Quote:
Originally Posted by fatso
I definitely get what you're saying, but there is way too much filling in of facts by way of assumptions from the article to seriously consider the women's stories as allegations worthy of a response. For example: How do we know that the women didn't speak to each other in advance? How do we know the Star didn't obtain referrals to the other women? How do we know the Star didn't ask leading questions or refer to other allegations in their questioning?
|
I don't find the idea that the women spoke to each other in advance at all credible. Why would they? One person being that vindictive I can see, two, maybe but unlikely, but three? How do you get three people to hate you that much unless you actually did do something horrible to each of them?
As far as leading questions go, that I already said is possible, but again seems to be a case of over-complicating something that has a simple explanation. In one version, you have complex series of events that include anonymous revenge, collusion, and incompetence, and in the other version you have one guy who thinks he can intimidate and coerce women from a position of power. The former happens, despite conspiracy theorists, very seldom, and the latter happens frequently indeed.