personally i think the story was too short for us to really "know" what she was thinking or had done at the time. My immediate response to reading this news was that, "yes, she must have helped him escape and then made up that story, must be some random story she made up about kidnapping". But we should ask that IF this is true, why isn't that criminal testifying against her, u kno, saying that what she's saying isn't the case. I don't know, I'm rather confused with this whole detail. Personally,I don't really consider this news worthy.
Zedd, that's my whole point. Whether or not her story is true is beside the point. The point is that, if she decides to stick with the story, and the perp is backing her up, there's no way a prosecutor can make a case against her. On top of that, now that the escapee is back behind bars, there's not much to be gained by harassing a possible accomplice who refuses to cooperate. Leave her to tend to her chickens. Seems to me that her husband, the former assistant warden (now, why did I assume...? ne'er mind...) is the only one who might have a civil case against her.
