On Jan 21, 7:53 pm, "J.D. Walker" wrote:
The Historian wrote:
On Jan 21, 7:22 pm, "J.D. Walker" wrote:
The Historian wrote:
On Jan 21, 8:08 am, "Chess One" wrote:
She very clearly states, quoting Paul Truong:
"Do I know who did it? Absolutely no. Did I have anything to do with it?
Absolutely no."
Of which she comments: Can this be any clearer? If they wanted it in a
different format, they should have officially informed or explained it to
us.
You might want to explain to Suzie Chesspiece the difference between a
statement from Paul Truong and heresay from his wife. If you don't
understand it, find a child to explain it to you.
To be fair, I recall Paul's statement appearing on the Polgar blog. I
do not know if it appeared elsewhere. Probably it is still available in
the blog archives. Even so, that does not excuse the fact that it is
completely inadequate to serve the purpose of a signed legal document.
If Susan and Paul did not understand this they certainly could have
asked their own lawyers. It is not anyone else's responsibility to wet
nurse their ignorance.

Paul has a habit of using Susan's account to post things on their blog
at times. Susan may do the same with Paul's account. Perhaps Gregory
Alexander gets into the act at times. I do not know. Given this, who
actually made the statement on the blog is open to question.

Which explains why it's not acceptable as a written statement from
Paul Truong by anyone other than P Innes.

Now I am getting anon coaching from supporters via email. I prefer to
operate as an independent agent thank, you. Your points were
interesting, but you should make them yourself in this thread.

I thought I did make a point in the post you replied to. And I'm
hardly anonymous. Even your clueless antagonist P Innes knows who I
am, Reverend Walker.