3 ms·

I thought the same thing. The journalist is very careful to respect the scammer, "Mr. Smith" but is very eager to dump where Mike lives, what mule fingered him,

I thought the same thing. The journalist is very careful to respect the scammer, "Mr. Smith" but is very eager to dump where Mike lives, what mule fingered him, and the only thing protecting either would be the fact that Mr. Smith would be more exposed if he tried to retaliate directly.

rdl 12y ago
I think they're worried about being sued for accusing Mr. Smith and Jennifer of crimes which they haven't been convicted of, whereas Mike Davis just admits to crimes directly (for a good cause, but it certainly seems like he's exposed to some legal risk here, in the US and especially India, although I suspect no prosecutor in the US would go after him, and no jury would convict, because he's doing it for a good reason.)
- mcv 12y ago
  > I suspect no prosecutor in the US would go after him, and no jury would convict, because he's doing it for a good reason. I wish I could trust the US justice system that much.
- smsm42 12y ago
  A lot of prosecutors would gladly go after him - they are regularly going for people for self-defense, "crimes" that hurt nobody, and so on, and so forth. And they can very well succeed in selecting a jury that would know nothing except the letter of the law was violated, so the must convict.
jeorgun 12y ago
As they mention in the link at the end of the post[1], they hid the scammer's name out of fear of UK libel laws. Presumably they're not really concerned about Mike suing them. [1] http://blog.readmatter.com/post/41287969841/when-should-we-hide-a-sources-name http://blog.readmatter.com/post/41287969841/when-should-we-h...