Arlene has strong credibility in my eyes, because of the number of things she's said that have been corroborated by other stories.
SMM's credibility is shot in my book.
I think Arlene is very credible as well. I also think she's being used, and that makes me angry.
Throughout the program, it seemed to me that Arlene was being used as a tool, asked questions that were carefully structured to connect specific dots for SMM, and at times asked for information she'd have no reason to know. Such as what the technology was. What difference does it make? Arlene knew what it DOES.
Besides funneling Arlene where she wanted her to go, SMM consistently played her like a remote control, IMO, asking her a question, stopping her in mid-answer after she got what she was trying to extract, and then re-directing to another member of the panel. SMM's rants, however, were uninterrupted monologues.
The whole hour was punctuated with SMM's variations of "you poor dear," to validate Arlene and keep her on SMM's set path IMO, which I found a bit
uke:
I think Arlene is very credible, however, when left to tell her story in her own way and in the most appropriate forums. Which would probably take MSM out of the loop.
I think Arlene will LOSE credibility if tactics do not change. The gmail comment in itself does that a little bit, although Arlene's knowledge of particular spyware programs or email accounts seems irrelevant to me.