Elm Lied

Well folks, it looks like I was wrong.

I recently accused Elm of being overly gullible, with one of the prime examples being him being misled as to Harlow and Joe's pre-arrest debt (non)payments.

You see, the way I figured it, the folks at Harlow Headquarters fed him a lie, and Elm uncritically accepted it...and then foolishly repeated it as a fact. BUT, like I said, I was wrong. Elm was NOT being gullible. Elm KNEW this was a lie. Elm was a full and knowing participant in spreading this lie. Elm was a liar, just as Jakester, Renee, Angel of "Truth" have all been liars, intentionally spreading bald-faced lies about this case.

And here's the proof: This recently revealed IM chat between PC and Elm, which occured on July 20, 2007:

12:17 AM me: The last I looked there were over 7 accounts that where past-due... and this was last month.
12:18 AM eloise: wll that would be understandable dur to the circumstances
me: Some accounts actually showed a past-due balance before the arrest. ( off the record naturally )
12:19 AM eloise: well I can say this I pay bills when I have the money you probalbly do as well so what is so strange about that

And there you have it. Elm KNOWS Harlow was missing payments before the arrest; PC tells him flat out at 12:18 Harlow was behind before the arrest; at 12:19, Elm even ACKNOWEDGES reciept of the info via a confirmatory statement.

So, Elm knew that Harlow was missing multiple debt payments before the arrest on July 20.

Now, fast forward to this Elm statement which was made on December 6, 2007:

"Hey Jim I find it quite funny that PC's blog shows Joe and Harlow insolvent when infact they were not behind in any of their payments and the main source of their debt was their home and the cars.

So I find that statement of yours ludicrous. Joe and Harlow did not have any financial problems until they were thrown in jail and Virginia Seized all of their assets."

As you can all see...Elm was not "mislead." Elm did not fail to "dig deep enough" in finances he "looked up on [his] own." Elm was not "mistaken." No. Elm lied. Flat out lied. He looked right into our eyes, and unhesitatingly, unflinchingly lied. A full-on, rabbit coat is chinchilla sort of lie. With forethought and premeditation.

And the thing is, this is not the first time this sort of thing has happened on Elm blog. Now, I don't know if he's going to attempt some sort of bullshit rationalization for his lying, as he did back then, but frankly, I could care less. As far as I'm concerned, it's two strikes, you're out.

Elm is now a prooven serial liar, just like Jakester, Renee, Sassy and the Angel of Bullshit. At this point, no fact he asserts on his blog is reliable. His credibility is now zero.

Now, one might argue that Elm blog makes interesting reading for getting Elm's opinion on the case, but when those opinions may very well be supported by lies, what is the value of such an opinion? Very little, in my opinion.

And that highlights the difference between Elm and me. Sometimes one of my beliefs or theories may turn out to be wrong. For example, my theory that Elm was simply gullible...a perfect example of a belief I once held, which I now know to be wrong. When that happens, I will admit my error, and make a correction, ie: Elm is not just gullible, he is a full participating spreader of lies for the Harlow Camp.

But one thing I will NEVER do is intentionally lie to you. I will NOT knowingly misstate a fact (ie, lie), as Elm and other Harlowites have done (repeatedly). That simply will not happen here on this blog. Period.


Update: Elm responds to the charges. He now says "Why would I believe what PC told me..." but as you can see from the IM logs quoted above, he certainly appears to believe it; like I said, at 12:19 AM he acknowedges the information PC has given him; far from disputing it, he attempts to rationalize it. In fact, here are the next two lines in that IM conversation; as you can see, Elm expresses no disbelief or doubt in the fact he was just told; instead he suggests further inquiries be made:

12:20 AM me: There's nothing really strange about it... I'm simply stating what was found.
12:21 AM eloise: If you want to base your reason on why they did this based on their credit report you might want to check the credit reports of a few other people as well

Elm's makes further defensive assertions, but since it is impossible to judge the honesty of them (see above) I really do not see any point in addressing them.


Update 2: "The Jakester" comes to the defense of "Elmysterio," by taking me to task for blogging anonymously.

He also makes some derogatory comments about the undignified practice of online underwear sales as well. Or perhaps he was only talking about those who sell their own used underwear online? In any case, it is unfortunate he did not somehow manage to accuse me of hypocrisy as well, as that would have been amusing on just SO many levels!


Update 3: Off topic, but too cool not to mention...we are a top referrer!


Update 4: Elm's philosophy on financial privacy:

Elm on 7/20/07:

"12:21 AM eloise: If you want to base your reason on why they did this based on their credit report you might want to check the credit reports of a few other people as well"

Elm on 4/9/08:

"I did not feel it my business to delve into the finances like some of you did."

So, in other words, it is OK to delve into the finances of suspects in this case, as long as their names are not Harlow and/or Joe.


Update 5: LOL!