Turn Left
5/13/17 update below in bold print. Yesterday, I provided a story that was supplied to you and to the authorities word for word- exactly as the informant provided it to me. Quoted to the letter. The person proclaimed (if you read the Warehouse blog, I apologize for the redundancy) that Alex Brady was providing her clothing from the LLR warehouse, off the books- in exchange for cash deposited to his account. As far as reporting her testimony, as I stated above, I gave it to you all word for word. I then provided her the article to review before it was published. She approved it. I contacted Alex before I ran the story. He denied doing what she accused, though he admitted to "trying to help anyone he could- especially when LLR was smaller. It was easier." and that he "couldn't help everybody". He didn't elaborate on how he helped. When I inquired about the individual accusing him, and the money she claimed he owed, he became upset with me and accused me of being a debt collector, stated that he owed a lot of people money- had done some 'shady shit' in the past, was not that person anymore, and then hung up the phone on me. Now here's where we start having issues. I published this article in good conscience. I have photos that were public of Alex from approximately that time period, showing what could be road rash from a motorcycle crash. His response to me about the alleged money owed to the consultant indicated it could possibly be true. The phone number I was provided was his- as I used it to converse with him. The accusing party provided documentation and an explanation for every question I provided. "Are these dates on the money orders? If they are, why do they show 2015, when you claim your interactions were 2016?" And the explanations were given. She insisted that those were either not dates, or the machine that printed it was off. Other people confirmed issues this woman alleged. Alex has a difficult past. This is confirmed with arrest records I found. Once the story went live, again, after I got complete approval from the accuser/co-conspirator, within minutes, people began to message me that they recognized the screenshots provided to me. It would appear that they believed they saw the same screenshots posted in a particular consultant's facebook group- the "last time she wanted to come clean" and "take down LuLaRoe". This was at least 5 unrelated individuals. Once this info started generating question about who the source was, my source began to panic. She asked me to take the post down. It was too late. I could see the internet traffic coming in from reddit already. Other pages linking. It was going viral. There was no way to pull it- and I was under no obligation to do so. Again, this is essentially a woman's confession to participation in theft, and possibly conspiracy to defraud a company. Why on Earth would she lie about it? She could go to jail... made no sense to me that she shared it this way. My night last night rolled into day, and the informant said she was being threatened. People were outside her house. I advised she call the police. Last night, a member of Alex's family contacted me. They confirmed confidentially that he has a troubled past. That they were happy about some elements of the article, and could elaborate more at another time on those portions. They felt I was an honest reporter, do my due diligence, and will be in touch with me further very soon. Today, another member reached out and kindly explained that families all have issues, and that everyone has a past. I tend to agree with both points. However, no one defended him or announced that there was no way he could have participated in this. They did, however, express they were concerned about the motivation of the informant. And so, the information station, aka internet obliged me more information. Alex has a past. As a member of his family said- we all do. His, a little darker than others- I want to point out- there's no theft in his record. Not that someone couldn't be a first time offender, just that I'm trying to stay circumspect here. There are issues, but not theft. So here we are. Half the internet has called for this woman to be burned along with Alex on his-and-hers adjacent stakes. The other half seems to think- to be blunt- that she's full of shit. So here's where it gets interesting. In effort to support HER case, I spent today digging. I got copies of communications between individuals complaining about the consultant- how she had claimed she was getting extra inventory from a local consultant. References to the extra Halloween leggings she had. Other people confirmed that she had, indeed, received extra inventory. So, again... her case is supported to some extent. She had extra unexplained inventory, but where she was getting it was different in this version than what she told me. But here's what I don't understand. Seeing that I like to update, research, and follow up on my stories... why would this woman block me? I found out when I went to check in with her this evening. I then confirmed through another account that she does have me blocked after all. Kind of strange behavior for someone that may need to clarify some statements in follow up. As more and more screen shots show up- and information begins to pile up- not just Alex's criminal and financial history- but hers as well... this no name blogger has to point out that Alex has also never filed bankruptcy. For all the money troubles he has had, there is no bankruptcy. The accuser has two. Most recently- 2013. What does this all mean? Well, this is the part of being 'just a blogger' that comes in handy. I don't have to print a retraction. Because I wasn't wrong. I was extremely careful not to accuse this man of anything myself. I never claimed I knew that he was involved at all, and I never called him guilty. And I still don't know if he is or not because I am neither judge nor jury. Evidence presented to me last night and tonight would indicate that the consultant has more of a history of her own than she disclosed, and it is well within my conscience to state that I believe she contacted me to "stick it" to LuLaRoe, using Alex as her mean to do so. IF HE DID WHAT SHE SAID OR NOT. I can't know. What I don't think she bargained for is the following: 1. I would report a potential crime to the authorities. 2. I would call Alex and check facts. 3. The blog would go viral. 4. I would follow up and continue to research. 5. Anyone would remember the prior posts she made with exactly the same photographs. (but used in a slightly different context) 6. My commitment to the TRUTH and not just an anti LLR smear campaign. So, where again, don't doubt that something like this could have taken place, and I have a hard time believing someone could sacrifice themselves in attempt to gain revenge on a company that she felt did her wrong... I won't take part in a smear. It is this writer's opinion that if you are indeed going to be the lamb at the sacrifice, you stick around to face the guillotine with your head held high. You don't disappear from the reach of the person that you asked to publish your story.
That and I'm in possession of communication that shows she shopped this story to another individual- who, ironically, is an associate of mine and in no way related to any form of media. Interesting, isn't it? So, I am once again obligated to state that if these events are in any way untrue, and the accused or his family chose to investigate or act further, I will provide the information given to me to their attorney upon request. Let this be a lesson. If you are accusing anyone of anything, and you want to use me to get it out there- you had better be sure you're telling the truth- and ALL of it. It would also be wise to ensure your OWN privacy before you put the liability of protecting your identity on someone else whose reputation for protection of sources is important on the line. If this man is in fact innocent of this (and I'm not saying he is or isn't) what a horrible way to have to answer to his family. Assuming for a moment that this was a fabrication, this allegation could destroy his relationship with his family and potentially damage his life permanently. I don't think that's anything someone should toy with- and if that is the case, it's sick and I'll happily participate as witness. I think at best- if he is guilty of this, this woman clearly admits to conspiring and participating in these acts for some time along with him. The loss could potentially be hundreds of thousands of dollars to LuLaRoe. So one must ask themselves if a lie is worth jail time or at least a nice defamation suit a la the Brady/Stidham attorneys.
So you're going to ask me why I published this story at all to begin with. Let's think about it. First- we don't know if it's true or not. I'm simply pointing out new developments in her story. Second, read the story. This is a woman admitting to participation in an alleged crime. Implicating herself to potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars of stolen merchandise. SHE ADMITTED SHE COMMITTED A CRIME- and implicated another individual who happens to be the son of the owner of a reportedly billion dollar company. 1. If this happened- LLR should know. Yeah? If everything she said is true- they have a step by step account of how this stuff supposedly got out of the warehouse and into her home. 2. If it didn't happen- LLR should know. One would think that offering a smear of that size against a company already facing the issues they are- in attempt to do them in- They have the whole story and the ability to seek justice for Alex and themselves. You're welcome, LLR. So now, it's in their court to decide if they want to investigate it- and pursue an appropriate outcome. I made it very clear to this woman that the allegations she was bringing were serious, and was she sure she wanted to go there. Here are a few sets of redacted screenshots from my conversation with her:
And in fairness to her- as people come forward about who she is- confirmation of boxes of unicorns, extra inventory, always running sales, and never using Audrey are confirmed by eyewitnesses. So this is the reason for this post. I believe there is truth here somewhere. Either way, consultants need to know if this was happening. LLR needs to know if it did OR didn't. 5/13/17 I want to clarify something here, officially, that I think gets lost because people either call for crucifixion, or they call for liberation, but have a hard time dancing the middle. In the media, there is a gray area of which a journalist or a reporter exists. Turn on your news channel. You will hear- "Joe Schmoe is accused of xxxxxxxxxx. The accuser claims that he xxxxxxxxx. Police are investigating, more at 5." The warehouse article was HER ACCUSATION. I made absolutely zero representation that what she said was true in the least. I also make zero representation that it is false. It is her story. This article is what I have found AFTER reporting HER ACCUSATION. It still doesn't damn Alex, and it doesn't clear her. Please read, and think. The woman admits to her own participation in a major ($) crime. And I reported that story- a story, as evidenced in our text communication, she calls perfect, and would testify to this. Adding more information in this blog does not retract the precious story, or call into question my ability to do my due diligence. I am only showing my commitment to due diligence by continuing to look into it. This article was submitted to Alex, should he have anything to contribute. The accusation is a big one, and it was reported on in good faith, but the 'need to know' in me pushes me to look deeper. I think everyone is innocent until they are proven guilty- and readers need to remember that. I'm just providing information. In this post above, I state my own issues with the inconsistencies in the story, however, I don't claim that she is lying or he is guilty still. At the end of the day, we are still at the same point. She accused him of a crime and admitted to her participation in that crime. Not just with this story- but with any story, I think readers become upset when they leave the gray area and decide for themselves on a person's guilt. What I am doing is maintaining a neutrality and providing info for BOTH sides of it. Because I am not charging either party personally with a torch and pitchfork doesn't dismiss the fact that the accuser admitted participation in a crime. It doesn't invalidate the reporting- as it was her story verbatim. I think a cause for concern is the mob mentality that calls for someone's blood- ANYONE'S blood. And that's just not right. Until he's PROVEN guilty, don't call for his. Until she's PROVEN to be lying, don't call for hers, and until the truth comes out completely, don't call for mine when all I am doing is giving you the whole story as it happens to me. How quick are we to call her a liar, and how quick are we to call him a druggie, a thief, etc. We don't know. I think this story is a good litmus for each and every one of us to remind ourselves to keep our tempers in check. You can't find the first bandwagon and jump on it. I never represented any of their stories as scripture. I take no responsibility for the content of her allegations. But because this is my blog, and I take responsibility for the content here, I feel obligated to look deeper. I don't think there are many writers, journalists, bloggers, or people in general that would continue to follow up. I will continue to do so because I don't think it's fair to point a finger at anyone for anything unless it's true. She represents that it is, and I'd like to know that answer. "You won't take responsibility for publishing that article" is unfactual. I am absolutely taking responsibility for publishing the Warehouse article- as evidenced by my own desire to continue to find out the validity of her claims. Had she accused him on major news media- the story would run, and if there were a question, you'd hear nothing more of it. Here, you have my dedication to finding out everything. As much as I have a dislike for things within LLR's structure, I am not on the pitchfork bandwagon- especially when it could harm an innocent person's life. I am not responsible for publishing a retraction, because I made no representation of which to retract. The article is unbiased. THIS article expresses my own concern for facts on both sides. Please do not confuse "allegation" with "conviction".