Identity of the guy in the voicemail on Britney's Gram

[NotBuyingIt]

2 minutes ago, BringTheAction said:

It’s funny they report that she was screaming and hard to work with from the pain of the tattoos when it’s not her first time being inked. AND WE HAVE THE VIDEO OF HER CALMLY LAYING THERE AS THE GUY TATTOOED HER. No expression on her face. 

People really just wanted her to fail. It's absolutely disgusting.

[GlitterSlayDExhaleHI]

2 minutes ago, BringTheAction said:

It’s funny they report that she was screaming and hard to work with from the pain of the tattoos when it’s not her first time being inked. AND WE HAVE THE VIDEO OF HER CALMLY LAYING THERE AS THE GUY TATTOOED HER. No expression on her face. 

See we really need to refocus. There's all this other mumbo jumbo flooding in now and we need to focus on freeing Britney and nothing else. Not the distant past. I get it's relevant to current discussion, but that's the problem. So much discussion that it is hiding the here and now. 

[NotBuyingIt]

OP, one other thought: given that we can easily look up who this man is as he's introduced earlier in that same clip as Bradley Jacobs from US Weekly, I think the video shouldn't start playing after he's introduced. It's easy to clear up that they're different people when looking up Bradley quickly clears him of the Britney's Gram voicemail, which was left by someone who claims to be in a legal field.

[studlygeorge]

Is everyone forgetting the lawyersforbritney/BritneysGram drama where they said the person in the voicemail was Cade Hudson? They said the crafted the “ex paralegal” identity to protect his anonymity 

[Isla]

Yeah, I think we need to be careful. The voices are similar, but even if this was the same guy, this is a whistleblower who wanted to remain anonymous. 

[PZHSB]

This poor guy is going to have all the trolls harassing him now 

[Email My D]

Please stop highlighting / digging into all the wrong things. This thread is very irresponsible, there should be no investigation about who that guy is. If his identity is known he could get into alot of trouble. This thread should be deleted before someone else comes on here and says they actually know the guy and met him at a pool party recently. 

[Steel Magnolia]

The biggest question right now is...

Who is the OP? And why would they post this here? 

[RedBloodedWoman]

The fact that Jordan gives out loads of petty warning points over the dumbest **** & refuses to delete something that could actually be harmful to someone..It’s clearly all about the ad revenue.

[GlitterSlayDExhaleHI]

28 minutes ago, RedBloodedWoman said:

The fact that Jordan gives out loads of petty warning points over the dumbest **** & refuses to delete something that could actually be harmful to someone..It’s clearly all about the ad revenue.

You’re one of very few people here who believes that. He’s trying to be objective. He’s avoiding censorship. 
 

people here think they have everything figured out don’t they 

 

can we just lock the thread to avoid more know it alls?

[RedBloodedWoman]

21 minutes ago, halfdressed said:

You’re one of very few people here who believes that. He’s trying to be objective. He’s avoiding censorship. 
 

people here think they have everything figured out don’t they 

 

can we just lock the thread to avoid more know it alls?

The irony in this post

 

[GlitterSlayDExhaleHI]

9 minutes ago, RedBloodedWoman said:

The irony in this post

 

Locking the thread is not removing someone’s post as they all remain intact. Leaving it open does not elevate or benefit this forum in anyway due to people like you ****ting on the mods. 

[Anti-Hero]

Given the paralegal wanted to remain anonymous, even the possibility that he’s being outed in this thread is enough to delete it IMO. And even if it isn’t the same person, it just brings too much unwanted attention to someone we shouldn’t be bothering.

[Marcanthony]

It's very very similar

[Marcanthony]

9 hours ago, NotBuyingIt said:

OP, one other thought: given that we can easily look up who this man is as he's introduced earlier in that same clip as Bradley Jacobs from US Weekly, I think the video shouldn't start playing after he's introduced. It's easy to clear up that they're different people when looking up Bradley quickly clears him of the Britney's Gram voicemail, which was left by someone who claims to be in a legal field.

But in the video it says "Voice of Bradley Jacobs"

[MysticWomaney]

I don’t think it sounds like him at all. It’s a reach. I do worry how some people over analyse things at the moment it’s not going to benefit the actual agenda 

[♔ monalisaney ♚]

16 hours ago, Jordan Miller said:

That puts me in a really tough spot because I can't just delete another member's content per request. That could become a can of worms. It has to break the community guidelines and this doesn't. 

I do agree that potentially revealing the source of the vm can be seen as problematic. If the OP wants to edit their post to remove the content that's one thing, but I don't feel comfortable censoring someone's post (or anyones') unless it breaks the rules. I know that's not a satisfactory answer, but that's where I'm at with that. Hope you understand. 

Instead of deleting this thread, can't you just lock it? The fact that somebody made an account just to post this is very sus

[Jordan Miller]

12 hours ago, RedBloodedWoman said:

The fact that Jordan gives out loads of petty warning points over the dumbest **** & refuses to delete something that could actually be harmful to someone..It’s clearly all about the ad revenue.

That's certainly one way to look at things, but I disagree. I have stated many times if traffic died down because Britney is free or whatever the case may be, I welcome that. And the warning points are never dumb or petty - they are always because a post breaks the community guidelines. 

I don't think it's right to censor peoples' posts unless they overtly break the rules. I don't want to set a precedent that you can come to Exhale and have your posts censored when they don't break the community guidelines. This puts me in a tough position. 

@Slayer made a good call about hiding this topic, I totally understand and respect that. This is one of those difficult calls. I mean no disrespect at all and hope this doesn't come off like I'm undermining you, Slayer. You made an intelligent and GOOD call. I am going to be transparent and say that I have unhid the topic from view, but locked it so no further replies can be made.

Generally speaking, sweeping a rumor under the rug doesn't sit right with me. There is zero evidence to actually pin the guy in the voicemail to the guy in the tabloid clip. It's all just rumors and speculation and should be viewed through that lens (imo).