It’s been fun to joust with you. We’ll probably clash in the future, since you seem to be as intrinsically contrary as I am, but I want you to know that I’ve met only two or three people on the web whom I’d like to know in real life, and you are one.

As for posting anonymously, I used to post under a monker, at the AT, but people started stealing it and using it to say things I never would have said, so I became a ghost. It has its advantages. The ad-hominum attacks that are such a staple here don’t work against an invisible person. People have to respond to the points you make, not to the friend/enemy persona they have assigned you.

I suppose friends is the wrong word, but we could have been allies of sorts, because we both think Kristen is being unjustly persecuted and want to make it stop, though my idea of her innocence and yours are not the same.

I agree that the public has no idea what the exact context of the incident was. Even if every picture was accurate and unaltered and none omitted for effect, the incident could have happened in a hundred different scenarios, ranging from highly reprehensible to largely blameless.

I’d disagree that we know whether Robert was shocked and whether or not he refused to speak to her. GC claims that’s the case, but they also made other unverifiable claims at the time, such as that Kristen and Rupert never had sex (I’m not saying they did, just that there’s no “source” which could possibly determine that) and how the parties felt about the situation.

I find Liberty’s refusal to forgive as understandable as Rob forgiveness. Ru was clearly the agressor– and, while Kristen looked rather conflicted and abashed, Ru looked like a man with no doubts at all. In Liberty’s place, I couldn’t have got past that pic of a totally blissed out Ru, kissing Kristen’s neck–especially coming on the heels of what L clearly felt were years of neglect.
That said, I even sympathize with Ru. He didn’t look to me like a man trying to score, he looked like a man in love–a thirsty man drinking at last. Which brings us back to Kristen. Yes, she should have just smacked him down, but how mean could you be to a man who looked at you with that kind of adoration?
So we come full circle– a complete circle of human folly.

But that’s just theoretical, because in fact, I agree with you in this case.

The apologies are the one thing that supports the reality, or at least partial reality, of this story. It’s unlikely Rupert Sanders could also have been convinced to keep silent if the apologies were not genuine. Anything’s possible, but it’s unlikely.

But you’re right, she didn’t take responsibility for more than a “momentary indiscretion.” Which, combined with the nature of the pictures, makes me think it’s most likely there was some actual incident which was photographed, then additional pictures were manufactured and/or existing pictures were altered to seem more scandalous. As the tabloids would know very well, Kristen couldn’t outright deny the story, since there was some truth in it and it would be humiliating to go into detail about exactly what was real, what was not. She might very well apologize for exactly what it was, a “momentary indiscretion,” then refuse to comment thereafter. The fact that Rupert Sanders’ apology followed immediately on hers suggests that he was informed of her apology and was following her example.

This would explain the discrepancies in some of the pictures, as well as the strangely small number of pictures obtained by up to four paparazzi following and photographing the couple all afternoon. Presumably any further incriminating photos would have been published. If you omit the duplicate pictures and the ones which show the couple doing nothing inappropriate, you get between twenty and thirty photos. From a group of professional paps, following this one couple the entire afternoon?

Now, the actual, genuine indiscretion that launched this may have been very trivial compared to what we were shown in the photos; or it could have been much like what we were shown, but extremely brief. (I think it goes without saying that the suggestive description of the afternoon’s events is unreliable.) Either way, the photographer(s) would have had a great story, but very limited evidence. Possibly they decided to embellish the minimal story they had, either by adding fabricated photos or by doctoring “boring” pictures into more scandalous ones.

Once again, I’m not invested in the idea that Kristen is guiltless, that the pictures were staged, or whatever. Frankly, it seems like something any typical 22 year old might get involved in under the circumstances. I don’t care, except that I find the public reaction to this very anemic “scandal” to be kind of horrifying, and its exploitation by the tabloids disgusting. Since Kristen is being branded with the scarlet letter over this business – even now, many months later – it bothers me that the original story might have been either faked or exaggerated. Fair enough?

To me, the real story is that she was stalked this way in the first place; that she is being condemned as a “whore” as a result; that the tabloids which published the whole business have virtually no accountability for its truth.

You say it’s plausible Kristen would just accept this hookup story, if it were a fake, and not deny it, in spite of the devastation to her reputation, because Kristen has never reponded to fake breakup and pregnancy stories? BUT SHE DID RESPOND THIS TIME. She responded and took responsiblity—not for cheating, but for “this momentary indiscretion”. And what about the other three principals? Rupert has become the most hated man in America, if you judge by the blogs. He’s losing his wife and kids. You think if those pics of him were fake, he wouldn’t defend himself? But he, too, accepted the blame and apologised. Even Rob and Liberty have suffered ridicule and criticism. Would they both keep silent, knowing the pics were fake? Would Liberty divorce her husband? Would Rob sit by and let Kristen be called a whore and acused of sleeping with all her directors if he knew the pics were fakes and he could turn it all off by admitting that? No.

In fact I challenge you to do so as I have challenged many a guest to do so many times before on this website. But if you aren’t even willing to register as an identifiable moniker, you are just as bad as the tabloids hiding behind their faceless sources. So if you are unwilling and unable to engage, I suggest you stop with your insanity. We heard you the last time.

And banned or not banned, the truth will come. This story is too big to hide. As a famous Jeff Goldbloom character once said, nature finds a way.