It must be difficult to be a public figure and act like a professional victim but John Giduck seems to be doing a pretty good job of it.  A huge part of the evidence that John Giduck trots out in front of his supporters is that he was specifically threatened and attacked by members of an online community. Let’s look at the evidence of this claim and see if it seems misleading.

As context, John Giduck’s mouthpiece site specifically says that SOCNET members attacked his property.  From the SOCNETLies website:

In our opinion, it would appear that to prove that they are armed, operational and deployable, late Friday night (Jan. 27) or early Saturday morning (Jan. 28), while John Giduck away from home conducting training for Philadelphia area police, one of SOCnet did go to John Giduck’s house.  

This was not the first time. SOCnet had John Giduck’s house under surveillance previously as evidenced by a threat made immediately after Christmas to kill a pony that had recently been bought for a child. During this “visit” all four of John Giduck’s car tires were slashed and a mattress was lit on fire next to his house.

John Giduck himself states that SOCNET members attacked his property yet from the above police report on his John Giduck blog post dated 6 Feb 2012:

For the past five years I have been the subject of a campaign of attacks by members of the SOCnet.com web site. I have not wanted to give them the legitimacy of a personal response. However, in light of their recent escalation of attacks to include my family, friends, colleagues and even my property, I can remain silent no longer.

These are direct accusations – not theories. Let’s ignore the fact for a moment that members would have had to travel from other states  and look at the actual police report.

Wow.  This is what John Giduck has been hanging his hat on for his lawsuit? Seriously?  If the personal property attacks are keeping you on the fence about John Giduck in the face of all of the other evidence of his misleading statements and activities, then you might want to rethink your position.

Let’s look at the key points of what the investigating officer wrote in his report:

– Neither the investigating officer nor the mechanic at the garage could find evidence that tires had been tampered with or how air had been removed from them until after the tires had been left in the custody of a third party

– There were no fingerprints on the vehicle

– The neighbor claimed tire punctures that could not be found by the investigating officer

– The footprints around the vehicle were the neighbor’s footprints.

– The mattress had been outside long enough to be stuck in the ice and even John Giduck admitted that it was trash per the report. Here is a photo of the “burned” mattress that was already trash.  Someone help find the part of the mattress that appears to have been part of the alleged arson (which he is accusing others of)

– The 28 January Police specifically states that FBI wasn’t interested due to the lack of evidence.  So why would John Giduck’s mouthpiece site in a blog post dated 2 February 2012 write that the FBI was investigating?

As a result of these threats and ongoing acts of harassment, stalking, criminal libel, felony solicitation, vandalism and attempted arson, as well as cyber-terrorism in violation of federal cyber-harassment/stalking laws, this entire matter has been referred to several local police agencies, the Colorado Bureau of Investigation and two offices of the F.B.I. for investigation.

It may have been referred on the same day as the police report (one has to wonder why it was referred to the FBI at all)….but, by the date of the police report (28 Jan), it was clear that there wasn’t any physical evidence to support FBI involvement.

So, the intent of the 2 Feb 2012 SOCNETLies blog post seems clearly to mislead you that the alleged “crime” was something far bigger and scarier than it was. Let’s be clear here, the police report doesn’t even provide evidence that anything actually happened on John Giduck’s property.

In summary, is anyone else of the opinion that John Giduck’s description of the incident is misleading at best?   What the police report highlights is that John Giduck and his mouthpiece site make such definitive statements that members of a worldwide forum caused this damage when the evidence shows that there doesn’t appear to be much evidence that this incident even occurred as John Giduck imagines it to have happened.  Heck, there’s always the possibility that John Giduck may have done this himself to gain sympathy and support from the easily convinced.

My opinion is that it’s just another bit evidence in a long trail of John Giduck’s attempts to  mislead you.  I’m personally convinced that far more evidence of John Giduck’s misleading statements, his involvement in “interesting” business activities, and sudden changes in his previous statements will be made public during the discovery process of John Giduck’s lawsuit.

SEE ALSO

How John Giduck Misleads You: Defense of Fake Credentials

How Archangel Group Misleads You: John Giduck’s Credentials Part 2

How John Giduck And Chester PA’s Joseph Bail Mislead You: Counter terrorism Credentials

John Giduck’s Biggest Problem Seems To Be John Giduck

Advertisements