Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

PLEASE HELP FIND A FELLOW HOOSIER

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: PLEASE HELP FIND A FELLOW HOOSIER

    Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
    This is essentially saying that defendants should also have to prove their own innocence.
    I have read my post 3 times and do not read it that way at all. However, to clarify, I do not think that.

    Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
    Because if the defense was held to the same standards as the state then that would be end result. Prove your innocence.
    I never said that. They can do whatever they want. However, when you start "gaming" the system then IMO it turns less about the truth and more about how to "win".

    EDIT: I think others have said it better then I did, but hopefully everyone got my gist.
    Last edited by vapacersfan; 07-19-2011, 05:31 PM.

    Comment


    • Re: PLEASE HELP FIND A FELLOW HOOSIER

      Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
      Are we really using a case where the defendant was found NOT GUILTY to try and back up the story that law enforcement is only in it to get more convictions?
      This is really strange because in the Lance/NY DA thread I was arguing that prosecutors do not care only care about convictions, that the vast majority of them are looking for the truth, and that all of them are bound by codes of professional conduct that proscribe seeking convictions at all costs.

      I think that you can believe in the general benevolence of investigators and DAs while exercising extreme caution where your own personal liberty is potentially at stake. In this case it is even more muddied by the potential of helping find this girl, and I am pretty conflicted about what to think. But again, there is no dichotomy between eagerly waiving constitutional rights at the request of LEOs and believing that all DAs are conviction hungry frauds.

      Comment


      • Re: PLEASE HELP FIND A FELLOW HOOSIER

        Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
        I've been out of town for the past 10 days. I did some googling and couldn't find any updates, so I'm assuming nothing substantial has happened? I'm afraid this case is going to be cold for quite some time.
        Yes, I posted the last action I read was the dog searching Wolfes (BF) home. I would like to know if anybody can answer these ?'s for me

        Did Wolfe or this Rosenbaum have vehicles on campus.

        Did they have access to vehicles?

        Have their cell phone records been checked?

        Comment


        • Re: PLEASE HELP FIND A FELLOW HOOSIER

          Originally posted by Lou Bega View Post

          Have their cell phone records been checked?


          The cell phone records would have been checked immediately.

          Comment


          • Re: PLEASE HELP FIND A FELLOW HOOSIER

            Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
            Are we really using a case where the defendant was found NOT GUILTY to try and back up the story that law enforcement is only in it to get more convictions?
            I don't see why the verdict matter, the prosecutors with held newly found information that contradicts details they based their case around. I thought they only want to find the truth?
            You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

            Comment


            • Re: PLEASE HELP FIND A FELLOW HOOSIER

              Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
              I don't see why the verdict matter, the prosecutors with held newly found information that contradicts details they based their case around. I thought they only want to find the truth?
              You don't know why the verdict matters? Maybe because it shows the checks and balances of our legal system so DAs can't just run over people, but they're expected to be able to present an actual case in front of a jury who then decides your fate. This isn't like the Amanda knox's case where the government is also the jury.

              Verdicts are pretty important when you're trying to argue that ALL prosecutors only care about winning and nothing else. Obviously the state didn't win against Casey.

              That's like arguing that X player is a really good shooter when they never make a shot. But they have really good form!
              Last edited by Since86; 07-21-2011, 07:49 AM.
              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

              Comment


              • Re: PLEASE HELP FIND A FELLOW HOOSIER

                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                That's like arguing that X player is a really good shooter when they never make a shot. But they have really good form!
                Is it like arguing that the guy shooting 40+% from the three point line can't shoot threes?
                "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

                -Lance Stephenson

                Comment


                • Re: PLEASE HELP FIND A FELLOW HOOSIER

                  Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                  You don't know why the verdict matters? Maybe because it shows the checks and balances of our legal system so DAs can't just run over people, but they're expected to be able to present an actual case in front of a jury who then decides your fate. This isn't like the Amanda knox's case where the government is also the jury.

                  Verdicts are pretty important when you're trying to argue that ALL prosecutors only care about winning and nothing else. Obviously the state didn't win against Casey.

                  That's like arguing that X player is a really good shooter when they never make a shot. But they have really good form!
                  So you're saying that just because the verdict was not guilty, that was a good enough check and balance on the legal system. No harm no foul, same results. When the prosecution was arguing from a position of false data they were told was false and they never bothered to correct the information for the jury to consider. That's freaking huge to me.

                  Thats like Team A trading Player X, and providing a year old medical report to Team B.
                  You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                  Comment


                  • Re: PLEASE HELP FIND A FELLOW HOOSIER

                    I think it's a fair point; I don't follow this case, but if it is as you're describing, that is not okay for the prosecution to do that AFAIC.

                    Comment


                    • Re: PLEASE HELP FIND A FELLOW HOOSIER

                      Do you constantly make it a habit of putting words in peoples mouths? Please show me any where I e en implied its "no harm no foul."

                      The point is that our legal system takes unethical practices of DAs into account, which is why the burden of proof is on the prosecution and NOT the defense. Railroading a suspect isn't as easy as dropping your unregistered handgun beside he body and then figuring out a way to tie that gun to a suspect. You have to prove your case against the defendent.

                      Im not saying its right. Im sayinthere are built in checks to help eliminate it. But then again, you.think all DAs only care about winning so I doubt you're interested all that much with the truth.
                      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                      Comment


                      • Re: PLEASE HELP FIND A FELLOW HOOSIER

                        Here is an update.

                        http://www.indystar.com/article/2011...t|IndyStar.com

                        Source: Missing IU student Lauren Spierer barely functional before disappearance


                        Written by

                        Shawn Cohen
                        The (Westchester, N.Y.) Journal News




                        BLOOMINGTON, Ind. -- Indiana University sophomore Lauren Spierer was so incapacitated as she left her apartment building the morning she went missing that she stumbled out of her elevator, fell against a wall and had to be helped to her feet by a male friend who led her out of the building, a person who saw the video evidence said Thursday.

                        The evidence contradicts statements by friend Corey Rossman's lawyer, who said Spierer helped his client walk home June 3 after he was punched in the face and suffered memory loss.

                        "As for this idea that she was Florence Nightingale and taking him back because she was concerned, she wasn't in any condition to take care of herself, let alone another human being," said the source, who has seen the evidence but who was only willing to comment anonymously. "She couldn't even stand up on her own. I have difficulty with this individual (Rossman) saying he can't remember anything when he's the guy who picked her up and took her out of the building."

                        The 20-year-old from Greenburgh, N.Y., disappeared early June 3 after a night of partying.
                        Police have not publicized contents of the video, saying only that it shows Spierer and an acquaintance entering an apartment building about 2:30 a.m. and leaving about 15 minutes later. Another video surveillance camera, in an alley a few hundred yards up the street, captured footage of her and an acquaintance walking toward Rossman's building a few minutes later.

                        That was the last video evidence of her that morning.

                        According to lawyers for Rossman and his roommate, Mike Beth, she stopped in their apartment, then left after Beth put Rossman to bed.

                        Neighbor Jay Rosenbaum, a friend of theirs, said Spierer then visited his place. He told friends that he urged her to sleep over but let her leave after she showed she could walk without stumbling. He told police he saw her rounding a corner toward home about 4:15 a.m. That was the last reported sighting of her.

                        Police are continuing their investigation and suspect foul play in her disappearance, but they have not released any new details for weeks.

                        Police have said Spierer was intoxicated that morning. After going to Kilroy's Sports Bar with Rossman, where she left her cellphone and shoes, they returned to her apartment building. When they got there, Rossman was confronted by a group that included at least one friend of Spierer's boyfriend, Jesse Wolff.

                        Rossman's lawyer, Carl Salzmann, has said Rossman, a fellow IU student who met Spierer a couple of weeks earlier, was punched so hard that he can't remember the fight or any other interactions he had with her shortly before or after. Salzmann said June 8 that Spierer was the one who was "helping him home" because of the punch.

                        The source said he did not see footage of the confrontation, which took place on an upper floor of the apartment building. He said he saw video showing Spierer and Rossman afterward, exiting the elevator at the first floor.

                        "She comes stumbling out of the elevator, trips several times toward the corner of the lobby, where she comes to rest in the corner of the lobby, falls to her knees and leans against the wall for support until a male companion comes to her aid, gathers her under his arm and escorts her out of the front of the building," the source said. "That whole sequence lasts less than 60 seconds."

                        Asked about the source's account, Salzmann said Thursday that it's possible "the walking wounded were helped each other."

                        "I've always said he does not have any memory whatsoever," said Salzmann, who has not viewed the video.

                        Rossman and Rosenbaum have given DNA samples to investigators. Police declined to comment on the video.

                        Comment


                        • Re: PLEASE HELP FIND A FELLOW HOOSIER

                          indystar.com

                          has new details in the case today 07/22/2011

                          I would post it but everytime I post something it gets taken down



                          Article claims both Rosenbaum & Rossman have given DNA samples to the police. Why hasn't Wolfe? He was so worried about her being missing. It is his GF.

                          I think a random may be involved thou. He sees a drunk girl walking home from the bar. Opportunity. She was only 90 lbs. Keep in mind most 11 year olds weigh more than that ie Jr high kids. I dont think it was this persons intention to kill her just he may have wanted sex and she died during the act.

                          Comment


                          • Re: PLEASE HELP FIND A FELLOW HOOSIER

                            Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                            Here is an update.

                            http://www.indystar.com/article/2011...t|IndyStar.com

                            Source: Missing IU student Lauren Spierer barely functional before disappearance


                            Written by

                            Shawn Cohen
                            The (Westchester, N.Y.) Journal News




                            BLOOMINGTON, Ind. -- Indiana University sophomore Lauren Spierer was so incapacitated as she left her apartment building the morning she went missing that she stumbled out of her elevator, fell against a wall and had to be helped to her feet by a male friend who led her out of the building, a person who saw the video evidence said Thursday.

                            The evidence contradicts statements by friend Corey Rossman's lawyer, who said Spierer helped his client walk home June 3 after he was punched in the face and suffered memory loss.

                            "As for this idea that she was Florence Nightingale and taking him back because she was concerned, she wasn't in any condition to take care of herself, let alone another human being," said the source, who has seen the evidence but who was only willing to comment anonymously. "She couldn't even stand up on her own. I have difficulty with this individual (Rossman) saying he can't remember anything when he's the guy who picked her up and took her out of the building."

                            The 20-year-old from Greenburgh, N.Y., disappeared early June 3 after a night of partying.
                            Police have not publicized contents of the video, saying only that it shows Spierer and an acquaintance entering an apartment building about 2:30 a.m. and leaving about 15 minutes later. Another video surveillance camera, in an alley a few hundred yards up the street, captured footage of her and an acquaintance walking toward Rossman's building a few minutes later.

                            That was the last video evidence of her that morning.

                            According to lawyers for Rossman and his roommate, Mike Beth, she stopped in their apartment, then left after Beth put Rossman to bed.

                            Neighbor Jay Rosenbaum, a friend of theirs, said Spierer then visited his place. He told friends that he urged her to sleep over but let her leave after she showed she could walk without stumbling. He told police he saw her rounding a corner toward home about 4:15 a.m. That was the last reported sighting of her.

                            Police are continuing their investigation and suspect foul play in her disappearance, but they have not released any new details for weeks.

                            Police have said Spierer was intoxicated that morning. After going to Kilroy's Sports Bar with Rossman, where she left her cellphone and shoes, they returned to her apartment building. When they got there, Rossman was confronted by a group that included at least one friend of Spierer's boyfriend, Jesse Wolff.

                            Rossman's lawyer, Carl Salzmann, has said Rossman, a fellow IU student who met Spierer a couple of weeks earlier, was punched so hard that he can't remember the fight or any other interactions he had with her shortly before or after. Salzmann said June 8 that Spierer was the one who was "helping him home" because of the punch.

                            The source said he did not see footage of the confrontation, which took place on an upper floor of the apartment building. He said he saw video showing Spierer and Rossman afterward, exiting the elevator at the first floor.

                            "She comes stumbling out of the elevator, trips several times toward the corner of the lobby, where she comes to rest in the corner of the lobby, falls to her knees and leans against the wall for support until a male companion comes to her aid, gathers her under his arm and escorts her out of the front of the building," the source said. "That whole sequence lasts less than 60 seconds."

                            Asked about the source's account, Salzmann said Thursday that it's possible "the walking wounded were helped each other."

                            "I've always said he does not have any memory whatsoever," said Salzmann, who has not viewed the video.

                            Rossman and Rosenbaum have given DNA samples to investigators. Police declined to comment on the video.
                            Pure speculation, but this wreaks of date rape drug to me. I wonder if they've investigated any local dealers who have or may be dealing the drug.

                            Comment


                            • Re: PLEASE HELP FIND A FELLOW HOOSIER

                              Date Rape Drug. If she was in that capacity @ AROUND 2:20 - 2:45 AM no way she up and walking @ 4:15 am. She would be passed out w/ no movement if a date rape drug was applied. If she was given a date rape drug wouldnt Amnesia boy have finished the job in her apt? Did they make it there? Was his date rape plot foiled by Wolfe's friend?

                              I understand your logic. You may be right. I know somebody is lying 100%.

                              Comment


                              • Re: PLEASE HELP FIND A FELLOW HOOSIER

                                Originally posted by Lou Bega View Post
                                Date Rape Drug. If she was in that capacity @ AROUND 2:20 - 2:45 AM no way she up and walking @ 4:15 am. She would be passed out w/ no movement if a date rape drug was applied. If she was given a date rape drug wouldnt Amnesia boy have finished the job in her apt? Did they make it there? Was his date rape plot foiled by Wolfe's friend?

                                I understand your logic. You may be right. I know somebody is lying 100%.
                                I read that as they stumbled from her apartment.

                                Who are these people he got into a fight with? Have they talked with them. Do they know what the actual cause of the altercation was? Has memory loss guy filed assault charges against them? It's on tape right? If not, why hasn't he?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X