Bix

I see the argument, but: 1. It's not a regular occurrence, but you do see profiles of rape survivors that use a photo but not the real name from time to time. 2. Your argument is not Dave's Twitter argument, which was, approximately, that the lawsuit being a defamation case made it a separate issue. Or something like that. But that's not even in the same universe as the AP standard that everyone uses these days. Now, if someone is kidnapped and named in the media, only for it to come out via the criminal case after a rescue that he or she was also raped, that's considered a legitimate exception. The name goes public in the news in legitimate fashion and it becomes unavoidable to discuss plausibly. But if a woman accuses a man of sexual assault and another of covering it up, and the latter sues her for defamation, you still don't run her name without consent. This is well established journalistic ethics. Hell, in 2018 it's probably discussed more online than all but a few topics in that realm, with the mass accepted practice being well known.

It still be nice for the Network to get it so we can see the WWF/USWA angle in good quality. I don't think the 80s Memphis stuff would be better quality, most of the master tapes are gone, this isn't like Mid-South or Mid-Atlantic. My understanding is that Lawler claimed ownership of Memphis and has pieced together all the stuff floating around and wants to sell it to WWE for the Network. The big question is whether Cornette's collection would be part of what Lawler has, specifically all the missing stuff from 82-83. If it is, and WWE has that stuff, I'll be picketing outside corporate with a sign every day until they put it up. I'll start social media campaigns. I'll do anything. The world needs to see all the Lance Russell footage available and Cornette is sitting on it. Im sure I remember cornette saying in a shoot interview he regrets selling SMW to WWE. In fairness, he couldn't have expected it to be the only library that they would largely leave on a shelf.

The current standard, which is the one that the AP uses, is that if someone even says they've been a victim of a sexual assault, you don't use their real name without permission. It doesn't matter if the name is easy to find, even if it's public record in court documents. It doesn't matter how you feel about the accuser or the case in general. If you're a reporter, you don't publish the name without that person's consent. It was a 1700 word story where barely any of the substance had been reported before. Which doesn't really have anything to do with why I elected not to report on any of the Mo stuff (that I knew my editor and the legal team wouldn't feel it was sufficiently reportable.) I had no clue what I would get when I did the Lawler document request, much less that it would prove that Lawler has been lying about the case for decades.

It was a 1700 word story where barely any of the substance had been reported before. Which doesn't really have anything to do with why I elected not to report on any of the Mo stuff (that I knew my editor and the legal team wouldn't feel it was sufficiently reportable.)

With Memphis, my understanding is that when Lawler had claimed that he finally got the rights situation settled, he had actually just talked to a lawyer who explained the public domain status of the Memphis stuff to him. That because it ran without copyright notices and nobody registered a copyright later, everything before early 1989 , it's public domain per the law at the time. So Lawler went looking for master tapes to try to be able to have SOMETHING he could sell to WWE since there's no license needed. It's broadcast quality material that's needed. Unfortunately, there's very little of that which survived, and Cornette's Betamax recordings off Louisville TV are the best we have for most of it.

Nope.

That's...a good point.

OK, so I've solved part of the riddle: Wade appears to have misattributed the 2/10 story to the Louisville Courier-Journal when it was actually in the Memphis Commercial Appeal, as the quotes there match what he ran. Relevant excerpts from the article, which I had to buy from NewsLibrary's paywall: Still, the letter sticking with the Lawler narrative that John Segevan was who went to the police, which we now know not to be true, is a gigantic red flag on several levels. Plus, the article also does not explain how they got it at all: Is it in the court record? If so, why didn't the Courier-Journal touch it? And why would they send the judge that letter but NOT the sworn affidavit, which would have greater value? Is it possible that the affidavit DOESN'T blame Segevan because that would be provably false? At this point I guess I need to see if the court record still exists, as one would hope that it had the letter. But there are still a ton of questions here, and the letter blaming Segevan calls it into question. The Louisville reporter has little memory of the case and I've messaged the Memphis reporter, fingers crossed, so...we'll see.

Dave got back to me. Said he doesn't remember who he got the letter from other than that it wasn't Lawler's attorney. So...that doesn't really help. I know some people think I'm taking shots at Dave on Between The Sheets when I bring up it's attribution and sourcing transparency compared to that of Wade Keller and Steve Beverly, but situations like this is why I talk about it. I don't blame him one bit for not remembering after almost a quarter century, but between that and the letter not corresponding with the way the police were actually contacted...I don't really know if it can be taken at anything close to face value. Even if we weren't coming from a position of decades of thinking Lawler probably did it, the letter seems questionable for at least a few reasons.

Also worth pointing out that the police file had several affidavits supporting Lawler. None are from the accusers and one even attempts to dispute that the girls were in Lawler's room even though he had already admitted that to the police in his interview before the indictment. So, like I said earlier, none of the stuff about the letter/affidavit/whatever is making much sense to me.

Since I can't sleep tonight for whatever reason: I had somehow both forgotten that this development in the story existed and missed it searching for the relevant Observers. Obviously, I regret that. However... Dave's feature about the case that week is unclear on if the letter is sourced from a Louisville newspaper article he mentions or someone close to the case. That week's Torch mentions the newspaper article but nothing about the letter, though it gives the date and says it was a cover story. Newspapers.com has four editions of each day's Louisville paper, and none of them have that front page article. So that's weird in and of itself. So it appears that the letter may have only run in the Observer, and I've messaged Dave to determine its exact origin. Meanwhile, the newspaper's only reference to the girls recanting comes in the form of: * Lawler's lawyer claiming to have an affidavit from the girls recanting but not producing it. * The article on Lawler's plea deal saying that his lawyer called that the girls recanted. Not stating it factually or citing anyone else, much less police or prosectors. The affidavit(s), which, if it(/they) existed, was seemingly not produced to the local paper (or not verified if it was) sounds like it could even be a different document from what Dave quoted in 1994, described as a letter to the judge. That letter is also contradicted by the police report, as it claims that the skeevy guy who Lawler blamed for everything was the outcry witness who approached police. But he wasn't, it was one of the girls' mothers. Again, that's straight from the police report. That guy was just the one who yelled about legal action whole barging into the offices at Louisville Gardens. Again, I regret somehow missing that Observer, but now I just have way more questions and no answers yet.

Do you have any reading comprehension at all? You're literally the only person who somehow got that impression. The beginning of the article is fairly explicit about the degree to which wrestling fans think he's guilty. I have no clue what Glenn was thinking. I've seen some people suggest that maybe he knew it would go this way, but he's not some interviewer, he's Lawler's co-host. First of all, I didn't do that. I got the police department file by filing a public document request. All it took was sending an email, as it didn't cost me any money, either. That said...why? What's the problem here, other than you looking for your latest excuse to be confrontational? If I didn't find anything previously unreported, I wouldn't have written anything (and the same applies to the Vince thing). Instead, I got not just Lawler's insane letter, but also proof that the version of the case that's always repeated, by both fans and journalists, is a work of fiction. Take the time to read the underlying documents that I posted, which form the bulk of the file, before you keep making uninformed comments about this. Regardless of whether or not anyone already thought Lawler was guilty, he looks way more guilty now.

Who said I think I found a major scandal? He made weird comments about #MeToo on his podcast. That made me think "Hey, I should see what the cops have from his case." I got the file and it had stuff worth writing about. QED.

No, the story has always been that one of the girls bragged to friends about sleeping with Lawler, a sketchy adult male in her life heard and went to the police, and the girls quickly recanted. It turns out that none of that is true and all of it can be sourced back to media statements made by Lawler or his lawyers.

I doubt he's telling the truth it's also not something we can dispute with WWF results, as the murders were in the middle of a period of 3 days he had off the road.

Also, I haven't seen it, but apparently, Ian Rotten put out a statement saying he specifically booked Elgin to spite the backlash.

When Jerry Lawler made his weird comments about #MeToo in December I requested the file from his rape case. Among other things, it has a letter he wrote to the prosecutors saying the girls couldn't be trusted because both "committed lesbian acts in front of witnesses" and one "was caught having sex with a black man." More here: https://deadspin.com/jerry-lawler-wrote-a-really-dumb-letter-to-prosecutors-1822790447 Also it looks like a lot of the more popular narratives around the case are largely bullshit.

Ok, I have to see this.

Ospreay is physically talented enough that I don't think that's a huge stretch on Dave's part? Also Red got (and continues to be) quite good when he got more experience like his Japanese tours.

How did he mess up Lashleys name? Trump called him "“Bobby Lindsay...[a] black gentleman, and the strongest man I’ve ever seen.”

https://deadspin.com/witness-vince-mcmahon-stared-down-groping-accuser-for-1822642014 So I had already been reporting out the Vince/tanning salon/police report thing for a while, which included me speaking to the main witness. Lots of new details here.

Get bent.

Don't quote me on this but I swore I saw something earlier in the thread about how the masters aren't transferable to the technology which makes it possible to upload them. ...how? They put a bunch on Classics on Demand, regardless.

Based on what they've shown, WWE's master Georgia footage starts in 1983.

No, Ryan has talked about how he fought against them posting those. And Cody seems friendly with him.