Originally Posted by
Dan Druff
Let me put it a different way.
Let's say kewlJ showed up here and claimed, "I saw Dan Druff steal $100 from an acquaintance at Caesars Palace yesterday, at around 12pm."
If I were innocent, one of the following responses would be appropriate:
"I wasn't even in the state of Nevada yesterday, and I can prove it"
-or-
"I wasn't in Caesars at all yesterday, and I can prove it"
-or-
"You obviously saw me there or heard I was at Caesars around noon, but I didn't steal anything from anyone. You can't produce anyone who will say that I stole from them yesterday. I'll even go with you and as surveillance to pull up the footage of me being there, and look for any evidence I stole from anyone."
However, let's say my response was just this:
"Why would I steal $100? I don't need $100, everyone knows I don't need $100. I wouldn't risk my rep over $100, even if I did need it."
That statement isn't a denial. It's asking the reader to trust that I wouldn't WANT to steal $100, yet not answering the allegation whether I actually did it or not.
This guy seems to dance around whether he was cashing out unused credits, from what I've seen, other than lightly stating he didn't do it. But the lawsuit seems to hinge upon a lot of weird assertions which wouldn't be necessary if he could simply say he was falsely accused and the camera proves it. Why isn't he just taking that line?