I gotta disagree...motive? what motive? No crime has been committed here that we know of. And NULL and VOID is not appropriate as there's no way there is a written contract.Quote: What difference does it make WHO tipped off the Enquirer?
Are you kidding? It goes to MOTIVE. The leaker was paid BIG BUCKS, the high six figures for a story like this. Also, if this woman had any deal with Edwards, it's NULL AND VOID by her leaks. You can't have it both ways. You either take the money and shut up, or you lose the money if you leak. And of course, leakers only say what they want out, as was shown with Thomas they leave out THE REST OF THE STORY, such as unsourced DNA in the child's panties that hurts the $$$$$ value of their leaks.
Second, it goes to CREDIBILITY. HOW INTERESTING that Edwards is the only one that wants the paternity test. Hir backed down as soon as hir could. The Enquirer articles have been specific that HE is the father of the child. I hope he forces the issue.
I don't think she backed down at all...you can't back down when you've never even mentioned a wish for a test to begin with. I think Edwards knew she wouldn't be part of a paternity test.
I'm not supporting her...but, lets face it she's not the first frizzy blond hanger on whose had a love child...
Edwards IMO is in this up to his "I'm so Pretty" haircut!