Commenting on a Comment

This isn't the big update post I've been talking about. That's taking some time, including the preparations offline that I need to make before posting that update. So that post isn't happening until 2023. With work and the holidays I've just been too busy to spend time on it like I want to, not to mention that it's turning into a longer post than I thought it would be. Speaking of which - so did this one. Which is why I'm only addressing this situation now in December, when it actually took place in November. That situation being a very interesting comment that was left on one of my posts.

This comment was actually a first for me because it's a comment that had nothing at all to do with Michelle Dickerman. Instead this comment involved information about Andrew Alston, a former UVA student with a rich father who got a slap on the wrist in court for stabbing a guy to death in Charlottesville. Before I've only had comments discussing Michelle Dickerman, and in one specific case someone who had a family member named Michelle Manweiler (Michelle Dickerman's maiden name) and they cussed me out because they thought I was talking about their specific Michelle Manweiler. The name Michelle Manweiler isn't a common one apparently in the US. I've only seen two other people besides Michelle Annette Dickerman who held the name Michelle Manweiler since starting this blog long ago. One of them is dead now I think, I believe she was a retired school teacher.

I should say this is the first legitimate non-Dickerman related comment, because as usual with anything online I've had spam comments like anyone else. Those disappeared however once I got rid of anonymous comments. This change was intended to keep Dickerman from running her mouth anonymously on here again, but apparently spammers don't like having to log into an account to post comments either.

That decision did have the side effect that some of those contacting me about Dickerman don't want to risk leaving a comment on here that is linked to their Google account. Their concerns have been completely understandable since in some cases they don't know me. But I've assured those that have contacted me through other means that blog comments are moderated by me, and they do not get put in public view on the blog until I hit the publish button. But I have no desire to publish comments and risk doxxing someone who attempts to help me.

Not only would it be shitty behavior on my part, but understandably there would be less people willing to help out if I screwed over someone by announcing them on here publicly. Granted I'm not entirely trusting of everything I've been told since it's hard to verify some things. But even though there have been instances that I felt I was getting bad info, I'm still not going to put that person on blast when I could be wrong about their intentions (or they could just be mistaken on what they were telling me and not deliberately trying to pass on wrong information).

That said I've never solicited for information on Dickerman nor do I need it, and to be completely honest it's really better for people that they do not contact me or get involved in this matter in any way. Frankly the bulk of the gasoline thrown on the flames in this dispute has come from third party interference solicited by Michelle Dickerman herself, so I have no desire to enlist third party help like I've received from people contacting me.

It would be hypocritical of me to encourage direct third party efforts against Michelle Dickerman and her family, when this entire clusterfuck of a dispute is in large part the result of Dickerman dragging other people into a fight that was none of their business. The entire reason that her and her family have to spend their lives looking over their shoulders from potential retribution is thanks to the idiot dragging law enforcement into this situation - especially through lies and evidence she falsified. A situation mind you that could have been easily and immediately solved by her simply not behaving like an arrogant ass and instead attempting to talk it out peacefully. But I do appreciate the thought when someone sees that the actions of Dickerman and law enforcement was wrong, and want to help tip the scales even in some small way. It's just better for your own sake that you don't get involved.

Before I move on with discussing this comment, I want to make something absolutely clear to those who have spoken with me in the past. I have never published anyone's comments other than the one left by Dickerman herself. None of the past comments that were on moderation even exist anymore, as I made sure to purge them. I only bring up this person's recent comment because I need to make some statements about it since it doesn't involve Michelle Dickerman. I won't be publishing this person's comment to the blog, and I'm blocking out sensitive info here in the screenshot for their safety so that they can't be identified.

As I said the only comment I've ever published in this blog's was the insult Michelle Dickerman herself left on the now unpublished "The Long War" post. I'm only assuming it was Dickerman of course, and admittedly it could have been one of her family members instead. But let's face it - it was probably Michelle Dickerman. Her comment was the only comment I considered hitting the publish button on in order to demonstrate her behavior. Although I did turn off anonymous comments to make it less easy for Dickerman to talk shit from behind an anonymous mask, I honestly don't expect any further comments from her. I highly doubt she'd be that massively stupid to keep poking the bear by leaving insults again on here anyway. I think she knows I've been pushed pretty far already, especially lately. She's also never had the backbone to run her mouth to me unless she can hide behind something or someone, so as I said I don't believe I'll see any further comments from her.

 Anyway, the comment on the Andrew Alston case post goes as follows:

Now I sincerely appreciate that this person reached out to me. However I can't use any information from them nor could I discuss this type of information on this blog. While I have no doubt this information is probably true given everything that was made public about the Andrew Alston case, there are a couple important reasons why I can't use anything that this person would tell me.

First and foremost this would essentially be hearsay. I would have no way of personally verifying this information or the person giving me the info. I simply wasn't around to witness any of what I would be told, nor would I have any personal knowledge about the events in Alston's past. Everything I discussed in the Andrew Alston case post was based almost entirely on the news media coverage. The only exception was my mention of the inmates at the jail all stating to me that Alston was moved to a white collar prison that people with voluntary manslaughter charges don't get sent to (further evidence of the well known Charlottesville special treatment of UVA students with rich parents). I made it clear that this was merely something that was relayed to me, and it is an accusation made against the Charlottesville legal system's favoritism of rich UVA students. Alston himself wouldn't have had anything to do with that decision. That would all be corruption on the Charlottesville law enforcement's side if it turned out to be true.

Now I'm no stranger to the media getting things wrong believe me. They certainly got plenty wrong in my case as I'll discuss. But if I'm merely repeating what was reported in the news media there isn't anything that can be done about it. I can't get served with a cease & desist because I'm merely repeating information that was disseminated to the public already via the media.

Not to mention Alston was tried in court and convicted by a jury. Something I never got since I was threatened out of that right. One of the reasons that happened is so that Michelle Dickerman could go on her summer trip to Europe without worrying about something as bothersome as my right to a fair trial. The civil rights of human beings obviously take a back seat to some spoiled rich girl living her best life. So unlike my case, all the information about Alston was out in public thanks to the trial.

That immunity would go completely out the window if I start using unverified information from a third party that I've never met, involving an individual whose life and personal history is also not completely known by me. Granted I would make it quite clear that this account was being told to me by someone else with no claims made by me as to whether it was true or not. But it opens a potential can of worms that I would rather just keep shut. I've got enough on my plate with setting out on the path I'm taking to make Michelle Dickerman and her family finally answer once and for all for the crimes against me and my family.

Any attempts to use the claims from this individual about Alston is a different legal situation than the one related to what is being posted on this blog about Michelle Dickerman and my case. The simple fact is that every single thing I've said on this blog about Dickerman and the events of 2006 I 100% believe. I believe in everything I've said with absolute certainty because I've either witnessed it, experienced it, or have evidence of it. When someone has proof, along with a sincere belief in what they say that is backed up by their experiences and evidence, it clearly and unequivocally makes their statements fall outside of anything the law is allowed to deal with. That in turn would put Michelle Dickerman in an untenable position because I can either prove my claims or the claims are made with 100% conviction on my part. Not to mention I think Dickerman knows better.

Dickerman would be well aware that rattling that particular cage isn't going to result in anything she wants any part of, at least she would if she has any level of intelligence. Granted Dickerman's level of critical thinking has shown a combination of autism and arrogance in the really stupid and poorly thought out decisions of her past. But I think that stupidity in her decision-making process has some limitations. After all she hasn't been stupid enough to pull that particular trigger yet. Additionally there is a little thing called the Streisand Effect that she should research a bit. While she might not know about that particular effect of information suppression, I have no doubt that a big reason for Michelle Dickerman not taking any actions against me is because she knows quite well that it'll merely draw more attention to what was done in 2006 in her name.

Anything she does try against me risks drawing attention to the events of the 2006 case that even someone as oblivious as her has to acknowledge looks really, really bad for her and the Charlottesville law enforcement. That legal hammer she used to bludgeon me with in 2006 could easily swing back in her direction and fuck her life completely if the word gets out on what took place. Because the Commonwealth of Virginia apparently doesn't have a statute of limitations on felonies related to fabricating evidence and lying to police and the courts. The legal system also doesn't care about the lives it destroys, even the lives of spoiled rich girls like Dickerman. I would say especially spoiled rich white girls like her given how things are in society today.

Like the lifeless machine that it is the court system will chew Michelle Dickerman up and spit her out the same as it did to me. Because there is too much here for her to be shielded from legal repercussions. She had her chance in the past to come forward and sell out the DA's office and police department in exchange for immunity from prosecution. But that's not likely something that would be extended to her anymore no matter how good her testimony against the Charlottesville law enforcement. Not in our current legal and political climate. People would want her head just the same as the guilty members of law enforcement who helped her out. After all, why should some rich white girl get off the hook for inflicting so much harm? Why should Michelle Dickerman not suffer for what she did when so many people these days receive no justice for the wrongs done to them? Why should she prance away while others are left holding the bag for a situation that was entirely of her own creation?

All of the evidence shows Michelle Dickerman committed some really serious criminal acts (fabricating evidence, lying to cops/court, deleting evidence when as a lawyer she knew better), and of her actions there are certainly some very, very questionable ones. It all looks like she committed multiple criminal acts and it looks like the Charlottesville DA's office and police department covered up for her due to her status as a rich UVA student (a status for which an accusation of favoritism has already been brought up before in the Alston case).

Even the manner that I was dragged up to Charlottesville under the cover of night (so that C'ville PD could lie and say they arrested me in their city) is viewed as extremely strange. My family and I have spoken with the two Hampton officers who arrested me. They are completely blown away by what happened to me during the entire case, the punishments done to me, and have said that the way I was transferred to Charlottesville at night is very shady. A family friend of one of my sisters is former Hampton PD who now trains cops in the area, and he has said that how I was transferred to Charlottesville was not at all procedure and that something was clearly wrong. Which the booking officer at the Hampton lockup argued with Detective Rudman about that night. Rudman was halfway to Charlottesville when his supervisor called his cell phone and told him to turn around and take me up that night. I know this because Rudman bitched about it to the booking officer.

Two other Hampton cops are family friends and they both agree that something really underhanded happened with both my case and the transfer. The way I was transferred to Charlottesville at night is just tip of the iceberg of extremely questionable things that were done during my 2006 case. But even just the manner of that transfer raises an eyebrow from those who know what was actually supposed to happen that day. But by all means let's continue to pretend blatant law enforcement corruption and favoritism of the Manweiler family didn't take place. The evidence and events surrounding the case say different. It's so blatant it can be seen from space.

Not only was she a University of Virginia student, but Dickerman also has a father (Gregory Manweiler) who was the CFO at the time of a prominent bank in the area that is tied financially to Langley AFB and NASA. Just as important, Mr. Manweiler was a UVA alumni himself and a donor to the university. The plot thickens. How very convenient that his daughter was given special treatment by law enforcement and the courts well in excess of anything given to regular members of the public. I wonder what the amount of UVA donations from Greg Manweiler totaled after my conviction. I'm sure the public will ask that question as well.

You have only to read the posts on my evidence involving Michelle Dickerman's lies and her evidence tampering (here and here) to know that none of what happened in 2006 looks good for her and her family. The public will draw the exact same conclusions I have from the evidence and the events that occurred during the case - especially in our current situation with distrust of law enforcement at an all-time high.

Returning to my belief in my statements, this conviction in what I write would not reasonably apply to anything I was told about Alston via the person leaving their comment. That's because I know nothing of the events in Alston's life other than what the media has repeated. So I have stuck to the narrative that the media gave for his case because I don't have any other narrative. Now I acknowledge that there is a good chance the media got some things wrong in Alston's case, at least information they published prior to his trial. After all I had the media report a lot of incorrect stuff about me during my case. In fact I would say that pretty much the only thing most reporters got right about the coverage of my case was the fact that I was arrested. Everything else was either completely wrong or based on incorrect statements about what did occur.

I had a particular reporter, Liesel Nowak (IIRC Croiser is her last name now) for the Daily Progress that even went so far as to put words in my mouth that were never spoken or written by me. She continued to even claim throughout the case that I went to Dickerman's home in Charlottesville (which I've already proven false here using Michelle Dickerman's own admission in her Victim Impact Statement), and she reported that I had been arrested in Charlottesville (which even a casual glance at the police report would have proven I was arrested in Hampton). This reporter continued to claim I was arrested in Charlottesville trying to confront Dickerman even after other new outlets went quiet about that particular bit of false information. Those other outlets went quiet because they found out from the police report that I was actually arrested in Hampton. Nowak however was too lazy to look up publicly available information and continued to report false information throughout the entire case.

So I acknowledge that not everything the media reported initially about Alston's case might have been correct. But as I said before Andrew Alston got something I didn't - he actually got a trial by jury.

During a trial, where all the facts (at least those not hidden by the prosecutors) are laid out, it is a little harder for media to screw up. Though I don't doubt that false reporting can potentially still happen as well. But I'm less inclined to believe that a mistake was made when Alston's defense is to apparently have his martial arts instructor testify to the ridiculous claim that the victim could have stabbed themselves (a reported 18 to 20 times) with Alston's knife during the fight. Really man? I could believe one or two times. Hell I could maybe even buy five times since a little alcohol was involved. But 18 to 20 times? Get the fuck out of here. The simple fact is that regardless of the stupid testimony a man was killed by Alston's own actions and the jury agreed. Alston should be fucking ecstatic that he only got sentenced to the absolute trickle of jail time that he did receive. He could have been sitting in prison for a decade or more.

As I recall it was three and a half years which he only served two and a half for good behavior. For putting a reported 18 to 20 stabs wounds in a man and ending his life. 

Meanwhile I got a suspended sentence of five years in 2006 for printed up emails that were blatantly tampered with and never verified by the police via any source other than a "trust me bro" from Michelle Dickerman. Emails I was accused of sending to a woman who hadn't even been in my presence since 1999. The first time that woman breathed the same air as me since we graduated high school was the preliminary hearing of 2006. A spoiled and arrogant little rich girl I had never laid a hand on, not even to tap her on the shoulder. I would have likely gotten more than five years if the prosecution carried out their threats. I was warned by my former lawyer that I could have faced ten years or more in prison when all was said and done. Ten years or more for fucking emails. 

Alston killed someone and I would have served more time behind bars than he did. For. Fucking. Emails. Actually that's wrong, it wasn't done to me because of emails. All of this was done to me because a spoiled child who has never been told "No" in her life had a rich daddy with strings he could pull. It's not the first time Greg Manweiler used special treatment from people in authority to help his daughter coast through life or mop up her mistakes.

Alston can cry me a river if he doesn't like me repeating what the media said about his case. At least you got a trial. Alston got way better treatment than I did and he actually stabbed someone to death. Which certainly puts a spotlight on the massive special treatment Dickerman received in 2006. 

I wouldn't have been sent to some white collar country club prison like Alston was claimed to have been sent. The trash in the DA's office threatened to send me to one of the most violent prisons in the region as punishment if I dared to exercise my right to a fair trial. My own lawyer even threatened me into pleading guilty and said he'd sit back and not defend me in court if it went to trial - all because the lazy bastard wanted to take his money and move on to the next client to ripoff. When I tried to fire him for his incompetence and deliberate obstruction of my case I was threatened by the prosecution for that as well.

I didn't have anything available to me at the time to prove my innocence, certainly not while I was stuck in jail with an incompetent and lazy individual for a lawyer who refused to do his job. I knew something was wrong with the emails and that Dickerman had lied, but like I've said before on this blog - it's not what you know it's what you can prove. The problem is that at the time I couldn't tell what exactly she had done to the emails and I didn't have all the proof available to me back then that I have in my possession now. It took me getting out of jail before I could get my hands on the evidence that proved what Michelle Dickerman had done. So I didn't have a choice. Because here were my only two options:

1. I could cave to the threat, find the evidence to prove their lies that I believed I could track down once I was released, and hope that I find some way to clear my name and record later on. 
   
   
2. I let them carry out the threats, get falsely convicted because I didn't have the proof I needed at the time, nobody to help me, and a city that let a guy who stabbed someone to death get a slap on the wrist because of the same UVA student status that Dickerman shared. Then get sent to a really violent prison for ten years or more that I might leave in a body bag before reaching that ten years. Even if I walked out of there in one piece all the evidence of what they did to me would have been completely destroyed by the time I was released. So I'd have been absolutely screwed anyway because I wouldn't have any proof of what they did to me, and I'd have been through a really bad if not lethal experience on top of it.

Now tell me all about what kind of choice I had during my court case. Because option #2 would leave me with nothing to prove the crimes committed by Michelle Dickerman and the Charlottesville law enforcement. Plus years of brutal experience in a very violent prison. Getting abused in prison for years on a charge I knew I never committed, getting railroaded into that prison, and not having the ability to clear my name afterwards with all the evidence being destroyed - ironically that all would have actually led to the very violence against Dickerman that she claimed to have wanted to prevent.

Which further shows Michelle Dickerman's level of incompetence given that she apparently never realized that result would have been the only outcome of sending me to a really violent prison. Did Dickerman really think the guy she would be facing after that, on top of everything else that was done to him in her name, was somehow better than the guy she had dealt with prior? It was better to deal with the guy who before the 2006 case wasn't handed a massive dose of hate and motive until after the court system got done with him. She was better off being hated by the guy who didn't get handed all the evidence to validate every bad thing he ever heard until 2006. Even with me not going to prison, does she even think she still ended up better off even now?

If the answer is yes to any of those questions I asked above - just how stupid is this chick and how did she manage to get as far as she has in life? Just how far has daddy's money had to carry Michelle Dickerman if she's incapable of recognizing the complete fuck up she made in 2006? The felony slapped on me has done nothing they claimed they wanted to prevent. Nothing about the felony stops me from doing anything violent to her were that my desire, and nothing about it stops me from getting access to a firearm illegally if that was something I wanted to do. So what has threatening me into a felony I never committed actually accomplished? I mean besides escalating her situation and ensuring she was never going to walk away from this fight even a decade plus later?

How stupid did she have to be to pull the trigger on law enforcement instead of even attempting to talk it out first? The spoiled ass didn't even try that before going with the nuclear option. What really would have been the harm in pulling her head out of her ass and trying to talk it over before getting the shit-show called the Criminal Justice System involved? Given everything that happened in this clusterfuck of a criminal case - I wonder if she now wishes she had at least tried to talk it out before she royally screwed herself (and her family) and has to now spend the rest of her life looking over her shoulder?

I wonder how she feels knowing there is enough evidence against her to rip her entire life to shreds, and that anything she does towards me will cause every bit of it to come out in public. What took place in 2006 was a massive fuck up and she deserves everything coming to her. She deserves to get her life ruined once it all comes out. Michelle Dickerman made everything worse for herself and everyone else around her, which seems to be her only true talent in life. The only question I have for Dickerman now and in the future when it all inevitably comes out is this - was it all worth it?

Michelle Dickerman got treated excessively better by the Charlottesville legal system than the man (Walter Sisk) who was fatally stabbed 18 to 20 times by Alston. Dickerman was babied by the Charlottesville court system because she was a UVA student with money and family connections to the university - while Walter Sisk's family had none of that. You think three and half years would be considered enough for the death of their son? Would you consider that enough for the death of someone you loved? They sued Alston after he walked out of jail, but if I recall correctly he filed for bankruptcy and they didn't get much. I think a few thousand. That's apparently all that Sisk's life was worth to the city of Charlottesville - three and a half years and a few thousand dollars.

So Michelle Dickerman can cry a river as well for having to look over her shoulder for the remainder of her life. That spoiled brat's life was not only considered more valuable than mine to the Charlottesville court system, but her life was also considered more valuable than Sisk's life. Her family was given more priority than Sisk's family was simply because daddy has that banker money to let his daughter coast through life. Hell Dickerman got more protection than any raped woman or molested child in Charlottesville - unintentionally admitted to by the assistant DA Joseph Platania. At the guilty plea hearing Platania admitted to the judge that one of the penalties of the plea agreement I was being threatened into was the most that had ever been handed out in the history of the Charlottesville Circuit court. Platania used this exact phrase in court in front of me and everyone else in that courtroom that day - "the most ever handed out in the history of the Charlottesville Circuit court". That phrase came out of that bastard's mouth and he didn't even flinch.

I want you to understand what that means. 

Andrew Alston stabbed a man to death. He put 18 to 20 stabs wounds in Walter Sisk according to media reports. Think about what kind of pain Sisk would have been in as he was dying. Bleeding out on the ground from stab wounds isn't that quick of a process. But the Charlottesville legal system didn't think Alston deserved the same penalties that was given to me in the plea deal I was threatened into signing by the prosecution and my garbage lawyer. For writing emails to Michelle Dickerman. Emails to a woman who hadn't been in my physical presence since 1999. I had a bigger sentence hanging over my head than what was served by the guy who put 18 to 20 stab wounds into Walter Sisk. I got punished more than a guy who killed someone. For sending emails.

Circuit court handles serious crimes like murder, rape, molestation, etc. I'm sure no one would be stupid enough to claim that the city of Charlottesville has never had a rape trial or a case of child molestation in it's entire history. So I received a penalty that, by District Attorney Joseph Platania's own admission in court, has never been given to a rapist or a child molester in the C'vile Circuit courts entire existence. But I get that for sending emails to a rich UVA student.

That's privilege folks by definition. That's what daddy's money can buy you in the legal system. That's what happens when your father has money, graduated from the same university you had just graduated from, has contacts within the university, and donates money to UVA. I wonder how high the donations from the Manweilers were to UVA after my sentencing? How much money did it cost Daddy Manweiler to fuck up the life of a guy who wrote mean emails to his narcissistic daughter that she deliberately tampered with and even outright fabricated just to create a false narrative? Additionally Dickerman herself interned for a Virginia Supreme Court judge as a clerk prior to the 2006 case and I'm willing to bet she contacted him as well to get him involved behind the scenes.

So like I said - Alston can shut up if he didn't like me writing about his case, because he got a hell of a lot better result than I did and he's done a lot worse.

Sorry rant over, let's get back to the second reason why I won't be using information from this source.

The person who came to me is claiming to be someone from Alston's past who knew him before the events in the manslaughter case. The thing is I have to wonder what unknown person might try to say the same things about me when this case eventually comes to light in the news media. There are plenty of people out there who crawl out of the woodwork to get their 15 minutes of fame. I encountered this during the 2006 case, though it wasn't from someone who knew me and Dickerman from the past. Not saying at all that that's what is going on with the person who contacted me, but I'll get into that in a bit since I want to touch on the personal experiences behind why I'm averse to using this individual's statements.

As I've said, I've unfortunately already had the experience of people jumping in to comment on my case when they knew nothing about me, so I'm already well aware that this issue will likely arise when the case inevitably goes public in the future. In 2006 when news of my arrest got out, I actually had neighbors in the area surrounding my apartment building run their mouths about me. Their statement on my guilt was that in the whopping one year I lived in that neighborhood that I "was always so quiet". As if somehow that is some kind of indication of guilt. I lived there for only one year but because I didn't talk to many neighbors or make a lot of noise I'm guilty before I've even had a bond hearing? Very intelligent people we're dealing with clearly. You know why I didn't talk to most of my neighbors?

I didn't talk to my neighbors because they were rich bastards in waterfront houses who completely ignored my existence the entire year I lived there. Go ahead and look at the area of Grand View in Hampton VA in Google Maps, specifically near the area the old lighthouse was long ago, and you'll see what I mean. It isn't cheap living that close to the water with beach access in a really short walking distance (that was before the really big houses came in and turned Grand View Beach into private backyard beaches). Even the small houses there would have cost quite a lot.

Now don't misunderstand me when I make comments like "rich bastards" in regards to well-off individuals. I don't have a problem with people who have more money or means than I do, and I especially don't have a problem with people who legitimately worked their way up to that point. Hell being paid what I'm getting currently with the new employer would probably put me in that category to some people with far less means. While I'm not into displays of wealth and typically go for practical over flashy, I also don't take issue with someone having nice things that I do not have.

What I have a problem with is people who treat others like shit because of that difference in financial situation. I have a problem with someone with money acting like they own me, think they know what's best for my life more than I do because of their cash flow, and/or believe they have a right to dictate my life because of their financial status. I have a problem when people with money use their money and/or status to get special treatment not afforded to the rest of us "plebs". It's even worse if they think special treatment is "owed" to them because of how much money they have, and especially when said special treatment involves the courts or government. I have a problem with people who think having money makes their shit smell like a Yankee Candle factory. Basically I have a problem with arrogant assholes regardless of their financial means or lack-there-of, though my experience has been that the level of arrogance tends to increase proportionately with higher bank balances.

I was a guy who just moved into a very old and beat-the-hell-up beach house badly converted into a three bedroom apartment. That's all I could afford on the low salary I made at Northrop Grumman as a junior designer. Meanwhile the people around me lived in nice houses (or rented those houses out to people on vacation who wouldn't be chatting up the locals), made very high salaries, and drove around in golf carts to each others houses rather than walk. The roads were private roads that weren't paved, but at the time they were sandy in color and the unpaved nature was intentional to keep a sort of "beach" appearance to the area. It was pretty clear I wasn't on the same financial level of the people living around me. Thus many of the people living there wouldn't have pissed on me if I was on fire, and some even had no issue making that rather clear. Rich bastards like I said. Michelle Dickerman and her equally arrogant parents would have felt right at home living with people who are up their own ass.

The entire time I lived there I only had two groups of people bother to acknowledge my existence let alone get to know me - my landlady's family was one group, and a man and his family who lived next to me was the other (my building was at the intersection of two roads and he was across one of the roads from me). Those two groups are the only ones who ever introduced themselves to me and would talk to me. Everyone else in the neighborhood couldn't have cared less, and so I didn't care about them either. But I'm guilty of all the garbage that the news accused me of simply because I was quiet around people who kept to themselves and never cared to even acknowledge me. Apparently being so quiet with snobbish neighbors was clear evidence that I was a killer in the making, rather than a by-product of those same people pretending I didn't exist. My former landlady said she argued with those people about just how stupid their claims of my guilt based on my quietness were - "So what if he was quiet? How was that a problem? What does that have to do with anything?"

While this was annoying considering the hypocrisy that's not the bad part. Where this really became a problem is when I had one guy living in the area run his mouth to the news media standing outside my apartment while I was in jail. He was repeating that same bullshit about me being "so quiet" as if that meant I was guilty of everything. Based on what my landlady told me after my release I'm 99% certain I know who it was. She said that given his issues with his heavy drinking, and arrests made because of that drinking, that this guy had no business running his mouth about me to the news. Which would mean that the guy telling the news I was guilty because I was "so quiet" was the same guy who once drunkenly shoved his way into my apartment and began yelling.

The day before the incident where he shoved his way into the apartment, my landlady mentioned they were having someone come over to work on some repairs. The guy knocked on my door, a sliding glass door, and I opened it up to speak to him thinking he was the guy my landlady mentioned. As soon as the door opened enough for him to physically enter he immediately shoved past me, gracing me with the reek of alcohol as he did so, and stood in my living room shouting loudly "Where the hell's *Redacted* at?! Bring his ass out here!" The name he was shouting was the landlady's brother who lived next door to me, though I didn't know his name at the time having just recently moved into the apartment next to him.

The drunk gossiper should be thankful I wasn't the violent guy the news and police claimed me to be. Because he easily and justifiably could have been looking down the barrel of one of the guns in my collection. Lucky for him I only braced myself for the potential of a fight but made no attempt to be aggressive with the guy because I assumed he got the wrong apartment. Without a word from me the drunk realized his mistake after looking around for a bit, makes a statement of "Oh wait a minute", walks right by me out of my apartment without an apology, and knocks on the door next to mine.

I closed my door after he walked out and never said anything about the incident. He apparently told the landlady's brother what happened, because she apologized to me for what he did the next day. I told her I wasn't worried about it and knew it had just been an accident. I doubt most people would have been as generous with a drunk person barging into their home while shouting. Given he (according to my landlady) has a history of alcohol abuse, and apparently history with the legal system as well because of said abuse, I'd agree with my landlady's assessment that the guy had no business talking shit about me to the news media.

So I think you can understand my reluctance to run with anything told to me by someone from Andrew Alston's past. There were people spouting misleading statements to the news media about me for attention during my criminal case after all. Now there is a high chance that this person is exactly who they say they are and that they actually know the details they claim to know about Alston. I see little gain for them in being willing to pass on information to me. I'm not a journalist, though most claiming that title these days aren't one either, and I'm not someone famous that they can get 15 minutes of fame from exploiting.

I don't think anyone is even talking about Alston's case anymore in the media. I do get regular views on that post about his case, but I'm not sure why those views tend to be rather steady since I don't think people talk about his case. Granted a substantial portion tends to come from Pennsylvania, which is Alston's home state IIRC. I tend to get unique visitors rather than a repeat visitor so they can't all be Alston or his family. I do get Charlottesville views as well, some who appear to be journalists. I don't recall seeing any media coverage of it in a very long time and thus I don't really have an explanation behind the steady views on that Alston post. So I'm not seeing any benefit for this person to give false information to a nobody like me who just writes a blog about his legal troubles, especially about a resolved manslaughter case from over a decade ago.

I think this person might be telling the truth about their knowledge of Andrew Alston's past, but I have to acknowledge the fact that this is the internet and people lie for shits and giggles rather than any tangible gain. I'm also well aware some hanger-on's in my past or Dickerman's past would probably try to get some media air time when that coverage does happen in the future. One way or another I'm getting my case out there in the media regardless. Whatever method of mine forces it out into the public's attention, I know there are people who will likely run their mouths on subjects they knew nothing about even when the first disputes originally happened.

I'm not expecting more than one or two, and it would probably be friends of Dickerman rather than an outsider to the dispute. I can't see anyone outside the fight remembering anything decades later about two people they didn't have any close associations with. But there is plenty of trash out there looking for even the tiniest crumb of attention when the cameras turn on, so it's not impossible to have people who knew nothing about the dispute between myself and Dickerman coming forward with complete bullshit. After all, I had a guy who didn't speak to me again after he drunkenly entered my home start gossiping to the news media pretending as if he knew anything about me.

Hopefully the two reasons I've discussed help explain to this individual why I can't use anything they are willing to provide. So I haven't bothered to contact them except in this post statement, assuming they come back to the blog. It has been some time since they left the comment, but with work and the holiday season I just didn't have the time to pound this post out - which is already much longer than I originally intended but that tends to be a common problem for me. If this person was legitimate and wanted to share truthful information with me, I sincerely appreciate that you wished to share your story with me. I just can't post anything you say about Alston, both for the legal can of worms it opens up and because of the moral issues I have with posting such info due to my own experiences. I wish you well, and I'm genuinely sorry you had to experience anything involving Alston.