Well, that’s something of a first – a deleted comment. I will publish it here instead.
Peter, I believe that Sperling is crazy. I believe that the evidence shows this to be an objective fact.
I note that you have pointedly failed to mention one post where I have said something untrue. Yet the court judgement makes it clear that Sperling is an extremely dishonest person.
Speaking of dishonesty, can you show as an objective fact that Madeleine and Ms Brown are going around the internet using sock puppets to attack those they oppose?
We shall see if it was the “she’s crazy” part or the “you’re dishonest” part that was the problem!
If you have a comment rejected from Peter’s blog, you may post it here so long as it is reasonable and truthful.
I found this comment insightful though:
Have you ever been involved in a lawsuit? I have, and I’ve supported another friend through one — it’s enormously stressful (far more than I can explain) no matter how certain you might be of your grounds. It’s like being hunted by a predator. It’s a real challenge.
Behaviour and decisions that from the outside might look ‘irrational’ and ‘fixated’ can just be a temporary stress response, or a reaction to fear of a bad outcome. Under threat, our cognitive functions can be impaired — literally our ability to process information — and our capacity to easily ‘disengage’ (even though that might unquestionably be the rational thing to do) can be, well, disabled.
Minds that have spent long timeframes in altered state, even more so.
Another acquaintance of mine, uber-left brain, has an eerie ability to ‘compartmentalise’ and hence I have watched him survive pressure that would make me explode. Or scream.
Both ‘sides’ of this dispute have been through the wringer emotionally and there’s a natural grieving process and disentanglement that needs to occur.
Unfortunately, justice has not been done, so the case is not really over at all.
You may not respect Jacqueline, and, with the luxury of detachment, may feel you’re able to see where you think she should ‘be’. I get that.
I accept the point myself. It’s pretty hard to let go of these things. My big problem is the sheer dishonesty and disconnect of Sperling’s response.
I think you’re mistaken in your assessment of who ‘created this entire mess’. It’s more complicated than that, let me suggest. But I agree, as previously noted, I wish Jackie hadn’t written some of her words.
Sperling actually has ongoing legal trouble, which started before Madeleine and will probably continue after she’s left the scene. So while it’s perfectly true that the start of this is complicated, there’s no doubt who was the aggressor all the way through.
Like Debbie, like Madeleine, I see Jacqueline is in ‘process’ — and hopefully decompressing after the court case.
We’ll see. I know what I expect.
Update: Seems to have been the “crazy” part. That’s ok – his blog, his rules.
This post is about Jacqueline (Jackie) Sperling, and is part of an ongoing series discussing her ongoing campaign of harassment and lies against lawyer Madeleine Flannagan and Ms Brown, and The Narrative - the alternate reality she presents on her blog in which she pretends to be the victim of her targets. You can read a court decision that outlines her campaign and the court’s assessment of The Narrative here.
Please do not place abusive comments on her blog, phone her, or approach her or her family as she will blame this on her victims.