Thank you for your opinion, Lisa. After the subsequent comments about the structure of the interview, such as those of Cedars and Juan, I feel that my initial observation (which I qualified as just being a potentially cynical opinion) is not indicative of anything being hidden. I still think it was an unusual way to answer the question, but I probably should not have read anything more into it. As I said, I meant no disrespect to Ms. Conti.
Mind Blown - It was very clever of you to post definitions of smarmy and unctuous and to qualify your posts by saying they are for everyone else's benefit except mine. What exactly are you accusing me of? You say I am suspect. Suspect of what? If you have an accusation to make other than disagreeing with what I said in this thread, which it seems that you do, I think you should be clear about it, instead of hurling labels and definitions around. You are correct that I have experience with law. I'm in my last year of law school and have worked for a judge and for the government. I have not hidden that in my history on this site, although I don't proclaim it in every post because I don't think that makes my opinion more valuable than anyone else's. Perhaps that is why my comment came across in a way that seemed critical to some, although I fully support Candace and her case. In law school you are encouraged to question what lawyers do and what judges decide, and to try to see more than one side to every case (although as I have said, any issues about her past mistakes are in no way another side to this case - that is entirely irrelevant to the abuse case). If you still have accusations about my motives, I hope you have something more concrete to present.