--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "Rick Archer" <rick@> wrote: > > > > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > On Behalf Of shempmcgurk > > Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 11:02 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis's disassociation from TM > org- > <snip> > > If I was: > > > > 1) getting a payoff for silence about having sex with someone; and > > > > 2) telling people (such as Rick Archer) that I was having sex with > > that particular person > > > > ...then, yes, I would most certainly keep IN A SAFETY DEPOSIT BOX > > AND HAVE DUPLICATES MADE of such checks. That would be, AT A > > MINIMUM, what I would do. > > > > What would a bunch of old check stubs prove? How would > > they differ from the check stubs thousands of other TM > > teachers would have if they had saved them? > > Somehow I doubt a hush-money check would come > with a stub attached suitable for later paper- > trailing. You could always make a photocopy > of the check itself before you deposited it, > but photocopies can be faked. >
Yes, they could...but there would be numbers on the check of both the serial checks and the account number. Plus, a signature and the name of the bank. This data could then be verified through third parties such as the bank. If not conclusive, it's something. And it's a start. But more importantly, it's the LEAST one would legitimately expect an accuser to produce. If this minimal evidence is not available by the accuser, then the accuser's accusations should be immediately suspect.
