Why do you think that the public is not being given hard evidence and proof of all the allegations of the things happening in the community? I am surprised that nobody has hired a private detective to check it all out or that one of the television station investigative reporters haven't been able to say yes or no.    Are birth certificates public records?  Anybody have any thoughts?  I just think it is strange.  It shouldn't be that hard to prove one way or the other and you would think those involved would want to prove their innocence immediately.

Quote from forpeace on 08/01/07 at 11:51pm:

 
Hard evidence...what are you, a joker?
 
But seriously, the answer to your first question is easy:  The public has not been given the evidence because many of those in positions of power who have it are withholding it hoping the problem will go away.  
 
Private dicks cost money (oh, stop sniggering!) and there is more than enough people who know the truth, so why waste the money?  
 
The TV stations and the media in general have to be extra careful about these sorts of things, but if you'll notice, they are starting to talk about it.  It is only a matter of time now before the reporters you speak of, both locally and nationally, will be publishing stories.  Also, no one in the media, or elsewhere want submit the innocent bystanders (the children mostly) to this sort of spectacle unless they have to.  The fact that the guilty parties don't have enough class and integrity to admit fault and slip away back to the slime they came from only complicates things.
 
Birth certificates are not public records, I don't think (could be wrong on this), but they probably don't list the father in this case anyway.  In any event, they wouldn't be hard evidence anyway since under Alabama law, a woman can put any man's name down as the father.  That's why paternity tests are necessary to establish child support.
 
And you would think that those involved would want to establish their innocence, wouldn't you?  The fact that they haven't may well be all the proof needed.

You're absolutely correct!
 
Or should I say, DANG!

If I remember, and its been awhile, at the hospital they ask mom the name of the dad to fill in.  It is really up to her what, if anything , she puts.  Don't know if its pub;ic record or not.
 
If as many people know about this as people say, it wouldn't be but a short assignment for a PI.  Should we start a paypal acoount for everyone to chip in for, and just put this rumor to bed?  What do you think Sport?  Are you in?

Quote from Walktall on 08/02/07 at 1:08am:

 
Unless the judge seals it, it's open to the public. You need the first and last names of the parties involved and the county where the divorce was filed.
 
I don't think any information will be in the decree that would be useful. Just usually who gets the washer and dryer and visitation rights of the father. It's not going to go into detail about why the marriage was disolved, just who filed for divorce and the grounds for divorce. Even if he filed for divorce against SD then it would just say "adultery" under grounds for divorce. I doubt it would name anyone.
 

Well thats how Hunter Ford claimed to validate his accusation about infidelity. He approached the attorney for the husband. Could the general public access the word for word testimony?

I would think the ex- husband would have given the ok for the lawyer to discuss the case. And I am sure he did since he had already been on the radio and said it was true about the affair.