ShockTroop wrote: ↑Wed May 26, 2021 9:49 am
The rats tell fake history with no rebuttal from the other side. They basically say what they want. What's hilarious is the MBA thinks he's talking to AL Capone and not some two bit who never earned a nickle.
Well his history was subject to rebuttal - in the courtroom where he testified multiple times and no one has been able to disprove him. John, despite being a woman beater, did everyone a public service in getting those guys locked up. JP never said he was some genius racketeer either. Y'all are a bunch of haterzzz
That's because defense in all the cases he testified at wasn't allowed to bring up his past history - whether it was the kid he killed, this assault or the protective order that was placed against him by his wife.
If you think about it, it's n overall issue that should be explored. I believe that all evidence bad or good for either side should be presented to the jury. Only way they can see the full picture and make a decision. Not this pick and choose stuff.
In addition, it's idiotic that because someone takes an opposing view that they're considered a bunch of "haterzzz." I personally don't hate anyone or anything - except for eggs. I can honestly say I hate eggs.
The MBA and the rat man are interjecting themselves into the public domain. Thus opening themselves up for opinions. Some rat fan boys will love the show and other fans of the genre will not like it. You're not a hater if you find a rat bashing everyone he ever met in a podcast as appalling. You're also not a hater if you're disgusted the way the rat's get absolution for their crimes and then parade around like peacocks on social media. You're not a hater if you cringe the way the MBA kisses rat boys ass like he's some decent guy.
It has to be said that LaVaecchia is letting this get to his head a bit. I heard in one episode he said something like "I'm not technically part of the life, but I know some people" lol.
mafiastudent wrote: ↑Wed May 26, 2021 7:33 am
In addition, if it was only "alleged" what he did to this woman - then the prosecution and the Court would not have addressed it either at the time of trial or in Castelle's appeal because it would have been false information.
can you post the docs you referenced regardng Tom
I don't hold anything against anyone. However, if you're a public figure and making money off giving business advice as both of them have said numerous times, then you should be transparent 100%. Obviously, I don't know if this is discussed in any of the private sessions. In addition, plenty of successful business people have gone through difficult times and used these experiences as part of their fabric for success. However, they have also been transparent about it.
mafiastudent wrote: ↑Wed May 26, 2021 7:33 am
In addition, if it was only "alleged" what he did to this woman - then the prosecution and the Court would not have addressed it either at the time of trial or in Castelle's appeal because it would have been false information.
can you post the docs you referenced regardng Tom
I don't hold anything against anyone. However, if you're a public figure and making money off giving business advice as both of them have said numerous times, then you should be transparent 100%. Obviously, I don't know if this is discussed in any of the private sessions. In addition, plenty of successful business people have gone through difficult times and used these experiences as part of their fabric for success. However, they have also been transparent about it.
mafiastudent wrote: ↑Wed May 26, 2021 7:33 am
In addition, if it was only "alleged" what he did to this woman - then the prosecution and the Court would not have addressed it either at the time of trial or in Castelle's appeal because it would have been false information.
can you post the docs you referenced regardng Tom
I don't hold anything against anyone. However, if you're a public figure and making money off giving business advice as both of them have said numerous times, then you should be transparent 100%. Obviously, I don't know if this is discussed in any of the private sessions. In addition, plenty of successful business people have gone through difficult times and used these experiences as part of their fabric for success. However, they have also been transparent about it.
mafiastudent wrote: ↑Wed May 26, 2021 7:33 am
In addition, if it was only "alleged" what he did to this woman - then the prosecution and the Court would not have addressed it either at the time of trial or in Castelle's appeal because it would have been false information.
can you post the docs you referenced regardng Tom
I don't hold anything against anyone. However, if you're a public figure and making money off giving business advice as both of them have said numerous times, then you should be transparent 100%. Obviously, I don't know if this is discussed in any of the private sessions. In addition, plenty of successful business people have gone through difficult times and used these experiences as part of their fabric for success. However, they have also been transparent about it.
ShockTroop wrote: ↑Wed May 26, 2021 9:49 am
The rats tell fake history with no rebuttal from the other side. They basically say what they want. What's hilarious is the MBA thinks he's talking to AL Capone and not some two bit who never earned a nickle.
Well his history was subject to rebuttal - in the courtroom where he testified multiple times and no one has been able to disprove him. John, despite being a woman beater, did everyone a public service in getting those guys locked up. JP never said he was some genius racketeer either. Y'all are a bunch of haterzzz
That's because defense in all the cases he testified at wasn't allowed to bring up his past history - whether it was the kid he killed, this assault or the protective order that was placed against him by his wife.
If you think about it, it's n overall issue that should be explored. I believe that all evidence bad or good for either side should be presented to the jury. Only way they can see the full picture and make a decision. Not this pick and choose stuff.
So apparently John did not beat any woman. That was fabricated by Eugene Castelle according to Pennisi.
“In Italian, La Cosa Nostra is also known as ‘our headache.’” -Jerry Anguilo
ShockTroop wrote: ↑Wed May 26, 2021 9:49 am
The rats tell fake history with no rebuttal from the other side. They basically say what they want. What's hilarious is the MBA thinks he's talking to AL Capone and not some two bit who never earned a nickle.
Well his history was subject to rebuttal - in the courtroom where he testified multiple times and no one has been able to disprove him. John, despite being a woman beater, did everyone a public service in getting those guys locked up. JP never said he was some genius racketeer either. Y'all are a bunch of haterzzz
That's because defense in all the cases he testified at wasn't allowed to bring up his past history - whether it was the kid he killed, this assault or the protective order that was placed against him by his wife.
If you think about it, it's n overall issue that should be explored. I believe that all evidence bad or good for either side should be presented to the jury. Only way they can see the full picture and make a decision. Not this pick and choose stuff.
So apparently John did not beat any woman. That was fabricated by Eugene Castelle according to Pennisi.
I talked to her lawyer a few weeks ago and it wasn't fabricated according to him.
ShockTroop wrote: ↑Wed May 26, 2021 10:44 am
The MBA and the rat man are interjecting themselves into the public domain. Thus opening themselves up for opinions. Some rat fan boys will love the show and other fans of the genre will not like it. You're not a hater if you find a rat bashing everyone he ever met in a podcast as appalling. You're also not a hater if you're disgusted the way the rat's get absolution for their crimes and then parade around like peacocks on social media. You're not a hater if you cringe the way the MBA kisses rat boys ass like he's some decent guy.
People that come on here and complain about rats always make me laugh. It’s just a whole lot of performative pandering. (For internet strangers no less!!). No one said you were a hater, but unless you or a family member were personally sent up by Pennisi, ranting about “rats“ and “rat lovers” is really weird freaking behavior.
tell fake history with no rebuttal from the other side. They basically say what they want. What's hilarious is the MBA thinks he's talking to AL Capone and not some two bit who never earned a nickle.
tell fake history with no rebuttal from the other side. They basically say what they want. What's hilarious is the MBA thinks he's talking to AL Capone and not some two bit who never earned a nickle.