Sunday, June 15, 2008
Quick

Sunday Mail

I'll bet you think this story's about you

I’ll bet you think this story’s about you

Editor’s Note: There were so many comments posted by Mike South on the online version of the June 8 cover story, “The Mansion Revisited,” that we have condensed them here.

I see you removed my post that told the truth about why Neal B .is in Melissa Wolfe’s book. So much for journalism huh? Don’t want to hear the truth do you?

What a low rent fish wrapper this is.

GFY Sunday Paper.

(Editor’s Note: Later that day…)

You guys are complete idiots. I know who Neal B is and I know how and why his name is in her book. Lisa is my friend, as is Neal; we all had lunch together ONE time and it was determined that she might do an on-air appearance at some point, as I have several times. Neal is in my book as well and I am a porn director, does that make him a porn star? The lack of integrity of this report is appalling.

(Editor’s Note: A little later still…)

Oh and lets talk about DCT. Here’s what it really means: yes it does stand for “Dream Come True,” which is lunch or dinner at a restaurant of your choice or perhaps a day at the mall or a dance or a photo session. I have attached a newspaper article from my scrapbook, not sure if you can read the date, but yes I did “Dream Dates” for charity, lots of charities and did them for years.

(Editor’s Note: And once again…)

Well here’s the bottom line. In a way I am responsible for all this nonsense. I introduced the two of them. Lisa came to lunch with me one day when I was having lunch with Neal …

(Editor’s Note: There’s plenty more, but we only have so much paper.)

A Partridge comes to our defense

It pretty clearly states that Cowboy and Neal B. were the only two marked DCT that didn't have their last names listed. Plus, didn’t Stephanie write this story? How could she be the one reading it incorrectly? Anyway, looks like Mike South is the first one to start bringing any allegations of identity to the table here.

Shwoops.

 

What a piece of print

I found the June 8 article, “The Mansion Revisited,” by Stephanie Ramage and Chuck Stanley, to be one of the most poorly written and researched pieces of print in quite a while.

In more than a year that District Attorney Danny Porter has been investigating prostitution, pandering and drugs, the best he got was a misdemeanor prostitution charge. He got a hefty fine and practically no jail time for Ms. Taylor. All the felony charges were dropped. Hmmmm, sounds like a lot of the case was dropped. Unless there was no case.

I love the sentence, “and who came to be known as the ‘Mansion Madam.’” She came by the name of "the Mansion Madam” as a gift of the press. I thought you were supposed to report the news. Not create it.

According to the story, Nicole Probert was charged with prostitution and Daniel Marfione was charged with pandering, but these charges were dropped in exchange for their cooperation in the investigation. So there could not be any reason to question the validity of their testimony.

Surveillance, bank records, witness testimony and wiretaps. And the county got two guys for pandering, and sentenced them to 12 months probation and fined them $1,000 each. The District Attorney’s office is going after the third guy because they forgot about him.  

Had the reporters stood back from the case, they might have noticed some of the things that they glossed right over. Could the “anonymous letter” have come from Taylor’s husband, who happens to be involved in divorce proceedings with her? Porter says that within a matter of a couple of days (his words, according to the article, not mine), he pursued a racketeering case against her. Did he not spend enough time doing his job, or was there simply no case?

Taylor’s husband says he left the house while she “serviced her clients.”  So how could he know what services were rendered? He “asked to come forward with testimony.”  Now why would a man who was divorcing his wife want to testify against her in a criminal case? Oh, you don’t think he might have had an ulterior motive?

“A search of Taylor’s home turned up two boxes of tax records, as well as two years of appointment records listing monetary amounts earned for services rendered, which never showed up in Taylor’s taxes.” OK, Ms. Taylor kept tax records. She kept appointment records. And Mr. Porter reports they never showed up in her taxes. He doesn’t know why the IRS did not pursue it further. Maybe the IRS did more research and saved us a lot of money by not following up on a non-case. The IRS does not comment on private individuals’ tax records. Under the presumption of innocent until proven guilty, it is too bad Mr. Porter does not keep quiet as well.

The article ends with the line, “It’s not $500 for good oral sex, but it’s a living.” Is this supposed to be a news article, or are the writers gearing up for a job writing for Letterman? Maybe The Sunday Paper should hire some writers who can write news, or editors who can make the writers do a complete job in writing a story and not just clever innuendo.

Editor’s Note: We didn’t think the innuendo was all that clever, but thanks.

Want to read these comments in their natural habitat? Check out the original article here.

Send your letters to sundaymail@sundaypaper.com. Include a phone number where we can reach you to verify that you did, in fact, write to us. Letters are edited for spelling, grammar and space considerations.