If any of the items are recovered from shops or individuals that can identify her as the seller, she is going to be charged. Any witnesses that come forward and identify her as a person carrying items that belonged to Brandon out of the residence and she will be charged. And, that's not all. Witnesses put people in jail everyday. You need not be caught red handed.

Priest: "And this offends you as a Jew?"

just give us the damn rickroll already!

Jerry: "No, it offends me as a comedian.'

is this whore really that interesting to you guys?

i read some of the one thread where she was living on the streets with a toaster and that was kinda funny. overall tho i dont really see what is so interesting.

How do we know that the items didn't really belong to her and this is just a jealous boyfriend trying to get back at the ex who dumped him? Yes, if there are witnesses to his possession and witnesses to her selling or stealing there's likely a case but don't hold your breath waiting for the police to be on top of it. From what i hear generally B&E theft is a low priority crime unless there is some sort of pattern.

I would like to hear what Brandon was told by the police... what chances there are for her to be arrested and prosecuted. She certainly doesn't seem to be too concerned about it if she keeps being seen out and about gambling in LV.

nice level walnuts

I admit sir, that i am a fan of trashy drama. Jerry Springer before it was fake, Maury's "who's your babies daddy" episodes, COPS. It's just a lot of fun imo.

sklansky for mod

In cases where an owner or police have no idea who broke in and burglarized a premise, what you say might\would apply. But, when there is a clear suspect the game changes. It's not like someone came in and took Brandon's T.V. and comp and a few personal items. She cleaned the place out. Also it was an apartment. If appliances were taken that belonged to the landlord and any other property that belonged to the landlord was taken, the property mgt. of the apartment could also file separate charges.

I think the word is that she is in California and has been seen in the casinos there since fleeing Nevada. Not in Vegas.

From reading the topic...

My initial thought was that BTOC was Brandi's Vagina.



//Don't ask me why. I've been reading poker theory & mathematics for 1/2 the damn day. My mind is mush. Back to the books.

That makes perfect sense to me. The initials fit.

I thought it was pretty obvious all along that he didn't have any real contact with Brandi. His posts made it fairly clear that he didn't know her personally and was admiring her from a distance, so to speak.

My very first post on this forum...

I am completely unbiaised and have no links with any of the individuals.

I heard about the BH thing a while ago, the stuff with Mark Newhouse, and read a bit of it. It was entertaining, but then the continual posts I found to be a little boring and melodramatic.

But hey it keeps people entertained...

But what strikes me about this post is Mr Slanskys role in the threads. The bloke just keeps posting.

I have been looking for a new poker book to buy recently, and as much as it may seem a crime to some...I haven't read Slanskys books. I thought I might go out and buy one.

I don't think I'll bother now, as the bloke seems a bit of a weasel to keep the whole thing running...

Yeah, and you should hear the things he does with billy goats...

You know which poker author has never exploited Brandi at all?

Ken Warren.

Perhaps you should buy his books instead? And read his website as well? In fact, I bet his website doesn't even *have* a News, Views and Gossip section that someone might force you to read against your will like they seem to be doing here.

I've only been posting for two weeks, but in that time I've posted in two threads that subsequently vanished without a trace. One, which I started, was a dumb little thing in MTT Community about FTP avatars; I imagine it was deleted for being no content and not being labeled as such (oops). But the other was about DS and some prop bet he may or may not have offered about GRE performance. Many posts therein were sharply critical of DS. (All I did was point out that a perfect score on the math portion of the test just means the test taker isn't a moron, pretty much; I can't see that that would be objectionable, so I'm pretty sure I had nothing to do with the whole thing.)

I don't know why the latter thread was deleted, but I've got a guess, and I wouldn't say the action exemplifies a commitment to freedom of speech.

she said that huh? well at least through all of this she still has her good word that we can count on.

1. First and most importantly, regarding the above. Brandon, Jenn, and earlier, Mark Newhouse, explicitly stated to me that they had no problem with, and even hoped that, I would maintain contact with Brandi on the off chance it might be helpful. That nullifies your point. As far as being a "witness" to anything, I've seen nothing. I suppose that I could promise her I would keep a confidence, and then, if she said something incriminating, double cross her. I hear that is a common police tactic. And one that I would agree with if someone has buried a child alive or hidden a bomb. I haven't asked them but I am quite sure that Brandon, Jenn, or Mark would NOT want me to do that. That's how appalling it is.

2. I have deleted four threads in my life. One was to protect an innocent bystander. The other three times I gave warning. To give people time to say what they wanted. I was joking when I said I was "known for it". On the other hand I will admit that I don't delete criticicsms mainly because they are so easily rebutted. Usually a smarter poster does it for me. And once I see that, I know that the more intelligent members of this website understand things as well. Criticisms are not a random sample of the opinions of readers.

3. I would not have even started this thread had I realized that the information would be considered no big deal. A cursory reading of the exchanges with BTOC led me to believe otherwise.

4. As to Jenn Fox's contention that Brandi did not simply give permission to post this detail, but actually WANTED me to, let me say this. When she brought it up I immediately became enthusiastic as to the comments that information would provoke on the site (I was obviously wrong.) But when I asked for permission she was reluctant. And then she only grudingly gave in when I pleaded a bit. To suggest that her actual goal was to have it posted is to suggest that she was manipulating me.

lol ok. dont get better at poker.

Um, surprise??

T

David please keep posting these threads... these forumn is called News, Views, and Gossip, but it seems like 75% of its readers are only interested in hearing about heads up matches between Phil Ivey and some online pro on a heater. This is what it's all about.

not at all, david. i dont think brandi is capable of manipulating you. but i dont think she would have told you that particular fact without the premeditated intention of having you post it, whether she acted coy about it or not.

my comment was actually based on personal experience. when brandon started the first thread, brandi wanted to post and i strongly suggested she shouldnt. you dont know how many times i talked her back from the edge of posting (but you can probably imagine). then she would turn to comments like "well, if i were going to post anything, it would be this..." and then "if you really wanted to, you could post that".

i do think brandi is in some way having btoc post for her, whether it be her posting occasionally on his account, her explicitly telling him to post things for her, her manipulating him into posting things through suggestion, or simply her just telling the story to a pre-selected sap with lots of his own ideas. i dont really know for sure.. the only thing i know for sure is brandi CANT help herself!

if my post implies anything about you, it would be that both you and brandi have motives that are served by the same end. you perpetuate 2+2's popularity among the masses, and she gets to deny a piece of this mess through a credible source. i have no problem with either of these things, bc even though brandi may think that you delivering her message substantiates her story, the rest of us know that you are just repeating what she says, and not actually giving her credit. anyone hating on you just doesnt get it.

ps. i appreciate the title of this thread. it is indeed a very "curious" revelation..

Seriously don't know why you guys even give a **** about this chick inc sklansky.

ed?