The story tonight is that the former mistress of John Edwards will not agree to DNA testing to establish paternity, even though Edwards has said he is "wiling" to undergo such testing. Am I too cynical in believing that you can't take this story at face value? As "Monk" says: "Maybe, BUT I DON'T THINK SO.
Doesn't this have the SMELL of a carefully orchestrated FRAUD.
So Edwards is "willing" to take a paternity test? But it turns out his former? mistress refuses to have her daughter's "privacy" (lol) invaded, and won't participate in any testing. Could it be that this woman knows exactly where her bread is buttered, and has been instructed to try to help Edwards skate out of this paternity issue? Instructed to make sure that Edwards does not have to undergo a paternity test?
It is true that I am an awfully cynical person. Still, no skeptical person could possibly believe that we really know what is going on here. Of course, the mainstream media is going to do its very best NOT to find out.