[ConservativeDude]

I am not familiar with that show (?) but I am guessing it is a tv talk or something?

At any rate, my question is simply: why are we assuming that he (ie, the dead guy on the floor with the holes in his back) drive her to murder?

Now if it had been the other way around, they would all be asking why such an awful man hadn't already been locked up.

Is there a presumption of guilt on the part of the man anytime a man is involved in a crime - even if his involvement is victim?

Is that where we are nowadays?

I guess this is just a logical extension of the NOW gang who thought that Andrea Yates was basically a freedom fighter, a rallying cry for all women....

Unfortunately what has really got me upset is the large number of freepers who go along with the idea that the preacher must be a child molester...after all, the underlying assumption being, it is just not thinkable that it is simply her evil that drove her to this wicked deed - not his.

It may turn out yet that she was justified. But I must say judging by the response of his obviously God-fearing family, I am starting to doubt that.

[cpanter]

I agree. I'm in Middle TN and everyone is saying "he must have been doing something to those daughters" or "there must have been another woman."

I just think she's nuts.

[satchmodog9]

It is a left wing hag bitchfest of a talk show. I will not make a judgment on this until I have some facts. I wish sea hags and talking heads would also keep their mouths shut.

[derllak]

I have to admit, I was one who thought he may have molested the girls. It's all too common these days with preachers, priests and teachers. The very people you think you can trust...go figure.