~~~
The New York Times is normally a highly respected publication and it is unfortunate when one of the writers resorts to tabloid tactics when writing an article rather than sticking to the facts. Sure this may create more interest and a higher readership but it is not the sort of thing I am interested in. I would like to read accurate accounts of what is going on and not sesantionalised heresay otherwise I would be buying tabloids instead.

It is therefore not surprising that Armand Rousso has decided to defend himself. Armand Rousso response to NYT story by Saul Hansell is quite concise and points out the many errors in the article. I was surprised to note that Hansell had brought up a case that is 8 years old in which Armand pleaded guilty thereby insinuating that once a criminal always a criminal when in fact many have become productive members of society.

All I can say is that I am glad Armand Rousso was able to put his side of the story to the public.