Here is a picture of gregory allen with a beard, to avoid being misleading since he did have one at the time.

Also, who cares when he was convicted. He was convicted and he wouldn't have to settle the lawsuit if he didn't murder anyone.

And it is important to talk about how much he would get in his lawsuit vs how much he was asking for. You can ask for any amount you want when you sue someone. I can sue you for 100 million dollars, whats more important? What I sue for or what I am entitled to?

Heres a hint

People who care about accuracy care. You don't seem to be one of those.

AFAICT Steven didn't murder anyone. The lawsuit had to be settled because he was accused, not because he was convicted.

If you sued me for $100 million then we'd be talking about a $100 million lawsuit.

If you sued me for $3.00 we'd talk about a $3.00 lawsuit.

I can't understand why this is so difficult for you to grasp.

Whos talking about the ammount of the lawsuit? We were specifically talking about how much he would have received best case scenario. It is misleading to act as if 36 million was a realistic number for him to request based on previous settlements of the same nature as his.

36 million isn't even in the ballpark, if wrongful conviction suits normally settled for 20 or 25 million in a similar situation I wouldn't be complaining but we are talking like 1-5 million normally.

There are some that settle in the 20 million range but they are extreme circumstances, circumstances which wouldn't apply here.

One of our fellow posters on the previous page mentioned the $36 million lawsuit. Really the only lawsuit attached to this case.

Then someone decided to try and throw out some other random numbers.

The only firm number we have is the $36 million - everything is is pure speculation.

The only lawsuit that Steven was involved in was the $36 million lawsuit.

I understand that you want to try and muddy the waters. But there was only one lawsuit - and it was for $36 million.

Any other numbers you want to pull out of your hat is pure speculation.

The 36 million is sepculation too, because again WE WERE TALKING ABOUT HOW MUCH he would receive. The only difference is, no one under similar circumstances has received anywhere near that kind of money for this kind of lawsuit.

Looks like a little of both, and a little of neither. Kind of like all police sketches. Its pretty obvious its not traced, look at the difference in nose and eyes ffs.

It is of course possible he was just drawing avery from memory when she described allen to him though. Sadly however, this is not something you have any evidence for because it is equally as likely that the sketch just looked similar to both people.

Nope. Here's the post:

It's on the other page, as I already pointed out.

There's no point in your trying to fool anyone - it just makes you look worse.

Which post do you think I was responding to? The initial mention of a 36 million dollar suit, or the conversation that followed about how much he was or would be entitled to?

How about we just call it a 400k settlement since that is what he recieved? No, you don't like that because nuance is only important when it favors your murdering, child raping hero.

The lawsuit was asking for $36 million, it was settled for less because of the accusation. I never tried to deny either fact.

You seem to be very upset that I have simply stood on the simply stated facts of the case.

Like your hero - the drug addict and serial rapist Ken Kratz - you prefer to twist the facts to present a false picture of reality.

No kids were raped in this case - looks like I caught you out in another lie.

See, you just proved my point. When discussing his settlement you have to point out nuance. Thats fine, I do to. That is why I don't go around acting like he wouldn't have received more under normal circumstances. He probably would have. The problem is, you're committing special pleading because you are not doing the same when talking about his lawsuit. There is no way he would have received 36 million or anything close to it. That is what the conversation was about. Sorry you didn't read it before responding and that you are incapable of admitting your mistake.

Oh my bad, he didn't rape any kids this case. SO who cares if he raped an underage girl after this? It doesn't matter unless its this case right? lol..

Also, ken kratz wasn't accused of rape.

Fraley: There is a significant difference between "settlement value" and "trial value" of a case.

Yes, the insurance company is not going to settle for anything approaching the trial value - otherwise, there is no point to settlement. With what information was available to me, based on my experience in this field, I put the settlement value on this case at around 15 mm. I posted my analysis earlier in the thread.

Even the 15 mm is not an accurate portrayal of the settling party's exposure at trial. In cases such as this, even 5mm is "life-changing money" for the plaintiff. So, given the inherent risks of trial, it is usually easy to low-ball a settlement.

As you can see, the numbers discussed were absent the murder charges. That means the real leverage of going forward to trial in the civil matter still existed.

Once charges were brought against Avery, he lost all leverage for settlement AND he had no real prospect of seeing it out through trial given he needed to focus on defending himself in the criminal matter.

Accordingly, using 400k to mean anything related to the real value of the case is absurd.

If you want to round down and be conservative, you are still talking about a 10 mm case.

Correct: He was accused of sexual harassment and intimidation by three women. He was stripped of his office as a result.

I'm amazed how I thought F was a shill when he is just dumb.
Brendan got some pretty bad news but he argue about some stupid point instead of some relevant news.

I agree its absurd, its just as absurd to bring up 36 million.

Ive heard others value the settlement under 5 million. Can you link me to your analysis? I'd like to read it. I just find it unlikely anything over 10 million would even be possible since previous cases of this nature fetch the 2-3 million dollar range.

Sexual harassment is a far cry from rape. I thought he was stripped of his office for having consensual sex with one of his defendants girlfriends. but its not entirely important to me either way.

WTF is this post? I am F right? You did that to avoid breaking the rules. How clever of you.

I already brought up BD itt. This was a conversation that formed after, and it wasn't irrelevant.

The only reason $36 million is relevant is because that's what the lawsuit was seeking.

True, you can make up any number you want, but why not use the real number?

If we just stick to the one firm number that is relevant then everyone will know what we are talking about.

Exactly.

Only time Steven was convicted of rape was phony 1985 case that he was suing them over.

The amount of the suit? $36 million.

Its early in the thread; ive linked ot before at another's request. I'm on my phone, so no.

No, it is brought up constantly as a reason for manitwoc to frame avery. Not that that is why it was brought up in this case but it is important to clarify that he was never getting anywhere near 36 million because the person I quoted was specifically asking if he was still eligible to sue for more since he didn't get 36 million.

I mean think about it, if someone is arguing that the 36 million dollar suit is a good reason to frame avery that argument becomes very weak if avery was only going to get a couple million instead of the 400k they already paid him.

The special pleading with you is amazing. So we can't call avery a rapist unless hes convicted, yet when he is convicted of something (murder) we can't call him a murderer because according to you there is a lack of evidence he murdered anyone. So when can we call him a murderer?

Furthermore, you use even worse logic to argue that kratz is a rapist when he was never even accused of rape yet we have multipe women claiming avery raped them with some of averys own family supporting the allegations.