That's a perfectly legitimate question and it's surprising that the reporter didn't follow up on it. But if he were lying about that at this point, it would cer

That's a perfectly legitimate question and it's surprising that the reporter didn't follow up on it. But if he were lying about that at this point, it would certainly ruin him, so it's probably true. The part that I find unsavory is that his comment repeats the detail twice. That's milking it, which to me makes the whole thing read like PR. He also shouldn't have included the bits about forgiving himself and employing hundreds. Someone is giving this guy bad editing advice. On the other hand, the claim that an abused kid would join a gang of criminal nutcases because they offered him belonging when no one else would, seems completely credible to me.