Ed - Bachelorette 5

[Jagfan]

It is true that Jillian and Ed are real people. It is a joy to watch their romance. We complain we do not see or have romance with this show. Last year they gave us Jason and Molly. We thriew it into the gutter and stumped on ithem. Now they give us Jillian and Ed and we throw them into the circus for shooting practice. Do we really want a romance or not. Or better still maybe we need to let tptb know during filming who we want to win. Then they will work around it and everyone will be happy. Except the bachelor/ette and their F1. But, no big deal. At least the bloggers and boards will be full of praise for tptb.

Jill and Ed ARE for real. They are real people just like you and me.

I think Ed was a little too real with too many Chitown ladies.

[g8rinATL]

Do you have any evidence or proof that you called?

Sorry, couldn't resist!!

Yes, and a cell phone record won't do unless it's been verified and court ordered. And it has an authentication stamp on it.

[just logic]

Why on earth would these girls want to do interviews? Yes, they may look Ed look bad but they are making themselves appear to be just as bad and really, really naive. The one girl drove him to the airport knowing he was going on the show??????? They don't care that their family find out they are in the habit of receiving these types of texts??????? Do they not realize that the media will use them for whatever they can and then chew them up and spit them out??

I'm really wondering if they are doing the interviews out of hurt (after 2-3 months shouldn't they be getting over it) or if they are hoping for their 15 minutes of fame while attempting to destroy a guy they think they had a serious relationship with and possibly destroying what could actually be a great relationship between he and Jillian.

[Bet2Win]

The fact that the network in this captive media outlet is not mounting any factual dispute (nor is Jillian) is a fact that is rather telling to me, who spends her life watching the many and varied ways people dispute and prove things. You have to look at what is NOT being said.

I'm sorry, but this doesn't mean anything to me as a lawyer. I was a law professor, and taught Constitutional Law, where all the news/media cases live. The media has learned how to get around the legalities of defamation cases ... when they report "alleged" behavior, they don't have the goods ... otherwise, they would report it as fact.

Doesn't matter what is not being said. We have no idea what was actually said during the interview with Jillian, we only get to see what they want to print. They printed that Jillian has declared all of this to be false.

I have no idea at this point whether any of it is true, or any of it is false. If I were one of the sources for this story, and there is any falsity in the story, I would be worried. Especially if this has any impact on Ed's job.

[cantstopwatchin]

yay! Blue Frog is back reppin chitown!

Ed's nonsense makes Chicago girls look stupid and desperate. Down with Ed!

In the grand scheme of things is someone pissing on a sidewalk and getting kicked out that much different than pissing on a sidewalk and being told to not come back? No. You're nit picking at the tiniest things to try to prove it isn't true. Someone may say oh they banned him, meaning he wasn't allowed in that night after taking a leak. Someone may say they banned him meaning he was forbidden for life. So here we have the same incident, and because of a slightly different and insignificant detail, it appears to be totally off to you.

You're all going on and on about the perception of the girls thinking he's their boyfriend when REEEEEEEEEALLY they weren't in a committed relationship and you're using that to excuse his behavior. If they can perceive they're committed when they're really not, can't one easily mistake someone as being banned for life instead of banned for that night only?

ugh.

The nitpicking as you call it is being done because "trusted sources" are saying one thing when, in fact, it is something different. We're nitpicking because RUMORS GROW LEGS... and if ONE rumor can grow legs, then what's to say that the rest of them can't as well.

THAT is the issue at hand and what we're trying to get at the bottom of...

[Nibbles22]

I can't believe Jill doesn't care about this stuff! Bring over condoms a few days after he proposed!!!!!!!!??????????

Jillian sounds like she believes every word he says ~ just like his other three girlfriends!
This is the reason so many people want ed EXPOSED ~ for the man he REALLY is... not the one they *portrayed* on tv!!

[mnmhughes]

Not sure if anyone has seen this yet...Radar Tv's article:

Bachelorette Winner Scandal: Ex To Drop Bomb on Swiderski | RadarOnline.com

So we've had Radar, Extra, reports that Inside Edition is doing a story, and an article in Us Magazine. Anything else?

[jlccaz]

I'm sorry, but this doesn't mean anything to me as a lawyer. I was a law professor, and taught Constitutional Law, where all the news/media cases live. The media has learned how to get around the legalities of defamation cases ... when they report "alleged" behavior, they don't have the goods ... otherwise, they would report it as fact.

Doesn't matter what is not being said. We have no idea what was actually said during the interview with Jillian, we only get to see what they want to print. They printed that Jillian has declared all of this to be false.

I have no idea at this point whether any of it is true, or any of it is false. If I were one of the sources for this story, and there is any falsity in the story, I would be worried. Especially if this has any impact on Ed's job.

EXTRA would NOT have the goods on USWeekly's reporting. That's my point.

Why would this impact a software salesman's job? I don't see that at all. It could be an excuse to terminate an otherwise under-performing employee, but no reason to terminate a successful employee.

I can't be baited into debating legal credentials.

But the USWeekly reporting is the story here. And it's not out until tomorrow.

[atlMD]

Jillian says this is false. She must have a reason to say so. She says Ed hides nothing from her. This leads me to believe that she saw some of the correspondence. She is saying that it's NOT POSSIBLE for him to have done this. Those are strong words.

come on patty, you know she's in denial-what esle will she say. This is coming from extra not national enquirer for goodness sake. Why are we so ready to forgive this guy's behavior why? Would you like this to happen to someone you really care for? It's not fair on Jillian and you know it. No woman should take this from any man, no woman Jillian included. Again she needs to run while she can, the guy is not going to change. I pray that her cousin and parents will help her through this very trying period.

[Living]

Cheeky, here's my thing.

Investigating rumors is part of what I do professionally. Use to be a larger part, and now a much smaller part. That is why I zeroed in on "text messages being seen by people posting the friends story" because I know that statement showed inconsistency for which it was being used --- an attempt to authenticate the story.

If "trusted" FORTers saw text messages, they saw "someone's" typed version. There would be no authentic transcript because one would not be issured without a court order from any mobile provider doing business in the great state of Illinois, period, end of story.

Moreover, SMS Text messages cannot be downloaded to a file. Yes, individual text messages can be forwarded and/or emailed from a smart phone BUT a forwarded or emailed SMS message is entirely editable, thus no authenticity whatsoever.

It could be that "trusted" FORTers were told about the text messages, and even specific content, but to suggest that they have "seen" such text messages in an attempt to authenticating the story is a flawed argument that cannot be defended.

To move on, here is yet another obvious inconsistency to the Girl Friend story as we are being told.

According to those posting, although some "trusted" posters have said "text messages", and RS, for example, who talked to a GF Friend said "email", all have agreed to the following communication occurring while Ed in Spain and before Lindsey formally breaking up with Ed. To quote RS,

"An email was sent [from Lindsey] to him asking “So I guess we’re seeing other people now” and Ed responded with “No, I just need to wait until this show is over”."

Those, "in the know", also insist ...

(1) Lindsey was someone dated before Ed went on the Bachelorette show
(2) Lindsey slept with Ed while he was on his 8-day hiatus from the show.
(3) During the 8-days, Lindsey was told by Ed that he felt Jillian unattractive and only doing the show to be selected for a spin-off (next Bachelor).
(4) Lindsey had reason to believe she and Ed were in a committed relationship.

What part of the above actually jives with Lindsey's remark, "So I guess we’re seeing other people now" ...

Can't be all of it, because if it was, she would say something more to the effect of, "Ed, you <explicitive>, how dare you! You LIED and USED me!"

If we take out the LIE part, striking out (3), we are left with ...

(1) Lindsey was someone dated before Ed went on the Bachelorette show
(2) Lindsey slept with Ed while he was on his 8-day hiatus from the show.
(3) During the 8-days, Lindsey was told by Ed that he felt Jillian unattractive and only doing the show to be selected for a spin-off (next Bachelor).
(4) Lindsey had reason to believe she and Ed were in a committed relationship.

Again, what part of the above remaining actually jives with Lindsey's remark, "So I guess we’re seeing other people now" ...

Can't be the USED part of it, meaning Ed and Lindsey had sex while he was back in Chicago, because if that was the case, she would say something more to the effect of, "Ed, you <explicitive>, how dare you USE me like you did while you were back in Chicago!"

If we take out the USED part, striking out (2), we are left with ...

(1) Lindsey was someone dated before Ed went on the Bachelorette show
(2) Lindsey slept with Ed while he was on his 8-day hiatus from the show.
(4) Lindsey had reason to believe she and Ed were in a committed relationship.

Again, what part of the above remaining actually jives with Lindsey's remark, "So I guess we’re seeing other people now" ...

Now, was Ed truly in a committed relationship with Lindsey? I doubt it, because I would expect Lindsey to say something more to the effect of, "So I guess you never meant it when you told me we are NOT seeing other people now"

If we take out the committed relationship part by striking out (4), we are left with ...

(1) Lindsey was someone dated before Ed went on the Bachelorette show
(4) Lindsey had reason to believe she and Ed were in a committed relationship.

Thus, based upon what Lindsey wrote to Ed as quoted by RS, "So I guess we’re seeing other people now", the ONLY truth to the matter would be, Lindsey dated Ed, but was not in a committed relationship with Ed. Thus, all we really have is ...

(1) Lindsey was someone dated before Ed went on the Bachelorette show

That is it, that is all.

Moreover, Ed's response back to her ...

“No, I just need to wait until this show is over”.

takes on a different meaning and could very well mean, "No, Lindsey, we are not seeing other people, in that I am not seeing you. I need to wait until after the show is over to discuss the matter."

Regardless of what Lindsey or Ed thought the relationship between the two to be, Lindsey breaks up with Ed, production staff moderating the communication between Lindsey and Ed is satisfied the matter is handled, and Ed is free to pursue Jillian.

As much as I dislike RS, of everyone involved, I doubt he would lie about that quote or believe there was more to the story than gobbledy goop. Unlike the Melissa story, RS clearly felt what he learned from whom he spoke to insufficient and had to confirm the story with someone who would really know what went on, Lindsey herself.

However, at FORT, those people in the know insist the gobbledy goop means something more.

While I do believe that those that believe the rumors actually believe what they were told, there is nothing I have read that lends ANY validity to anything other to what I believe the core rumor. Thus,

TRUE: Lindsey was someone dated before Ed went on the Bachelorette show.

NOT TRUE: Lindsey slept Ed with while he was on his 8-day hiatus from the show.
NOT TRUE: During the 8-days, Lindsey was told by Ed that he felt Jillian unattractive and only doing the show to be selected for a spin-off (next Bachelor).
NOT TRUE: Lindsey had reason to believe she and Ed were in a committed relationship.

Anyway, in response to your post, I say, IMO it is time to revisit the entire matter and begin to take the steps of un-ring the bell.

Okay, also the confirmation from Ed's friend that Linsey and Ed dated for 7 years and broke off in 2008 because she did not want children. There was no such girlfriend thing with Lindsay in 2009, Meaning all the above email, texts etc does not even fit into RS theory. There are too many inconsistencies.