Beccaboo
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2011
- Messages
- 613
- Reaction score
- 0
I'm "buying" the overall truth of the Examiner article. It is really not that over the top or inflammatory. References to MDLR would have to have been researched diligently otherwise they might be libelous. The article doesn't mention anything extreme in the way of scrutiny of financial transactions: you can tell, because many of us WS-ers are familiar with these kinds of investigations, at least in a bare bones kind of a way. Only small amounts of money were cited, when there might be a temptation to throw in something much bigger. Plus, we know that Jodi's transactions into and out of her commissary account have not gone unnoticed (thank you, Sheriff Joe). And the article really just solidifies what we knew all along: there's a lot fishy in Jodi's finances.
So, all in all, I don't see anything incredible in the article.
I agree! I also have a very hard time believing they would put this story out there without some solid proof to cover their rear-ends with. I realize the examiner is not always the beacon of journalistic excellence, BUT putting this stuff out there opens them up to major litigation if it is not true. It is one thing to infer wrong doing, it is something completely different to out and out state it. Maybe it is because I want someone to pay for their dirty deeds in this case, but I think we will find this story has legs.