time for making a comment that you disputed was factual? It sure sounds like it with your claim that "facts are established a little too fast and loose here". What exactly are you so concerned about? This is not a court of law where we have to follow strict rules of evidence in determining what the facts are. There are all kinds of opinions, conjecture, educated guesses, hearsay, etc., expressed here, but I'm not aware of anyone taking those expressions as established fact and acting on them.
I think you should give the people who post here more credit than you do. I don't think anyone is going to form conclusions of fact based on a single comment by someone. Sometimes people are mistaken or exaggerate, but they are most often corrected by someone else.
So what's wrong with conjecture if it eventually leads to the truth? What possible danger or harm do you foresee in this bit of conjecture I and "a reader" have done? After Thorwald posted Crystal's current legal name, I was searching for that affidavit in the Ward judgment and was puzzled by the initials KG, forgetting that Gambril was Michael's legal name and that Crystal had been married to him. I opined that either Crystal had changed her name or she had provided a false name to the court. "A reader" then reminded me that KG likely stood for Kathy Gambril, and of course that makes perfect sense.
Everything points to the affidavit by KG being from Crystal, yet you take issue with this because of some unnamed danger and say that KG could be someone else. Who do you think it could possibly be? If you're such a stickler for "just the facts ma'am" then perhaps you should read more on this subject of Michael and Crystal in Macau from the vast library of information on this and other sites. Once you've done that, come back with your own conjecture on who KG is.
And by the way, if you are the same person who hassled Mr. Don, I notice that you never responded to the allegation that you are either a Family member or supporter. If you're not the same person, ignore that last sentence.
