Well said Doug!! I agree 100%.


>Why would Andy apologize? Has he been proven wrong? If so, then he should, and knowing Andy's character, he would. However, I see nothing for him to apologize for here. He showed very convincing evidence of wrong-doing and Naomi has yet to tell her side of the story. In addition, Michel has yet to comment on whether Naomi had access to UT account information.
>
>An analogy is a prosecutor outlining the facts of a case, then being asked to apologize for accusing the alleged perpetrator before the defence even presents their case. That would be bizarre!
>
>Doug