[swilhelm73]

I'd suggest people actually read Snopes response to the article.

Yes, he does contact the original author and gets little from him.

Then he finds someone who claims to know where and when this incident occured even though this latter individual's case bears extremely little resemblance to that quoted orginally.

So then, why did Snopes quote extensively from the latter? Bias.

The story does fit many of the elements of "to good to be true" or "exaggeration to prove a point". That isn't the case Snopes makes.

However, it is easily possible that a prison ministry that operates over a large geographic area had one session that didn't go so well; ie the one Snopes describes, and one that did, the one Mathes describes.

As for Snopes's bias, well if you haven't noticed it you just plain aren't looking.