Hero cave-diver felt 'humiliated, dirtied and ashamed' by Elon Musk 'paedo' insult

[impulse]

10 minutes ago, balo said:

It doesn't matter who started the insult. Using the word "pedo guy" is a lot worse . 

 

Depends on what part of the world you're from.  In some places, "pedo guy" is a standard insult, not unlike SOB, or jerk-off.  And I've never heard of anyone being sued for calling a guy's mom a female dog or accusing him of whacking off.

 

Edit:  I think a lot of guys in Thailand are extra sensitive to being called "pedo guy".  And for good reason.

 

Edited December 19, 2019 by impulse

[tgw]

15 hours ago, TooBigToFit said:

I agree with that. The first comment started the whole mess.

 

you mean not the cheap and shameless PR plug by Musk?

 

a dozen lives at stake but that weasel just wanted the spotlight by proposing something totally inadequate. that was an insult in itself. an insult to the potential victims, an insult to the rescue team, an insult to everyone, even you.

Edited December 19, 2019 by tgw

[balo]

15 minutes ago, impulse said:

I think a lot of guys in Thailand are extra sensitive to being called "pedo guy".  And for good reason.

It makes it even worse, Musk did his research on Thailand first and then said the words . It's even worse. So many Western men are married to Thai women, life is hard enough as it is. He made his life a lot worse.   

[impulse]

17 minutes ago, balo said:

It makes it even worse, Musk did his research on Thailand first and then said the words . It's even worse. So many Western men are married to Thai women, life is hard enough as it is. He made his life a lot worse.   

 

I'd agree with that.  But the insult was made in a state of tired and as a response to an insult.  How many of us think that clearly and insightfully under those conditions? 

 

 

Edited December 19, 2019 by impulse

[impulse]

27 minutes ago, tgw said:

you mean not the cheap and shameless PR plug by Musk?

 

a dozen lives at stake but that weasel just wanted the spotlight by proposing something totally inadequate. that was an insult in itself. an insult to the potential victims, an insult to the rescue team, an insult to everyone, even you.

 

I guess you don't recall that about the time Musk was working on his idea, they had just laid in several months of food for the boys because the plan was to leave them in the cave until the dry season.  Using 20:20 hindsight, Musk's idea didn't work out.  But given another few weeks (or months) to fine tune the equipment, it may have been better than drugging the kids and risking their lives dragging them through flooded passages.

 

It all worked out okay, thank goodness.  But that wasn't a given.  It could have gone tragically wrong in a hundred different ways.

 

Edited December 19, 2019 by impulse

[faraday]

^^^

 

"Drugging & Dragging"

 

It was considerably more technical & sophisticated than that.

 

Would you like to read the:

 

New England Journal Of Medicine paper which details the extraction:

or not?

[MarcB]

52 minutes ago, impulse said:

@MarcB, good info and update.  The last time I looked, Vernon's attorneys were planning to appeal based on the instructions given to the jury.  In fairness, I'm not really following it too closely.

 

Two clarifications, if you have the info...  Were Vern's attorneys working pro bono, or on a contingency basis?  And will it be Vern paying the courthouse fees, or his attorneys?

 

Yes, they wanted to appeal, but then everyone decided to just sign an agreement.

For whatever reasons.

 

Vern's attorneys presented the case on a contingency basis, but basically ended up pro bono since he lost.

Courthouse fees are not the lawyers' responsibility, but that's between Vern and his lawyers' initial agreement.

[yogi100]

12 hours ago, newatthis said:

When he lost the court case, you commented that you and folks around your way have a lot of respect for Unsworth and thought he was a good bloke.

Do you think he is a paedophile? No, you don't.

Do I think he is a paedophile? No, I don't 

Do other posters here think he's a paedophile? No, they don't.

Did the jury believe that everybody now thinks that Unsworth is a paedophile? No, they didn't.

He was not defamed. 

He set out to humiliate Musk and he lost. Musk didn't set out to destroy Unsworth, Musk set out to defend himself in a court of law and he won.

All the TV / talk shows are not going to change the truth. (Maybe, help Mark Stephens offset some costs though)

You've probably been to Thailand like I have.

 

Just a few years ago anyone who went to the LOS was suspected of being a paedo and behind our backs others probably voiced these suspicions. They would not say anything to your face or anywhere from where it might to get back to you.

 

But if those who believed it had their way they could possibly have destroyed us.

 

Twenty years ago a couple of pals and myself were discussing our Thai holiday. Some bloke overheard and chimed in with "Thailand, ain't that where all the nonces go". It nearly caused a fight.

 

You can bet that some take such gossip seriously and believe it and now there will be those who took Musk's accusation without a pinch of salt. If you throw a handful of $h!t at a wall some of it will stick.

 

Musk told the world and in the world there are those who'll think Musk might have a point if Thailand is involved. They'll think that there is no smoke without a fire.

 

Musk has damaged Unsworth's reputation forever and should have been made to pay for his disgusting insinuation. Maybe not $190M of course but he should have been made to pay something or have been made to make a public apology. 

[impulse]

25 minutes ago, faraday said:

^^^

 

"Drugging & Dragging"

 

It was considerably more technical & sophisticated than that.

 

Would you like to read the:

 

New England Journal Of Medicine paper which details the extraction:

or not?

 

I followed it while it was happening, and for weeks afterward as the revelations unfolded.  To be honest, that's the extent of my interest.

 

But here's 3 questions:  1) Did they drug the kids?  2) Did they drag them through flooded passageways?  3) Was there a 100% chance that all the kids would make it?

 

[Tagged]

20 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

I followed it while it was happening, and for weeks afterward as the revelations unfolded.  To be honest, that's the extent of my interest.

 

But here's 3 questions:  1) Did they drug the kids?  2) Did they drag them through flooded passageways?  3) Was there a 100% chance that all the kids would make it?

 

1. Yes

2. Yes

3. No

[lamyai3]

1 hour ago, impulse said:

But here's 3 questions:  1) Did they drug the kids?  2) Did they drag them through flooded passageways?  3) Was there a 100% chance that all the kids would make it?

1) Yes, the Australian doctor / cave diver administered ketamine based on estimated body weight and other factors. 

2) Yes, but largely protected in reinforced diving stretchers that wrapped around their bodies and protected against impact. 

3) No, the operation was extremely high risk, and even until the end there was no guarantee of everyone coming out alive. Getting everyone safely out was a fantastic achievement. 

[Redline]

Should have had a couple texts back and forth, and forgot about it.  Either that, or meet after school and duke it out one on one

[GinBoy2]

5 hours ago, yogi100 said:

<snip>

 

Musk has damaged Unsworth's reputation forever and should have been made to pay for his disgusting insinuation. Maybe not $190M of course but he should have been made to pay something or have been made to make a public apology. 

Oh come on, two grown men calling each other names, really?

 

Had Vern just brushed it off, it would have been totally forgotten and he would be remembered as the hero who helped save those kids.

 

Now he'll just be remembered as 'Oh Yeah the guy who tried to sue Musk'.

 

Opportunistic greed does terrible things to people

Edited December 19, 2019 by GinBoy2

[Jip99]

33 minutes ago, GinBoy2 said:

Oh come on, two grown men calling each other names, really?

 

Had Vern just brushed it off, it would have been totally forgotten and he would be remembered as the hero who helped save those kids.

 

Now he'll just be remembered as 'Oh Yeah the guy who tried to sue Musk'.

 

Opportunistic greed does terrible things to people

 

No.

 

I will still remember him as the guy who helped save the Wild Boars.

 

 

[yogi100]

1 hour ago, GinBoy2 said:

Oh come on, two grown men calling each other names, really?

 

Had Vern just brushed it off, it would have been totally forgotten and he would be remembered as the hero who helped save those kids.

 

Now he'll just be remembered as 'Oh Yeah the guy who tried to sue Musk'.

 

Opportunistic greed does terrible things to people

No they won't just remember him as the man who tried sue Musk.

 

They'll remember him also as the man who was accused of being a paedophile and the court supported the man who made the accusation.

 

And would you just brush it off if someone publicly called you a 'pedo'. In many peoples' opinion being called a paedophile is about the worst thing a man can be called and not without good reason.

 

People have been attacked and murdered on the strength of mere rumours of paedophilia. In prisons they have to be segregated from the general population for their own safety.

 

They are also hated by all decent and normal people. What would you do if one interfered with your child.

[Scott]

Off-topic post reported and removed. 

[lamyai3]

23 hours ago, webfact said:

Speaking on today's Good Morning Britain

Although I'm no fan of Piers Morgan, it was interesting how this piece was put across in the TV interview. Namely, that the presenters were gobsmacked, both at the string of comments from Musk, and in their opinions that this was a clear miscarriage of justice by the US courts. They wouldn't have put this piece across so unequivocally if it hadn't been widely reflective of the public view. This wasn't a small scale cable TV interview incidently, it was ITV, which for decades was the only alternative channel to the BBC. 

 

Perhaps as a result of police operation Yewtree in the UK a few years earlier accusing many well known celebrities of paedophilia I think the British public have a special kind of loathing for false accusations of this kind of thing, and the media treads very carefully on false allegations of it nowadays. In the UK at least Unsworth's reputation has been elevated by this whole affair, while Musk's has been damaged, with many of those who were previously neutral about him now viewing his conduct in the cave rescue with distaste.

 

Regarding the court verdict, it's difficult to argue that this wasn't a miscarriage of justice due to the list of conditions that needed to be fulfilled to proceed. The late stage decision by the judge to refuse to allow the full body of evidence to be considered meant the jury had to ignore the emails to Buzzfeed (even though they'd been leaked at the time and were in the public domain as much as the original tweets). This meant the jurors were required to dismiss the case on a technicality that the tweets in themselves didn't reference the plaintiff by name - proof positive the law really is an ass. 

Edited December 19, 2019 by lamyai3

[SkyFax]

25 minutes ago, lamyai3 said:

SNIP

This meant the jurors were required to dismiss the case on a technicality that the tweets in themselves didn't reference the plaintiff by name - proof positive the law really is an ass. 

The actual California Jury instructions as used by the US court are as follows:

 

[Name of plaintiff] claims that [name of defendant] harmed [him/her] by making [one or more of] the following statement(s): [list all claimed per se defamatory statement(s)]. To establish this claim, [name of plaintiff] must

prove all of the following:

 

Liability

1. That [name of defendant] made [one or more of] the statement(s) to [a person/persons] other than [name of plaintiff];

2. That [this person/these people] reasonably understood that the statement(s) [was/were] about [name of plaintiff];

 

There is no requirement that the tweet must mention the plaintiff by name.

 

 

Edited December 19, 2019 by SkyFax

[lamyai3]

13 minutes ago, SkyFax said:

The actual California Jury instructions as used by the US court are as follows:

 

Liability

1. That [name of defendant] made [one or more of] the statement(s) to [a person/persons] other than [name of plaintiff];

2. That [this person/these people] reasonably understood that the statement(s) [was/were] about [name of plaintiff];

 

There is no requirement that the tweet must mention the plaintiff by name.

You're ignoring the fact that the jury dismissed the case precisely because it didn't.

 

"The decision had to do with defamation law as the judge had laid it out. There were five points: first, that the statements had to be made to a person other than Unsworth; second, that the statements had to be understood to be about Unsworth; third, that the statements had to be understood to mean Unsworth was a pedophile; fourth, that the statements were false; and fifth, that the statements were reckless. “As soon as we got to point two, which was about being acquainted [with Unsworth], we decided,” Carl Shusterman, one of the eight members of the jury, told Buzzfeed News. “The people that read Musk’s tweet wouldn’t have known who he was talking about.”"

 

https://www.theverge.com/2019/12/6/20998821/elon-musk-wins-loses-twitter-defamation-trial-testimony-caver-vernon-unsworth-cave-rescue

[SkyFax]

I'm not ignoring anything and the jury instructions are clear. No one other  than someone who had followed the cave saga in Thailand or watched the CNN interview with Mr. Unsworth would have know ON THE DAY THE MUSK TWEET WAS POSTED to whom the 'pedo' comment referred.

 

As in the comment "The people that read Musk’s tweet wouldn’t have known who he was talking about.”

 

 

[lamyai3]

18 minutes ago, SkyFax said:

I'm not ignoring anything and the jury instructions are clear. No one other  than someone who had followed the cave saga in Thailand or watched the CNN interview with Mr. Unsworth would have know ON THE DAY THE MUSK TWEET WAS POSTED to whom the 'pedo' comment referred.

 

As in the comment "The people that read Musk’s tweet wouldn’t have known who he was talking about.”

Precisely the kind of tortuous logic that got the case thrown out. Why would the jury be forced to decide on the limited basis of the initial tweet rather than the full barrage of accusations? And who in their right mind could assume Musk's comments were not about Unsworth - is there any other possible person they could have been referring to? 

[SkyFax]

10 minutes ago, lamyai3 said:

Precisely the kind of tortuous logic that got the case thrown out. Why would the jury be forced to decide on the limited basis of the initial tweet rather than the full barrage of accusations? And who in their right mind could assume Musk's comments were not about Unsworth - is there any other possible person they could have been referring to? 

On NOV 18, 2019 Judge Wilson denied the Musk lawyer's' motion to have the case thrown out in its entirety and set a court date for DEC 3, 2018. In the intervening days, there was a flurry of motions on both sides as to what evidence was to be admitted and what would be the final jury instructions.

[lamyai3]

6 minutes ago, SkyFax said:

On NOV 18, 2019 Judge Wilson denied the Musk lawyer's' motion to have the case thrown out in its entirety and set a court date for DEC 3, 2018. In the intervening days, there was a flurry of motions on both sides as to what evidence was to be admitted and what would be the final jury instructions.

You're making my point for me. Refusal to try the case based on the full evidence rendered the whole thing a farce. 

[SkyFax]

1 minute ago, lamyai3 said:

You're making my point for me. Refusal to try the case based on the full evidence rendered the whole thing a farce. 

From the above referenced judge's ruling 18NOV2019 citing precedent:

 

Defendant is only liable for the Buzzfeed Article, however, if republication of Defendant’s statements from the Email was reasonably foreseeable. ... Defendant claims he could not reasonably foresee republication of his statements because of his previous experience with reporters and the fact that he wrote “off the record” at the beginning of the Email.

[Youlike]

On 12/19/2019 at 6:46 AM, TooBigToFit said:

I agree with that. The first comment started the whole mess.

And now he even claims hundreds of millions from Musk....the guy is sick in the head....

[Rhys]

The OLD FART has an EGO that got the better of him... WM Syndrome on roids.

[lamyai3]

2 minutes ago, SkyFax said:

From the above referenced judge's ruling 18NOV2019 citing precedent:

 

Defendant is only liable for the Buzzfeed Article, however, if republication of Defendant’s statements from the Email was reasonably foreseeable. ... Defendant claims he could not reasonably foresee republication of his statements because of his previous experience with reporters and the fact that he wrote “off the record” at the beginning of the Email.

All true. But all it does is to drive a wedge between what's technically legal and what's actually credible. No one in the real world could assume Musk's comments were about anyone other than Unsworth. To throw out a case on such grounds is ridiculous. 

[SkyFax]

11 minutes ago, lamyai3 said:

All true. But all it does is to drive a wedge between what's technically legal and what's actually credible. No one in the real world could assume Musk's comments were about anyone other than Unsworth. To throw out a case on such grounds is ridiculous. 

Well unfortunately for Mr. Unsworth and his legal team, in this matter the US District Court in California was the real world and what you want to talk about isn't.

[MRToMRT]

Throughout all of this my sympathy and empathy has been with Vernon.

That was until I learned his legal team were suing for 190 million dollars. Then I lost any empathy I had for him.

 

He did an incredible public act in helping rescue the boys, truly heroic,  but he lost the moral high ground with the 190M$ claim.

[yogi100]

American court, American judge, American jury.

 

Musk is a ridiculously wealthy American citizen. Unsworth is just an ordinary retired working man who is not American.

 

The US is an exceedingly jingoistic nation and will stick by their own be they right or wrong. Google Lt Calley and the My Lai Massacre.

 

It would be very naive for us to believe that Musk's wealth did not help influence the judge's decision. It's well documented that certain American judges throughout the relatively short history of the USA have been bribed to give verdicts in favour of rich people who have appeared in front of them.

 

Nothing new.

 

There would have been more justice seen had the case been heard in Thailand or the UK.