>Hi Evan.
>
>>I think you have some apologies to hand out.
>
>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

Not sure that's a good analogy. Andy is not the prosecutor, he is the accuser. By the time a prosecutor is involved, there have been formal charges by someone other than the accuser who believes there is enough solid evidence to proceed. A better analogy is a reporter calling somebody a crook in a newspaper column without proof having been independently vetted, nor charges having been laid.

Again, I say this without prejudice. I have no idea if Naomi did or did not do what she's been accused of, but accusation is not the same thing as guilt, nor is it necessarily the same thing as enough evidence to proceed beyond accusation.