Yes, I agree it is a bit hypocritical by me when I said earlier in this thread do not use RO. I still think it is unreliable and it is not good to use it as a fact. I still think so and I do not want to make it a fact either. They might have made that all up, it is not beyond them. But my point is not really whether that story is true or not. I only used it as an example as to what kind of other inappropriate pics those might be. Potentially, as a possible example - not as a definite fact.
My bigger point is not dependent on Radar's story though. Even if the story isn't true the point still stands because the point was never built on that RO story, it was built on Lisa's court doc. And in that Lisa never actually claimed child porn or even inappropriate pictures of children. It was a jumping to a conclusion by the media. In her paper she claimed inappropriate photos of something unspecified. We don't know what. It could be of children, but it could be of something else.
The police statement speaks of child abuse claims but again, they do not clarify the nature of what was alleged and what kind of abuse we are talking about and how they are related to the photos. What they actually say is that they could not determine if a crime occured in Tennessee. It sounds weird to me because from this it could mean that they don't have any evidence of a crime at all, or it could also mean that they only do not have evidence that it occured in Tennesse. Which one is it? I don't know. Now, we can be sure it is not child porn as child porn is a federal crime. They would have to investigate or further the investigation to the FBI if it was child porn. On the other hand the statement also says they never even opened a formal investigation, so if no investigation was even opened how could they conclude that no crime occured? It rather seems to be that they just concluded it is not their jurisdiction and that's it.
We know it is not the Tennessee police that Lisa went to anyway, it was Beverly Hills. Tennessee only got involved because they thought the alleged crime occured there. Now they say they couldn't determine that. So what now? Does it go back to BH for them to keep going?
Lisa's court doc talks of "sexual abuse and negligence" claims that will be discussed in the children's court on March 17. Again, nothing further is stated as to what is the nature of that alleged sexual abuse and negligence and who is accusing whom of what and how they are related to the photos. Lockwood himself stated that there were unproven allegations against BOTH of them. So we do not know a lot, apparently and I think we need to wait for more details. To me there is a lot that is not clear in this and there seems to be some pieces missing from the puzzle.
To me it seems like what you are trying to conclude is that if the police in Tennesse said they couldn't determine a crime occured in Tennessee that means Lisa lied and she falsely accused Lockwood. When in reality we do not even know yet what was the nature of the allegation or why Tennessee doesn't get involved (is it a lack of crime or is it simply a jurisduction debate?) let alone concluding anything about whether someone is lying.
It was stolen and showed up at an AUCTION-not auctioned by her.