Thoughts on the Minton matter
drich...@nyam.org
brief reading today has brought to mind some thoughts. Could some,
if not all, of the accusations against Laura Terepin be the result of
a poorly done or badly botched job by the private investigator?
Readers following this matter on a.r.s. know there are two individuals
named Laura Terepin. One is uninvolved in this matter -- an innocent
bystander, more or less. This Laura has stated she had a friend
who entered the CoS and became a highly-placed staff member in the
Chicago Org.
Robert S. Minton's accusations against the Laura Terepin who
volunteered for CAN includes the following information:
"Laura lied about living alone in Madison WI. She never mentioned
that one of her 3 house mates was a co$ chicago staff member."
Is it possible that Minton's private investigator has confused the
histories of the two Laura Terepins?
We have learned from William Barwell that the source of the CAN
volunteer's social security number is the private investigator. This
social security number is purportedly nearly identical to the SSN
of the other Laura. Is it possible this information is also the
result of sloppy research? Could the PI have obtained the SSN
of the "other" Laura and mistakenly assumed it was the SSN of
the Laura he was hired to investigate? The one-digit discrepancy
could easily be explained as a typo or a mistaken transcription.
I believe this scenario is just as plausible as the one forwarded by
Robert Minton.
Regarding the "proof" proffered by Minton regarding cell phones:
"Laura [sic] cell phones were billed to a Hollywood, CA private
investigator who seemingly had at least 13 other phones billed to
him that were linked to co$ operatives. Laura's boyfriend, who I went
dancing with in SFO with Stacy and the whore, works for the same
PI who handled the phones."
I wonder if these cell phone records apply to phone calls made
while Laura was in California. Is it possible that "Laura's
boyfriend" loaned her a cell phone to use while she was staying
in California? Since Minton explains that "Laura's boyfriend" worked
for the private investigator who was paying for the cell phone calls,
this sounds reasonable to me.
If this is the case, the above might cast suspicion on "Laura's
boyfriend," but I don't see how it proves anything about Laura herself
being an OSA spy.
Minton continues by saying:
"And the clincher is that daily calls to OSA in LA showed up on
Laura's phone records."
Did the calls show up on Laura's phone records or on the record of
calls made by the cell phone Laura was using while in California?
Is it possible these calls were made by "Laura's boyfriend" and not
by Laura herself?
If this is the case, again "Laura's boyfriend" might be suspected
rather than Laura herself.
The fact that Minton continues to insist Cynthia Kisser will not
be given access to this report leads me to question whether the
Factnet board and its counsel realize the investigation was badly
flawed and poorly conducted.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Zane
>Could some,
>if not all, of the accusations against Laura Terepin be the result of
>a poorly done or badly botched job by the private investigator?
I don't see why not. Apparently we are to assume that any PI is god
and not question his conclusions. Of course we can't be sure what
those conclusions are since we are not going to get to see them. And
questioning the conclusions is not a possibility since we won't get to
see the background material either.
Also, it seems clear that Minton hasn't seen the supported evidence
himself and finds the PI's "summary report" as sufficient reason to
start calling someone an "OSA Whore".
>"Laura lied about living alone in Madison WI. She never mentioned
>that one of her 3 house mates was a co$ chicago staff member."
>
>Is it possible that Minton's private investigator has confused the
>histories of the two Laura Terepins?
Yes, that is a possible interpretation given the spotty data we have.
>We have learned from William Barwell that the source of the CAN
>volunteer's social security number is the private investigator. This
>social security number is purportedly nearly identical to the SSN
>of the other Laura. Is it possible this information is also the
>result of sloppy research? Could the PI have obtained the SSN
>of the "other" Laura and mistakenly assumed it was the SSN of
>the Laura he was hired to investigate? The one-digit discrepancy
>could easily be explained as a typo or a mistaken transcription.
My first reaction to the off-by-one story was that it was simply a
type. That is the most obvious explanation given the spotty data we
have.
>I believe this scenario is just as plausible as the one forwarded by
>Robert Minton.
I believe it is _more_ plausible.
>I wonder if these cell phone records apply to phone calls made
>while Laura was in California. Is it possible that "Laura's
>boyfriend" loaned her a cell phone to use while she was staying
>in California? Since Minton explains that "Laura's boyfriend" worked
>for the private investigator who was paying for the cell phone calls,
>this sounds reasonable to me.
Good catch! I may not like a lot of your theories, but your attention
to detail has always been good.
>If this is the case, the above might cast suspicion on "Laura's
>boyfriend,"
Bing!
>"And the clincher is that daily calls to OSA in LA showed up on
>Laura's phone records."
Now, given the question you've raised about actual control of the
phone, this is obviously not a clincher.
>If this is the case, again "Laura's boyfriend" might be suspected
>rather than Laura herself.
Bing! And behind door number 3?
>The fact that Minton continues to insist Cynthia Kisser will not
>be given access to this report leads me to question whether the
>Factnet board and its counsel realize the investigation was badly
>flawed and poorly conducted.
That's my guess at this time.
Zane - KoX, SP4, Club Nine
Free meme innoculations!
Zane
One more thing. I have to admit that it is extremely disconcerting to
find myself agreeing with you, Bernie, and WGert on anything. Life is
strange.
Bernie
>I haven't had much time lately to keep up with the newsgroup, but a
>brief reading today has brought to mind some thoughts. Could some,
>if not all, of the accusations against Laura Terepin be the result of
>a poorly done or badly botched job by the private investigator?
>
>Readers following this matter on a.r.s. know there are two individuals
>named Laura Terepin. One is uninvolved in this matter -- an innocent
>bystander, more or less. This Laura has stated she had a friend
>who entered the CoS and became a highly-placed staff member in the
>Chicago Org.
>
>Robert S. Minton's accusations against the Laura Terepin who
>volunteered for CAN includes the following information:
>
>"Laura lied about living alone in Madison WI. She never mentioned
>that one of her 3 house mates was a co$ chicago staff member."
>
>Is it possible that Minton's private investigator has confused the
>histories of the two Laura Terepins?
Apparently, the PI knew about the other Laura, but
the coincidence with the Chicago org is
remarkable. I had the impression that the other
Laura lost sight of her friend, though, so it
would be strange that she would actually be living
with her. OTOH, Oblivion also has a good point
that if Minton knew about the other Laura, it's
strange the he didn't come up with the info about
Laura possibly stealing someone else's identity.
>We have learned from William Barwell that the source of the CAN
>volunteer's social security number is the private investigator. This
>social security number is purportedly nearly identical to the SSN
>of the other Laura. Is it possible this information is also the
>result of sloppy research? Could the PI have obtained the SSN
>of the "other" Laura and mistakenly assumed it was the SSN of
>the Laura he was hired to investigate? The one-digit discrepancy
>could easily be explained as a typo or a mistaken transcription.
Mmm... A bit far fetched, I think.
>I believe this scenario is just as plausible as the one forwarded by
>Robert Minton.
"As plausible" doesn't mean much, does it?
>Regarding the "proof" proffered by Minton regarding cell phones:
>
>"Laura [sic] cell phones were billed to a Hollywood, CA private
>investigator who seemingly had at least 13 other phones billed to
>him that were linked to co$ operatives. Laura's boyfriend, who I went
>dancing with in SFO with Stacy and the whore, works for the same
>PI who handled the phones."
>
>I wonder if these cell phone records apply to phone calls made
>while Laura was in California. Is it possible that "Laura's
>boyfriend" loaned her a cell phone to use while she was staying
>in California? Since Minton explains that "Laura's boyfriend" worked
>for the private investigator who was paying for the cell phone calls,
>this sounds reasonable to me.
Now that's an *excellent* point, Diane! This seems
very logical indeed. Good catch!
>If this is the case, the above might cast suspicion on "Laura's
>boyfriend," but I don't see how it proves anything about Laura herself
>being an OSA spy.
>
>Minton continues by saying:
>
>"And the clincher is that daily calls to OSA in LA showed up on
>Laura's phone records."
>
>Did the calls show up on Laura's phone records or on the record of
>calls made by the cell phone Laura was using while in California?
>Is it possible these calls were made by "Laura's boyfriend" and not
>by Laura herself?
>
>If this is the case, again "Laura's boyfriend" might be suspected
>rather than Laura herself.
>
>The fact that Minton continues to insist Cynthia Kisser will not
>be given access to this report leads me to question whether the
>Factnet board and its counsel realize the investigation was badly
>flawed and poorly conducted.
Seems like Big Bob didn't see the report himself.
From what I understand, they may even be willing,
under extreme circumstance, to show the report to
Kisser for reading but not keeping. But I thinks
this is a red herring. The report is a second hand
interpretation. Cynthia should have access to the
original records themselves.
Rebecca Hartong
Zane wrote in message <370803ff....@enews.newsguy.com>...
>Diane,
>
>One more thing. I have to admit that it is extremely disconcerting to
>find myself agreeing with you, Bernie, and WGert on anything. Life is
>strange.
It's strange, Zane, but it's *good*.
drich...@nyam.org
wrote:
>On Tue, 26 Jan 1999 17:00:26 GMT
>drich...@nyam.org wrote:
>
>>I haven't had much time lately to keep up with the newsgroup, but a
>>brief reading today has brought to mind some thoughts. Could some,
>>if not all, of the accusations against Laura Terepin be the result of
>>a poorly done or badly botched job by the private investigator?
>>
>>Readers following this matter on a.r.s. know there are two individuals
>>named Laura Terepin. One is uninvolved in this matter -- an innocent
>>bystander, more or less. This Laura has stated she had a friend
>>who entered the CoS and became a highly-placed staff member in the
>>Chicago Org.
>>
>>Robert S. Minton's accusations against the Laura Terepin who
>>volunteered for CAN includes the following information:
>>
>>"Laura lied about living alone in Madison WI. She never mentioned
>>that one of her 3 house mates was a co$ chicago staff member."
>>
>>Is it possible that Minton's private investigator has confused the
>>histories of the two Laura Terepins?
>
>Apparently, the PI knew about the other Laura, but
>the coincidence with the Chicago org is
>remarkable. I had the impression that the other
>Laura lost sight of her friend, though, so it
>would be strange that she would actually be living
>with her.
Note Minton doesn't specify *when* Laura was living
in Madison, WI. Is this information recent, or is it 5
or 10 years old? Minton writes about it in the past tense.
Perhaps the PI located a record about a Laura Terepin
who was living with a scientologist years ago, before the
Laura at NWU changed her name. Perhaps that's
where he got the social security number, but copied down
one digit incorrectly from the record.
I agree that's a lot of speculation, but I think it might be
within the realm of possibility.
>OTOH, Oblivion also has a good point
>that if Minton knew about the other Laura, it's
>strange the he didn't come up with the info about
>Laura possibly stealing someone else's identity.
Perhaps because the PI was so eager to please his
client. He may have *wanted* the data to fit. Again,
this is speculation only.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Ishmael
<36adea19...@enews.newsguy.com>, drich...@nyam.org wrote thusly...
>
[...]
>Robert S. Minton's accusations against the Laura Terepin who
>volunteered for CAN includes the following information:
>
>"Laura lied about living alone in Madison WI. She never mentioned
>that one of her 3 house mates was a co$ chicago staff member."
>
>Is it possible that Minton's private investigator has confused the
>histories of the two Laura Terepins?
All kinds of stuff is possible, if your maunderings are correct then it seems
reasonable that the wrongly mailigned LT could easily correct such a mistake.
>We have learned from William Barwell that the source of the CAN
>volunteer's social security number is the private investigator. This
>social security number is purportedly nearly identical to the SSN
>of the other Laura. Is it possible this information is also the
>result of sloppy research? Could the PI have obtained the SSN
>of the "other" Laura and mistakenly assumed it was the SSN of
>the Laura he was hired to investigate? The one-digit discrepancy
>could easily be explained as a typo or a mistaken transcription.
Again, why didn't LT correct the error?
>I believe this scenario is just as plausible as the one forwarded by
>Robert Minton.
Sure, but why go to the trouble to hypothesize at this stage of the game? If
any element of your hypothesis was correct the matter would have been cleared up
by now.
>Regarding the "proof" proffered by Minton regarding cell phones:
>
>"Laura [sic] cell phones were billed to a Hollywood, CA private
>investigator who seemingly had at least 13 other phones billed to
>him that were linked to co$ operatives. Laura's boyfriend, who I went
>dancing with in SFO with Stacy and the whore, works for the same
>PI who handled the phones."
>
>I wonder if these cell phone records apply to phone calls made
>while Laura was in California. Is it possible that "Laura's
>boyfriend" loaned her a cell phone to use while she was staying
>in California? Since Minton explains that "Laura's boyfriend" worked
>for the private investigator who was paying for the cell phone calls,
>this sounds reasonable to me.
If it happened that way, but apparently it didn't. It's obvious that FACTNet's
PI was supplied with a cell phone # associated with LT to check out. If it
indeed _was_ a borrowed phone the crux of the matter rests on who had physical
posession of the phone during the time the calls were made and that would be LT.
>If this is the case, the above might cast suspicion on "Laura's
>boyfriend," but I don't see how it proves anything about Laura herself
>being an OSA spy.
Gee, how convenient that he was sleeping with her, no?
>Minton continues by saying:
>
>"And the clincher is that daily calls to OSA in LA showed up on
>Laura's phone records."
>
>Did the calls show up on Laura's phone records or on the record of
>calls made by the cell phone Laura was using while in California?
>Is it possible these calls were made by "Laura's boyfriend" and not
>by Laura herself?
>
>If this is the case, again "Laura's boyfriend" might be suspected
>rather than Laura herself.
You're being redundant here.
>The fact that Minton continues to insist Cynthia Kisser will not
>be given access to this report leads me to question whether the
>Factnet board and its counsel realize the investigation was badly
>flawed and poorly conducted.
Do you _really_ believe that Bob and Stacy and Jesse and Grady would all
conspire to cover up a faulty PI report?! Perhaps that is what _you_ would do
in that scenario but there is no reason to believe that any of the FACTNet
directors would.
Ishmael
>Diane Richardson
>ref...@bway.net
***************** Meet me in Clearwater, December, 5 1999 *****************
Doubts of all things earthly, and intuitions of some things heavenly; this
combination makes neither believer nor infidel, but makes a man who regards
them both with equal eye.--Herman Melville
http://www.offlines.org/my_essay.html
colette
(Bernie) wrote:
]On Tue, 26 Jan 1999 17:00:26 GMT
]drich...@nyam.org wrote:
]>Robert S. Minton's accusations against the Laura Terepin who
]>volunteered for CAN includes the following information:
]>"Laura lied about living alone in Madison WI. She never mentioned
]>that one of her 3 house mates was a co$ chicago staff member."
]>Is it possible that Minton's private investigator has confused the
]>histories of the two Laura Terepins?
]
]Apparently, the PI knew about the other Laura, but
]the coincidence with the Chicago org is
]remarkable. I had the impression that the other
]Laura lost sight of her friend, though, so it
]would be strange that she would actually be living
]with her.
But, wait. Does the "fake" Laura supposedly live
in Madison, WI with a CO$ staff member *now*, or
was this a living arrangement that existed some
time in the past. If it existed some time in the
past, then it could be possible that the histories
of the two Laura's got mixed up. If the Northwestern
Laura ever lived in Madison, WI with her Scieno
ex-friend, it'd be likely. Of course, we don't
know who lived where and when, do we? :-)
drich...@nyam.org
>Carl <cf...@stc.net> wrote:
>
>>Trace Mashburn wrote:
>>>
>>> >John wrote in message <36A88002...@aol.com>...
>>> >Guaranteeing victory??
>>> >
>>> >Come on, Ray. Is it really your place to put that kind of pressure on
>>> >yourself and your teammates? As if there isn't enough SuperBowl hype.
>>>
>>> I saw that on HBO last night, and I think it was taken out of context.
>>> Collinsworth was trying to goad Ray into guaranteeing the vicotry, and
in
>>> the end, Ray was laughing and jokingly said, "Oh what the heck, yea, I
will
>>> guarantee a win" It was more in the context of a joke, and the attitude
>>> seemed to me to be one of "what do I have to lose".
>>
>>Just our old friend "Flinch" Collinsworth trying to create trouble for
>>the "Dirty Birds"!
>You nailed it Carl. Crissy is just trying to pad his hand so he can
>again pick anybody who's playing the Falcons. Let's see . . . he
>picked the Saints, Detroit, Miami, SF and the Vikes - he's on a 5 game
>losing roll. He's almost as bad as Swami.
And I GUARANTEE that he will mention Ray's "gurantee" on Super Bowl
Sunday. What a dickweed...
Michael W.
Zane
Larry Cottrill wrote:
> John Frollo wrote:
> >
> > Tom Archer wrote:
> >
> > > >>>
> > > It seems ever since then, they played conservative.
> > > <<<
> > >
> > > "seems"?! Believe me. I was there. They got REAL conservative. About the
> > > only time they even threw deep after that was on third and long when
> > > everyone in the dome knew it was coming. Remember all year, when they would
> > > do play action bombs and flee-flickers on first and second down? After that
> > > fumble, it's like they played scared. VERY disappointing.
> > >
> > > Tom
> >
> > Yep, I think Buddy Ryan got a bad rap for never winning a playoff game. Maybe
> > it has more to do with Cunnigham tightening up in the big game.
>
> That must explain why Buddy had so much success when he left Philly...
Houston had a top-rated defense with him in just one year. He turned the Cardinals
into an 8-8 team his first year. He won a Super Bowl ring with the Jets and Bears.
Not too shabby...
Zane
Dave Bird
>I haven't had much time lately to keep up with the newsgroup, but a
>brief reading today has brought to mind some thoughts. Could some,
>if not all, of the accusations against Laura Terepin be the result of
>a poorly done or badly botched job by the private investigator?
Unlikely -- you are just wasting our time with a red herring
(Or should that be a red terrapin?).
You should also consider the following information. There is a
woman at North Western University who has the maiden name
Laura Terepin. She says she was contacted by Dan Liepold's
office over the activities of this other person who had been
going under the name Laura Terepin; and that, having checked
the SS#s, this person was using an SS# one figure off from Laura's.
Laura says that, Terepin thus spelled being a rare name in her
ancestor's country (Italy?), she knows there are only a handful
of people with that name in America and all coming from the same
family's immigration. It is unlikely there would be an extra
Terepin unknown to her and, if so, implausible there would
be only one -- what, no relatives? -- and stretching coincidence
beyond belief that her forename would also be "Laura";
the SS# makes it look much more like identity theft.
Laura volunteers that she has an ex-friend now high up in
a CoS org and, while the faker is not this ex-friend (photographs
have been compared), it is possible the ex-friend organised the
scam and had a hireling use Laura's name.
This has been checked rather a lot by phone-calls, reference books,
and so forth.
Why I think you're just being silly and mischievous is that I can't
see WHAT mistake the PI could have made. I cannot believe that,
having the one SS#, he "accidentally convinced himself" that the
other SS# was one digit off. It just doesn't seem the sort of
thing that would happen: there are certain very likely mistakes
like confusing similarly spelled names etc, and there are some
things where I just can't see any mechanism would have led
to the error you allege.
No, you are just being silly again.
|~/ |~/
~~|;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;||';-._.-;'^';||_.-;'^'0-|~~
P | Woof Woof, Glug Glug ||____________|| 0 | P
O | Who Drowned the Judge's Dog? | . . . . . . . '----. 0 | O
O | answers on *---|_______________ @__o0 | O
L |{a href="news:alt.religion.scientology"}{/a}_____________|/_______| L
and{a href="http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/clam/lynx/q0.html"}{/a}XemuSP4(:)
colette
Zane wrote in message <370b6dc9....@enews.newsguy.com>...
>On 26 Jan 1999 13:59:58 -0800, Ishmael <ishma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Do you _really_ believe that Bob and Stacy and Jesse and Grady would
all
>>conspire to cover up a faulty PI report?!
>
>this.
I did not originate the rumor about Grady. I have no
first-hand knowledge of Grady's involvement in this
matter. Quit picking on me! :-)
colette
BigDirty wrote:
> JUST WAIT TWO WEEKS FOR A GOOD OLE ASS WHIPPIN !!!!!!!!!!!!
> OLD HORSE FACE WON'T KNOW WHERE TO THROW AND DAVIS WON'T BE ABLE TO RUN
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> THIS WILL TRULY BE A PLEASURE TO WHIP THE BRONCO'S ASS AND SHUT SOME BIG
> MOUTHS .
> GO FALCS GO ,
> THE TRUE BIGDIRTY !!!!!!!!!!!
truth in labeling anyway - go clean up....
--
Best,
Chris -^-^-^- http://home.earthlink.net/~lightpony/index.html -^-^-^-
colette
Zane
others. I was on Pipeline just like Jeff at Mx South. Mindspring
bought out Pipeline a couple of years ago. I thought I was in trouble
but I was wrong. Mindspring is great.
Good luck,
Todd
pmah...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>O.K. Out of frustration I post my question. What service are you
>guys using and getting good quality service. I had MSN network for a
>year and they were as good as cold chunky vomit. Now I have juno.com
>with a goofy email system, alot of bad connections and not many bells
>and whistles. In Dallas/Fort Worth who would be the hands down
>internet leader?
>doctorolds
>-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Todd Heemsbergen 25+ & 30+ Int. Motocross Racer - 1999 and 1998 KX250's
Thanks D&S Kawasaki, Pro Circuit, Winners' Circle Academy, Boyesen, Twin Air, TSS Graphics, Works Connection, Thor, MX South.
The Heemsbergens' Motocross Related Web Site http://www.pipeline.com/~toddsvette
Zane
Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
YES.....YES.....YES.......YES......YES
YES.....YES......YES.......YES......YES
--WebTV-Mail-693608120-1551
Content-Description: signature
Content-Disposition: Inline
Content-Type: Text/HTML; Charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
<html><body
background="http://members.tripod.com/~mintcar/breez.gif"><body text
text=cornsilk><table><tr><td align="center" bgcolor="black"><font
size="5"color="gold"><img
src="http://members.tripod.com/~webtv16/broncos.gif"width=400height=200></center><embedsrc=embedsrc=""autostart=trueloop=2></html>
--WebTV-Mail-693608120-1551--
Diane Richardson
>On Tue, 26 Jan 1999 17:00:26 GMT, in article
><36adea19...@enews.newsguy.com>, drich...@nyam.org wrote thusly...
>>
>
>[...]
>
>>Robert S. Minton's accusations against the Laura Terepin who
>>volunteered for CAN includes the following information:
>>
>>"Laura lied about living alone in Madison WI. She never mentioned
>>that one of her 3 house mates was a co$ chicago staff member."
>>
>>Is it possible that Minton's private investigator has confused the
>>histories of the two Laura Terepins?
>
>All kinds of stuff is possible, if your maunderings are correct then it seems
>reasonable that the wrongly mailigned LT could easily correct such a mistake.
She might choose to correct it a forum other than
alt.religion.scientology. A court of law, perhaps?
>>We have learned from William Barwell that the source of the CAN
>>volunteer's social security number is the private investigator. This
>>social security number is purportedly nearly identical to the SSN
>>of the other Laura. Is it possible this information is also the
>>result of sloppy research? Could the PI have obtained the SSN
>>of the "other" Laura and mistakenly assumed it was the SSN of
>>the Laura he was hired to investigate? The one-digit discrepancy
>>could easily be explained as a typo or a mistaken transcription.
>
>Again, why didn't LT correct the error?
Perhaps her attorney is collecting incriminating material from
this newsgroup right now. This is mere speculation on my part,
but it could be possible.
>>I believe this scenario is just as plausible as the one forwarded by
>>Robert Minton.
>
>Sure, but why go to the trouble to hypothesize at this stage of the game?
There has been plenty of hypothesizing about this matter on a.r.s.
My contribution is no different.
>If
>any element of your hypothesis was correct the matter would have been cleared up
>by now.
Not necessarily.
>>Regarding the "proof" proffered by Minton regarding cell phones:
>>
>>"Laura [sic] cell phones were billed to a Hollywood, CA private
>>investigator who seemingly had at least 13 other phones billed to
>>him that were linked to co$ operatives. Laura's boyfriend, who I went
>>dancing with in SFO with Stacy and the whore, works for the same
>>PI who handled the phones."
>>
>>I wonder if these cell phone records apply to phone calls made
>>while Laura was in California. Is it possible that "Laura's
>>boyfriend" loaned her a cell phone to use while she was staying
>>in California? Since Minton explains that "Laura's boyfriend" worked
>>for the private investigator who was paying for the cell phone calls,
>>this sounds reasonable to me.
>
>If it happened that way, but apparently it didn't.
I have seen nothing offered here by Robert S. Minton or any
other individual representing Factnet that indicates anything
different.
>It's obvious that FACTNet's
>PI was supplied with a cell phone # associated with LT to check out. If it
>indeed _was_ a borrowed phone the crux of the matter rests on who had physical
>posession of the phone during the time the calls were made and that would be LT.
Was she? How do you know that?
>>If this is the case, the above might cast suspicion on "Laura's
>>boyfriend," but I don't see how it proves anything about Laura herself
>>being an OSA spy.
>
>Gee, how convenient that he was sleeping with her, no?
Was he? How do you know that "fact"?
>>Minton continues by saying:
>>
>>"And the clincher is that daily calls to OSA in LA showed up on
>>Laura's phone records."
>>
>>Did the calls show up on Laura's phone records or on the record of
>>calls made by the cell phone Laura was using while in California?
>>Is it possible these calls were made by "Laura's boyfriend" and not
>>by Laura herself?
>>
>>If this is the case, again "Laura's boyfriend" might be suspected
>>rather than Laura herself.
>
>You're being redundant here.
>
>>The fact that Minton continues to insist Cynthia Kisser will not
>>be given access to this report leads me to question whether the
>>Factnet board and its counsel realize the investigation was badly
>>flawed and poorly conducted.
>
>Do you _really_ believe that Bob and Stacy and Jesse and Grady would all
>conspire to cover up a faulty PI report?! Perhaps that is what _you_ would do
>in that scenario but there is no reason to believe that any of the FACTNet
>directors would.
No, I think Bob and Stacy and Jesse and Grady don't know much
at all about the private investigator's investigation. How much do
they know about it? Or don't you know?
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Hartley Patterson
> Readers following this matter on a.r.s. know there are two individuals
> named Laura Terepin.
Well, not exactly. I at least am fairly convinced that there is one
individual whose maiden name is Laura Terepin, and another who has been
using the name Laura Terepin but was not born or otherwise otherwise
aquired that name innocently.
Terepin is, in the USA, a _very_ rare surname. In one database of
deceased Americans 2 out of 115,000,000 in fact (see another post of
mine).
'Unaccused' Laura believes that her immediate family are the only
Terepins in the USA.
The odds against there being two Laura Terepins, one of whose maiden
name was known to the CoS and was known by the CoS to be no longer in
use, the other who appeared later on at CAN and then with Minton et al
with an unknown past, have to be high.
All the 'accused' Laura has to do for this aspect to be settled is to
produce proof of identity - birth certificate, other stuff that
demonstrates that she, Laura Terepin, had an existence before she got
involved with CAN. If she has been falsely accused by FACTNET, I would
expect her to be _rushing_ to a lawyer to show him such documents. I
would expect her to be contacting her name double: "Gosh, we both have
the same name! Could we be related? Here are my family details!!"
Until I hear of such an effort, I'm obliged to conclude that the
'accused' Laura Terepin is using a false name which connects her with
the CoS.
--
Hartley Patterson
http://village.vossnet.co.uk/h/hpttrsn/
An old universe and a medieval spreadsheet
Featuring JRR Tolkien, Charles Fort and L Ron Hubbard
Zane
>Do you _really_ believe that Bob and Stacy and Jesse and Grady would all
>conspire to cover up a faulty PI report?!
Uhm, this is the first I've heard of Grady having anything to do with
this.
Zane - KoX, SP4, Club Nine
Free meme innoculations!
Zane
>It would actually be rather funny, were it not for the fact that real
>damage has been done by the stupidity and vileness of the initial posts.
Yep.
Zane
<hpt...@REMOVE.ME.vossnet.co.uk> wrote:
>Until I hear of such an effort, I'm obliged to conclude that the
>'accused' Laura Terepin is using a false name which connects her with
>the CoS.
Bad logic Hartley.
Even if it was demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that LT is
really someone else that still provides zero evidence with regard to
alleged connections to the co$.
Remember the mafia connection? Can you think of any other reason
someone might take on a false name? I thought so.
Zane
wrote:
>I did not originate the rumor about Grady. I have no
>first-hand knowledge of Grady's involvement in this
>matter.
That's not what I heard from two reliable sources who have asked to
remain anonymous.
Baba ROM DOS
<36adea19...@enews.newsguy.com>...
>I haven't had much time lately to keep up with the newsgroup, but a
>brief reading today has brought to mind some thoughts. Could some,
>if not all, of the accusations against Laura Terepin be the result of
>a poorly done or badly botched job by the private investigator?
It would certainly appear that some amount of identity theft was done,
either deliberately by "Laura Terepin" and her supposed associates, or
inadvertently by the PI, as you suggest. Very likely a combination of the
two: if the CAN Laura borrowed a few details from the real Laura, the PI
might easily have been led to fill in the blanks with other data for the
real
Laura Terepin. But according to Minton, the PI was aware that there were
two women using that name, so he wasn't *completely* confused.
...
>We have learned from William Barwell that the source of the CAN
>volunteer's social security number is the private investigator. This
>social security number is purportedly nearly identical to the SSN
>of the other Laura. Is it possible this information is also the
>result of sloppy research? Could the PI have obtained the SSN
>of the "other" Laura and mistakenly assumed it was the SSN of
>the Laura he was hired to investigate? The one-digit discrepancy
>could easily be explained as a typo or a mistaken transcription.
I think it is very probably a typo, but it is a precarious leap of faith
to assume that it was on the part of the PI. According to Minton,
it was the PI who identified the fact that there were two "Laura
Terepins", and it was he who reported that their respective
SSNs differed in one digit. Let's suppose that it was the PI
who mis-transcribed the SSN of the CAN Laura, and that
in fact she was not only using Laura Terepin's name but
her exact SSN as well. Personally, I would find that more,
and not less, suspicious, but I don't think it changes anything.
>I believe this scenario is just as plausible as the one forwarded by
>Robert Minton.
The only thing it *might* cast doubt upon is Minton's complaint that
the CAN Laura had lied to him about details of her personal life.
It is largely irrelevant to the question of whether the CAN Laura was
an agent of the "Church".
...
>The fact that Minton continues to insist Cynthia Kisser will not
>be given access to this report leads me to question whether the
>Factnet board and its counsel realize the investigation was badly
>flawed and poorly conducted.
You began by asking if the investigation might have been flawed. Of
course, it might have been, but that cannot readily be determined from
the facts in evidence. You end by treating that possibility as a fact,
which
you have by no stretch of the imagination demonstrated it to be.
Deana Marie Holmes
>In article <3707025c....@enews.newsguy.com>,
>Zane <z_thomas#ars#@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>On Tue, 26 Jan 1999 17:00:26 GMT, drich...@nyam.org wrote:
>>
>>>Could some,
>>>if not all, of the accusations against Laura Terepin be the result of
>>>a poorly done or badly botched job by the private investigator?
>>
>>I don't see why not. Apparently we are to assume that any PI is god
>>and not question his conclusions. Of course we can't be sure what
>>those conclusions are since we are not going to get to see them. And
>>questioning the conclusions is not a possibility since we won't get to
>>see the background material either.
>>
>>Also, it seems clear that Minton hasn't seen the supported evidence
>>himself and finds the PI's "summary report" as sufficient reason to
>>start calling someone an "OSA Whore".
>
>After reading the irc logs both with Kady and Karin, I infer that
>some if not all of the information gathered by the PI was illegally
>obtained, and that's why Dan Leipold told Bob Minton that he advised
>him, _as his lawyer_, not to read the report itself but a summary
>of it.
>
>I just assume that most of us here will never be privy to the story
>behind any of this commotion that somehow anyone involved with
>FACTnet feels compelled to provide periodically.
>
>Oh, probably a few, like Rod or Keith, will be favored with some of the
>information, if for no other reason that whenever the issue surfaces they
>will be settled right in position to sniff reproachfully and tell us that
>we have no right to criticize _because_ we don't know the whole story.
>
>It would actually be rather funny, were it not for the fact that real
>damage has been done by the stupidity and vileness of the initial posts.
Thank you for your observations. I think you're on target wrt Bob
actually seeing the evidence.
If that's not the case, then Bob should be fearless in reviewing the
evidence.
Deana Marie Holmes / member of the "Gang of Three" (Rod Keller)
The Few, The Proud, The Banned (2x + 1 ISP on Scientology ban list)
$cientology: Sponsor Windows84: "Where CAN'T you go today?
mir...@xmission.com
Steve Zadarnowski
>I haven't had much time lately to keep up with the newsgroup, but a
>brief reading today has brought to mind some thoughts. Could some,
>if not all, of the accusations against Laura Terepin be the result of
>a poorly done or badly botched job by the private investigator?
>
>Readers following this matter on a.r.s. know there are two individuals
>named Laura Terepin. One is uninvolved in this matter -- an innocent
>bystander, more or less.
Two Laura Terepins? Is this for real, or do I get to hear there's
an innocent L Ron Hubbard and a tall, unrelated David Miscavige
also in the wings?
S
webb
> >
> >It would actually be rather funny, were it not for the fact that real
> >damage has been done by the stupidity and vileness of the initial posts.
>
> Thank you for your observations. I think you're on target wrt Bob
> actually seeing the evidence.
>
> If that's not the case, then Bob should be fearless in reviewing the
> evidence.
>
I think when one uses the word "whore" in a subject line, it tends to
make people suspicious. If Bob would have show some restraint perhaps
everyone would have taken him more seriously. I suppose after Dorian...
Jesse's post actually shocked me when I read it. I'm no prude at all,
but the part about the cold anatomy, I've never heard it described the
way he does. Can a man actually tell if a woman is "turned off" by body
temperature? I've played Meg Ryan a few times IRL and never had any
complaints. :-)
Anyway, it doesn't matter. In light of the IRC logs, I am satisfied
that there is a plant, was a plant, whatever. When was the last time
the fake Laura was seen by anyone at Factnet? Has that been posted
before, sorry if I missed it.
Deana: did the logs satisfy you in anyway? Kady? Can someone email me
with the IRC "scoop." I'm too lowly to know the truth, I understand
that, but still, I VANT to know! :-)
take care
joni
Noel Chiappa
<Hi, y'all, most of you don't know me, but I'm a long-time ARS lurker (one of
many :-), one who's posted a few times over the years. I've been in private
email contact with many of you, though.>
In article <78mqe7$kp4$1...@majesty.lightlink.com>
"Baba ROM DOS" <Baba_R...@hotmail.com> writes:
> drich...@nyam.org wrote in message
> <36adea19...@enews.newsguy.com>
> But according to Minton, the PI was aware that there were two women
> using that name, so he wasn't *completely* confused.
Eh? I've looked at all Minton's posts on the topic of LT which I can find in
Deja News (16 of them, amongst a ton of forgeries), as well as the two posted
IRC logs (all of that searching was for a different point, to come), and I
don't see anything where Bob indicates that the PI reported this difference.
He does confirm the conversation between Leipold and the NWU LT, and the
difference in SSN's, but that's it. Can you provide a reference?
Anyway, I digress.
>> We have learned from William Barwell that the source of the CAN
>> volunteer's social security number is the private investigator.
Although I think that's a plausible assumption, all Barwell said, in the
messages from him about it that I have looked at (sorry, didn't have the
intestinal fortitude to wade through all the forgeries in Deja News, wasted
too much time on research for this reply already today), is that Dan Leipold
had it when he called the NWU LT. Can you please provide a reference?
(FWIW, I doubt a good lawyer, as I assume on no factual basis Dan Leipold to
be, would divulge that sort of source information, but this is all more
digression. On to my main point.)
>> This social security number is purportedly nearly identical to the SSN
>> of the other Laura. Is it possible this information is also the result
>> of sloppy research? ... The one-digit discrepancy could easily be
>> explained as a typo or a mistaken transcription.
> I think it is very probably a typo
Everyone is assuming that this is the explanation (assuming the reports of
the two numbers are true, of course :-), but now that I think about it, I'm
not so sure. Another possibility (NB terminology!) has suggested itself to
me, and I thought you might all want to ponder it.
I recall some discussion about how the CAN LT had been a volunteer, not an
employee, and how this might affect her legal standing, in a way that is
positive for her. (Again, sorry for not including references, but I don't
think it's important for this point.) It is possible (NB terminology) that
this was not an accident, but deliberate, to reduce her legal exposure.
Perhaps (NB terminology) the same is true of this SSN "error". Note that
identity theft for criminal or fraudulent purposes is now a federal crime,
with a very stiff jail sentence. Use of someone else's name *and* SSN would
be pretty much prima facie evidence of identity theft (although of course
that still leaves the criminal/fraudulent part of the equation). However, use
of a fake SSN is probably something a lot more minor.
So, perhaps (NB terminology) it's not an error, but deliberate. Of course,
that leaves the question "why make it one digit off, and not a whole different
number"? Well, there are plausible possible (NB terminology) explanations for
that too. If checked, a totally bogus SSN might raise flags, whereas one that
was one off could be dismissed with "oh, she just wrote it down wrong". Of
course, if challenged, she'd be in a spot, but it was a risk worth running.
After all, if called on it, and she had to give the real one, she'd be no
worse off than if she'd given the real one up front. In the interim, she
(and/or her hypothetical controllers) could hope that either i) they wouldn't
notice, or ii) assume it was an error and correct it for her, without asking.
To speculate (NB terminology) further, what's interesting is that usually
identity theft *is* for fraudulent purposes - someone wants to use someone
else's credit record, etc. If the SSN was deliberately given incorrectly, this
writes off that possible cause, since an incorrect SSN would not give the good
credit history.
Noel
Hartley Patterson
> >Until I hear of such an effort, I'm obliged to conclude that the
> >'accused' Laura Terepin is using a false name which connects her with
> >the CoS.
>
> Bad logic Hartley.
>
> Even if it was demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that LT is
> really someone else that still provides zero evidence with regard to
> alleged connections to the co$.
>
> Remember the mafia connection? Can you think of any other reason
> someone might take on a false name? I thought so.
Sure, it's not evidence. In my post I was going by probabilities, not
facts. It is improbable that there should be two Laura Terepins, more
improbable that both should have connections with Scientology. It is
improbable that a falsely accused LT should have vanished. I could be
wrong, but I'd be willing to put $5 (or in my case a fiver) on the table
that says I'm right!
'Evidence' is what we're waiting for from FACTNET, or from the accused
LT.
Bernie
<Baba_R...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>drich...@nyam.org wrote in message
><36adea19...@enews.newsguy.com>...
>>The fact that Minton continues to insist Cynthia Kisser will not
>>be given access to this report leads me to question whether the
>>Factnet board and its counsel realize the investigation was badly
>>flawed and poorly conducted.
>
>You began by asking if the investigation might have been flawed. Of
>course, it might have been, but that cannot readily be determined from
>the facts in evidence. You end by treating that possibility as a fact,
>which you have by no stretch of the imagination demonstrated it to be.
Nope. Because FACTNet continues to insist that Kisser will not see the
report it may indicated that FACTNet and its counsel think that the
investigation was badly flawed. It's FACTNet and Co who apparently think
that the investigation is flawed, as they reluctance to show it to others
may indicate, not Diane who affirm that being a fact.
Capito?
Bernie
>On Tue, 26 Jan 1999 23:11:49 -0600, "colette" <col...@enteract.com>
>wrote:
>>I did not originate the rumor about Grady. I have no
>>first-hand knowledge of Grady's involvement in this
>>matter.
ROFL!
>That's not what I heard from two reliable sources who have asked to
>remain anonymous.
ROFL!
(I may sound like barking.)
Dave Bird
Bernie <ma...@bernie.us-inc>writes:
>>That's not what I heard from two reliable sources who have asked to
>>remain anonymous.
>
>ROFL!
>
>(I may sound like barking.)
Yes indeed, you sound like you are completely barking.
(OK, I will be kind to you. The equivalent words to "I may sound
like barking" might mean something in French but, of so, it got
nonsensed in translation. I mean, you *may* sound like a dog barking
or a cat meowing for all I know, but I can't see why you would do
or what that should convey to me if you did.
OTOH you do sound like you *are* "barking" -- adjective --
which is a common contraction for "barking mad").
--
//////\\\ BARM, N: the froth or foam on a vat of brewing ale.
/ (~) (~) \
[( / \ {)]} BARMY,ADJ: frothy; foaming at the mouth; insane.
\ ._. .-. / :
\_==oOo._/ BARMPOT, N: fool, crazy person, lunatic.
o00.o. ..oo..
oO@o.o..oOOo000@ooo..
o0o0@o@00@O%00O%%@Oooo...
Zane
<hpt...@REMOVE.ME.vossnet.co.uk> wrote:
>Sure, it's not evidence. In my post I was going by probabilities, not
>facts.
Ok, when you have calculated probabilities let me know. Until then
we'll just call it "gut feel".
>'Evidence' is what we're waiting for from FACTNET, or from the accused
>LT.
Ok, here's what Cynthia says (not the lack of evidence, you're going
to be waiting a long time):
While stating that he believes such phone records exist, he
claims not to possess the records, nor to have seen the records, and
that the records will not be made available to me. I cannot,
herefore, at this time support the conclusion by Minton, Brooks and
Prince that evidence exists identifying Laura Terepin as an
"operative for the Church of Scientology".
William Barwell
>I haven't had much time lately to keep up with the newsgroup, but a
>brief reading today has brought to mind some thoughts. Could some,
>if not all, of the accusations against Laura Terepin be the result of
>a poorly done or badly botched job by the private investigator?
>
>Readers following this matter on a.r.s. know there are two individuals
>named Laura Terepin. One is uninvolved in this matter -- an innocent
>who entered the CoS and became a highly-placed staff member in the
>Chicago Org.
>
>Robert S. Minton's accusations against the Laura Terepin who
>volunteered for CAN includes the following information:
>
>"Laura lied about living alone in Madison WI. She never mentioned
>that one of her 3 house mates was a co$ chicago staff member."
>
>Is it possible that Minton's private investigator has confused the
>histories of the two Laura Terepins?
The real Laura Terepin has never lived with a member of Scientology, much
less a Chicago org staff member, according to e-mail from her.
Her only connection with Scientology was that she knew somebody who had
tried to get her to join. This person's husband divorced her, and
he and Laura Terepin had tried to talk her into leaving Scientology
while this person was trying to get them in. This woman was not a room
mate.
>
>We have learned from William Barwell that the source of the CAN
>volunteer's social security number is the private investigator. This
>social security number is purportedly nearly identical to the SSN
>of the other Laura. Is it possible this information is also the
>result of sloppy research? Could the PI have obtained the SSN
>of the "other" Laura and mistakenly assumed it was the SSN of
>the Laura he was hired to investigate? The one-digit discrepancy
>could easily be explained as a typo or a mistaken transcription.
>
Apparently not. The PI had known of the second Terepin
and had investigated her well enough to realize that this person
was not the target Terepin. There is no reason to assume there are not
two numbers.
What is not known is whether the faux Terepin's number is a real number
or a fake SS#. However, using a fake one number off rather that using
a real number avoids the problem of identity theft which would
have been criminal fraud. One digit off could be 'explained' away if
necessary, as a mere error, some bureaucratic goof.
Such as the argument you are making.
While such a scheme may not withstand intense scrutiny, the
faux Terepin has seeming avoided any scrutiny on these
shaky points for some time now.
Unfortunately, the Social Security Office refuses to confirm or deny
anything whatsoever to the real Laura Terepin.
Even to whether there is a second real number or not.
Only if another person uses your number do they consider that fraud
and will investigate and inform you of any relevant information.
Unfortunately, it is exactly this unresponsive and unhelpful
attitude that makes identity theft so hard to stop or set right after
damage has been done to somebody.
>I believe this scenario is just as plausible as the one forwarded by
>Robert Minton.
>
Minton has not set any real scenario as far as I know about the 2nd
Laura. He has only read the PI's summary which does not detail anything
about these subjects apparently.
Dan Leipold, FACTnet's lawyer has the full reports and the summary as
well.
>Regarding the "proof" proffered by Minton regarding cell phones:
>
>"Laura [sic] cell phones were billed to a Hollywood, CA private
>investigator who seemingly had at least 13 other phones billed to
>him that were linked to co$ operatives. Laura's boyfriend, who I went
>dancing with in SFO with Stacy and the whore, works for the same
>PI who handled the phones."
>
>I wonder if these cell phone records apply to phone calls made
>while Laura was in California. Is it possible that "Laura's
>boyfriend" loaned her a cell phone to use while she was staying
>in California? Since Minton explains that "Laura's boyfriend" worked
>for the private investigator who was paying for the cell phone calls,
>this sounds reasonable to me.
>
The summary apparently claims that the cell phone Laura used was supplied
by the PI, and not just when she was in California apparently.
Pope Charles
SubGenius Pope of Houston
Slack!
William Barwell
colette <c...@nwu.edu> wrote:
>In article <36c21cb2...@enews.newsguy.com>, ma...@bernie.us-inc.com
>(Bernie) wrote:
>
>]On Tue, 26 Jan 1999 17:00:26 GMT
>]drich...@nyam.org wrote:
>]>Robert S. Minton's accusations against the Laura Terepin who
>]>volunteered for CAN includes the following information:
>]>"Laura lied about living alone in Madison WI. She never mentioned
>]>that one of her 3 house mates was a co$ chicago staff member."
>]>Is it possible that Minton's private investigator has confused the
>]>histories of the two Laura Terepins?
>]Apparently, the PI knew about the other Laura, but
>]the coincidence with the Chicago org is
>]remarkable. I had the impression that the other
>]Laura lost sight of her friend, though, so it
>]would be strange that she would actually be living
>]with her.
>
>But, wait. Does the "fake" Laura supposedly live
>in Madison, WI with a CO$ staff member *now*, or
>was this a living arrangement that existed some
>time in the past. If it existed some time in the
>past, then it could be possible that the histories
>of the two Laura's got mixed up. If the Northwestern
>Laura ever lived in Madison, WI with her Scieno
>ex-friend, it'd be likely. Of course, we don't
>know who lived where and when, do we? :-)
>
The real Laura nee Terepin has never lived with anybody who was a member
of Scientology, much less a Chicago org member.
Source, e-mail in answer to a question asking this very point be
clarified, to me from the real Laura nee Terepin.
William Barwell
Dave Bird <da...@xemu.demon.co.uk> wrote:
*********************** DELETED *********************
>
> Laura volunteers that she has an ex-friend now high up in
> a CoS org and, while the faker is not this ex-friend (photographs
> have been compared), it is possible the ex-friend organised the
> scam and had a hireling use Laura's name.
>
Laura stated that at one time, there was an attempt by her firend to
get her repeatedly to join Scientology. This woman divorced, and Laura and
her this woman's ex-husband made several attempts to talk this woman
out of Scientology. This was an attempt mainly by teh husband, the real
Laura was dragged into
this fray somewhat reluctantly.
What I believe occured. The intense efforts to get this woman out
may have planted some doubts in her that were discovered in
auditing sessions. She would have then been sent to ethics
to get this problem taken care of. Her ex-husband and Laura
Terepin probably were considered PTS ones, possibly even twos,
and this woman would probably have been questioned closely
about them. Possibly then, much about Laura nee Terepin's
identity, ect., came from an ethics file in Chicago started on
Laura for her efforts in attempting to talk her friend out
of Scientology at length, in conjunction with the ex-husband's
efforts. While there was never a formal disconnection letter to Laura
as far as I know, soon afterwards, no more contact was made
between this woman and Laura or the ex-husband.
The cult won the struggle of their mark, and Laura and the ex-husband
won a place on Ethic's list of SPs.
A file that was later used to create a throw away ID for an op.
It may have been a oneshot that worked well enough they stuck with it.
Bernie
><sigh> I do miss Sister Clara.
Me too, but then I spend enough time reading ars has it is. SC would
deprive me of further precious sleep time, reading her being mandatory (by
decree).
David Gerard
:I haven't had much time lately to keep up with the newsgroup, but a
:brief reading today has brought to mind some thoughts. Could some,
:if not all, of the accusations against Laura Terepin be the result of
:a poorly done or badly botched job by the private investigator?
How did you get out of my killfile?
*plonk* -500 for you.
--
http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fun/ http://suburbia.net/~fun/scn/
"My ex and I enjoyed fucking all the way through Margaret Thatcher's
resignation speech; it was most amusing." (Jennie Kermode)
Zane
Barwell) wrote:
>Dan Leipold, FACTnet's lawyer has the full reports and the summary as
>well.
That's not what he told Cynthia. Where did you get that interesting
"fact"?
Hartley Patterson
> >Sure, it's not evidence. In my post I was going by probabilities, not
> >facts. It is improbable that there should be two Laura Terepins, more
> >improbable that both should have connections with Scientology. It is
> >improbable that a falsely accused LT should have vanished.
>
> "Vanished" is kind of a loaded word, isn't it? And _has_ she vanished?
> Has anyone heard from Jim Beebe since his first two posts about his
> friend from CAN?
Yep - just firing into the air to see if I could flush something out!
<g>
Steve A
<hpt...@REMOVE.ME.vossnet.co.uk> wrote:
> Until I hear of such an effort, I'm obliged to conclude that the
> 'accused' Laura Terepin is using a false name which connects her with
> the CoS.
That's about my take on it so far. I will be happier to see more to
support it, though.
--
Steve A, SP4++, GGBC, KBM, Unsalvageable PTS/SP #12,
pitiable little Dennie (plD) #1, non-Mintonista.
Banned by Windows 1984 ScienoSitter (2e+isp)
"Where don't they want you to go today?" - http://www.xenu.net
Deana Marie Holmes
A) wrote:
>On Wed, 27 Jan 1999 02:25:19 +0000, Hartley Patterson
><hpt...@REMOVE.ME.vossnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Until I hear of such an effort, I'm obliged to conclude that the
>> 'accused' Laura Terepin is using a false name which connects her with
>> the CoS.
>
>That's about my take on it so far. I will be happier to see more to
>support it, though.
<sigh> More jumping to conclusions based on no evidence.
<shakes head>
Deana Marie Holmes
news:371a81ba....@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
>
>
>Hm. Considering the fact that San Francisco is the pillowbiter Mecca of the
>Western World...
San Francisco is one of the most popular cities in the world to visit. It
has a lot of cultural diversity. Yes I know this has nothing to do with
the Cowboy's being the "team Of The Nineties."
Noel Chiappa
> were two "Laura Terepins", and it was he who reported that their
> respective SSNs differed in one digit.
Eh? As I said, I've looked at all Minton's posts I can find in Deja News, as
well as the two posted IRC logs, and I can find nothing where Bob indicates
that the PI reported this difference. He does confirm the conversation
between Leipold and the NWU LT (in <36ad0605...@news.newsguy.com>), and
the difference, but that's it. Can you provide a reference?
Anyway, that leads to something else that's bugging me. I'm putting this in a
separate message since I wanted to get to my main point (about the off-by-one
error) before everyone stops reading... :-)
There are some apparent (NB terminology) inconsistencies and potential
inconsistencies (i.e. ones for which there is a plausible explanation which
doesn't involve mistakes in reporting) in what we're hearing about i) when
this slight difference in SSN's was noted, and ii) who provided the NWU
Laura's SSN to Leipold.
It all may mean nothing, people may just be making minor errors in
transcription to ARS, etc, but it did pique my curiosity. (And in this,
please don't read my careful language, like "<so-and-so> further stated" as
accusatory of anyone, in anyway. I'm just being precise! :-)
As you will all recall, the first we heard on ARS of two LT's was the message
from Flood Control, in <1999012022...@spectre.ktb.net>, on 20th
January:
"PI investigation shows there are / were two 'Laura Terepins.' The one at
CAN assumed the name 'Laura Terepin' and worked for 'Department Twenty'
of the Scientology business. It is a case of stolen identity."
The almost-duplicate SSN's were first mentioned on ARS (as far as I can tell)
by Colette, on 22 January (Drats, why does Deja News throw away posting
times? Grrrr.), in <cdm-220199...@marine.ils.nwu.edu>:
"She is also, supposedly, using a social security number that is only one
number off from the 'real' Laura Terepin."
The question eventually came up, from Tilman, of "when first outing Laura,
why didn't [someone -JNC] say that there is another Laura who is 'innocent'".
Keith H replied, on 23 January, in <hkhensonF...@netcom.com> that:
"Bob and his PIs had no idea the listed one was related to this business
at all. ... The possibility of identity transfer didn't occur to them
either. Big surprise all the way around."
He further stated, in <hkhensonF...@netcom.com>, another message in
that thread:
"They did find her, looked into her background, didn't see any connection
with CoS and figured an innocent name collision. ... If they had the
(reported) one digit difference in SS# would have leaped out at them."
Which makes it sound like they didn't have the SSN's (at least, until very
recently). Because, if they did have the SSN's a while back, it should have
stuck out like a sore thumb, and raised the possibility of a stolen identity.
But anyway, things get more confusing because Pope Charles says, later on,
in <78hnn7$pgl$1...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>:
"Dan Leipold, FACTnet's lawyer has been in contact with the real Laura
nee Terepin. The social security number was discussed. The fact that two
different #s are being used, one possibly fake, was acertained by this
inquiry. Source, the real Laura [via email - JNC]."
He goes on to say, in <78j423$e2q$1...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>:
"By the way, it was obvious when Laura nee Terepin contacted Leipold,
that they were well away of her existance, and also the fact that she was
not the spy Laura and Leipold had both SS#s already."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
So, apparently Leipold *already* had both SSN's when the called the NWU LT.
But this seemingly is potentially in conflict with the prior message, in
which it was seemingly only this conversation that the close match was
established.
(There's also a possible discrepancy as to who called who in that call - the
use of the phrase "Leipold .. has been in contact with the real Laura" makes
it sound like he called her - but that's not very important, and could easily
be a simple mistake. But maybe that ties in with the seeming discrepancy
above - if she in fact called him, then the news of two SSN's would have gone
from Dan to NWU LT in that call, thereby being "acertained by this inquiry".)
This is also potentially in conflict with what Henson reported, that they
didn't have the SSN's - because if Dan already had both SSN's, the similarity
*should* have set off alarm bells; or at least, one would have thought so.
There is a quite plausible (NB teminology) explanation for this, though,
which is that it must have been very recently that the FACTNet people got the
SSN's. Perhaps they only got the second SSN *after* Flood Control made their
report, at which point they started further checking.
(Which makes me even more curious about Flood Control. First, their message
talks about "PI investigation" - does this mean they too are hiring PI's? And
second, how did they tumble to the identity theft when FACTNet's people
didn't? Hmm, maybe (NB teminology) Flood Control was one of the mysterious
calls to the NWU LT - going from the phone directory information, and when
they realized that wasn't her, figured that with such a rare name, identity
theft was a possibility, and did some digging and confirmed it. Most
interesting.)
But anyway, it would be mildly interesting (if incredibly pedantic :-) to
straighten out for sure:
- i) when FACTnet realized/discovered there was a potential case of identity
theft,
- ii) when FACTnet got the SSN's,
- iii) whether they got NWU LT's SSN from her, or whether they already had it,
and,
- iv) whether NWU LT called Leipold, or Leipold called NWU LT.
Noel
Hartley Patterson
> <sigh> More jumping to conclusions based on no evidence.
>
> <shakes head>
NO evidence? NO evidence? Not enough evidence to satisfy you I can
accept and happily debate with you, but NO evidence? Only wierdo
cultists reject everything that doesn't fit with what it says in their
scriptures.
People are convicted every day in court through purely circumstantial
evidence, if the judge and/or jury are satisfied 'beyond reasonable
doubt' that they are guilty. Like Steve A, I'd be glad to see more, but
the the balance of probabilities seems to me to lie heavily enough on
one side to make my mind up. I could be wrong of course, but then having
had a scientific education I know that few things can be 'proved', they
can only be made more certain by more evidence supporting them.
Zane
<hpt...@REMOVE.ME.vossnet.co.uk> wrote:
>People are convicted every day in court through purely circumstantial
>evidence
Fine, so what has been established even in the way of circumstantial
evidence thus far?
It is said to be highly unlikely that there are two Laura Terrapins -
the circumstantial evidence therefore being that the CAN LT is an
assumed identity. Ok. Now where's the circumstantial evidence
linking her to Co$?
Zane
Work like you don't need the money; Love like you've never been hurt; and Dance like no one's watching.
colette
>Having read Pat's earlier post on singles, she brought back to mind 2 of
the
>singles I never replanted after losing them in the horrible winter of 96.
>Irish Elegance is a fine single HT and should be grown more frequently.
>Ellen Wilmott is beautiful too.
> As for Simplicity, I started with them and consider my early large
>planting of them the biggest mistake I made. I am now down to 2 plants and
>will probably keep a couple of them.
> If I lived in California, some of the things that I would try might
even
>be a tea or china rose hedge.Might be interesting. Out of curiosity, has
>anyone in CA tried this?
>
Actually, a polyantha hedge can be quite attractive. As for chinas, I've
seen
Mutabilis used as a hedge, but that's it.
-Dave-