Folks, please don't put a lot of stock into whatever was said by SK. He may have even less credibility than the A's, imo. I'm sure y'all caught that in his interview where he basically admits he made stuff up for his blog. CA didn't really say what he quoted; he just "read" her because he can "read people" you know. In fact, throughout the transcript LE refers to items he wrote and iirc, he pretty much explains that most of it was not real. It really, really bothered me at the time and hasn't lessened much with time's passage how ZFG gave him that interview that CA wanted because he promised to put a link on his site for folks to donate to her and her hungry children. Instead, he totally humiliated and slandered her, imo, taking advantage of a very desperate woman.
For a bit more detail, here is most of a post I made in the original thread:
However, my comments, I hope, fall more under defense of ZFG. More importantly, I want to caution those who may be unfamiliar and can actually get through the 'um, uh, um' and other gibberish; and who can suspend disbelief long enough to get through how he 'reads people' and makes up answers for them when they remain silent. IMO, this guy has/had less than zero credibility; maybe even less than the A's. So please take anything from that depo with a huge box of salt.
In fact, I read the first couple of pages and realized what a waste of time it was because I can't believe anything he says. As if what I just wrote wasn't enough, please consider that this person trashed ZFG on his website and claims to LE in this depo that he 'busted her as a liar' because he read a docket of a civil case that may have been her and saw there was a SS filing. He assumed that meant she was collecting social security disability payments and further 'read into it' that she must have been working under the table and so on and so on. Well, the truth of that matter is that back when this case was filed, it was a requirement of the court that a specific document, 'Notice of filing Social Security Number' had to be filed in domestic cases. It had zero to do with disability or collecting payments. He 'read that into it' and branded this poor woman a scammer and a liar.
That's an excellent example of this guy's reporting overall; making up answers to replace silence; making up contents of documents loosely based on the abbreviated title, rather than reading them to see what they were, no matter how much it slandered an innocent person, imo.
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3865016&postcount=30"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - 2009.06.12 Document Dump[/ame]
