|
|
Post by amyjason1 on Aug 23, 2005 18:05:19 GMT -5
Then why did he go to the Inquirer first if it was for the "right" reasons? HMMMM?  |
|
|
|
Post by mhdubuha on Aug 31, 2005 1:02:40 GMT -5
I am thinking that if this was evidence that could possibly exonerate Scott than his supporters here should be all for it. Also I think you are right when you say that the guy is probably trying to make money- Rain I know that you want to see the best in people- but if this wasn't the case why would he sell the story to the inquirer first? I think that anything that could lead to some real concrete evidence one way or another would be a good thing. I have seen this type of thing before, but never so soon after the person is convicted usually it happens years after the fact...
Just my two cents I hope you enjoy it
|
|
