OUR CONVERSATIONS TO NOWHERE: Lawrence O’Donnell provides a safe space!


Part 3—Keeping us barefoot and clueless:
The story of Rolling Stone’s gang rape debacle is extremely complex.

The number of claims Rolling Stone failed to check beggars the imagination. On a journalistic basis, this rates as one of the most astonishing fails of all time.

Meanwhile, the strangeness of the alleged victim’s conduct and claims has led many observers to say that she must be “troubled,” “disturbed” or “mentally ill”—and those are among the more sympathetic observers.

(The less sympathetic call her a liar, or say she should be prosecuted.)

For ourselves, we expect more from adult journalists than we do from college students. In this case, the alleged victim was in the first month of her freshman year when she started her chain of contradictory claims, some of which seemed to violate basic laws of physics and human biology.

We expect more from adult journalists than we do from a college freshman who may, in fact, be “troubled.” Concerning the journalism in this case, one more thing seems clear:

In this instance, it seems that Rolling Stone engaged in the latest example of a growing, deeply unfortunate trend over here on the pseudo-left:

To all appearances, Rolling Stone went looking for the perfect example through which it could pretend to discuss an alleged social crisis. Failing to find a perfect example, it did the next best thing:

It seized upon a troubled young person who was telling a deeply disturbing story. Failing to fact-check her most basic claims, Rolling Stone ran with her stories.

Presto! We pseudo-liberals had our latest perfect example! Within weeks, our latest example was falling apart in a deeply embarrassing fashion.

Here’s the problem:

Over here on the pseudo-left, we refuse to be deeply embarrassed. For that reason, it fell to Lawrence O’Donnell and a panel of stooges to create a space, this Monday night, where we could stay barefoot and clueless.

Lawrence performed this task with aplomb. Let’s start with a bit of background:

On Monday afternoon, Chief Longo held his latest presser in Charlottesville. He reported the findings of a long, expensive police inquiry into Rolling Stone’s much-discussed tale.

On the front page of yesterday’s New York Times, Owen Robinson summarized those findings. Starting with its front-page headline, the Times included the basic facts Lawrence chose to deep-six:
ROBINSON (3/24/15): Police Find No Evidence of Rape at University of Virginia Fraternity

The police here said Monday that they had found “no substantive basis” to support a Rolling Stone magazine article depicting a horrific gang rape at a University of Virginia fraternity house
and that a four-month review had identified serious discrepancies in the account by a woman identified as Jackie, who refused to cooperate with their investigation.

After a review of records and roughly 70 interviews, Police Chief Timothy J. Longo Sr. said at a crowded news conference here, his investigators found “no evidence” that a party even took place at the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity on Sept. 28, 2012, when the rape was said to have occurred. Instead, he said, there was a formal that night at the house’s sister sorority, making it highly unlikely that the fraternity would have had a party on the same night.
Police said they had found no substantive basis to support Rolling Stone’s depiction of a horrific gang rape. Beyond that, police had found “serious discrepancies” with the alleged victim’s account.

The previous night, Lawrence and his panel had taken a different approach. They created a space where we pseudo-liberals wouldn’t have to deal with the latest collapse of a perfect story.

Before we see how Lawrence did that, let’s think about the kinds of “serious discrepancies” which were found in the alleged victim’s various accounts. From now on, we’ll call her Jackie.

In fact, these discrepancies were virtually endless. For the sake of simplicity, let’s consider one relatively minor example, concerning a second alleged attack.

According to Jackie, the gang rape at the heart of this matter occurred on September 28, 2012. According to the Charlottesville police department’s press release about its probe, she first reported a version of this alleged attack in May 2013, after being “referred to the Dean because of poor grades.”

Her version of this alleged sexual assault would change over time. But in April 2014, Jackie reported a second assault to the UVa dean—an alleged assault in which she was deliberately hit by a bottle which shattered against her face.

A version of this second alleged attack appeared in the Rolling Stone article. Given the laws of physics and human biology, Rolling Stone’s account sounded highly improbable, if not completely impossible.

The police department investigated this claim. According to Monday’s press release, Jackie’s claims about this attack fell apart in three different ways:
CHARLOTTESVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT (3/23/15): On April 21, 2014, “Jackie” again met with Dean Eramo and reported a physical assault that was alleged to have occurred on April 6, 2014 on the University Corner in the vicinity of Elliewood Avenue.

According to “Jackie” she was struck in the face by a glass bottle. She further advised that her roommate at the time, a nursing student, assisted her in removing glass from her (“Jackie’s”) face.

In a subsequent interview by investigators, “Jackie’s” roommate denied ever removing glass from “Jackie’s” face. Further, she described “Jackie’s” injury as an abrasion consistent with having fallen.

According to “Jackie” she stood in the parking garage on Elliewood Avenue and called her mother. Yet, a subsequent search of phone records which we believe to be “Jackie’s” failed to yield any evidence that such a call was made. In fact, no calls were made from April 5, 2014 from 8 p.m. to April 6, 2014 at 4 a.m.


Investigators reviewed a photograph of “Jackie” believed to have been taken during the week of April 11, 2014. The injury depicted in the photograph has the appearance of swelling above the right eye and an apparent abrasion on the upper cheek. In the opinion of the investigator, it did not appear consistent with being struck by a blunt object.
This is a relatively minor part of the overall web of claims. That said, the claims concerning this second attack seem to have fallen apart.

The same is true of Jackie’s shifting claims about the alleged gang rape itself. Because those claims are so convoluted and so baroque, we’ll let the simpler account of this second attack provide an example of what happened when the Charlottesville police investigated Jackie’s claims.

Given the weirdness of the overall story, we would guess that the alleged victim may be “disturbed” in some way. It seems likely that she got caught in a web of misstatements from which she couldn’t free herself.

Along came Rolling Stone, looking for a perfect example through which it could pretend to discuss a social problem. In an astonishing journalistic debacle, it fact-checked virtually nothing and it published all.

In a way which should be deeply embarrassing, this latest “perfect example” soon started falling apart. This Monday, the story completely collapsed.

In response, Lawrence and a panel of stooges worked to soften the blow. They created a safe space for us liberals—a place in which we could continue to hear our favorite nostrums. In such ways, the liberal world keeps getting dumbed down and undermined.

How did Lawrence create a safe space for us liberals? Consider the way he started his report, comparing his framework to that which appeared in the Times:
O’DONNELL (3/23/15): Charlottesville police announced today the suspension of a police investigation into an alleged gang rape at a fraternity house on the University of Virginia campus in 2012. The rape was first described in a Rolling Stone cover story last year, but the magazine later apologized after discrepancies in the story were revealed.

NBC’s Gabe Gutierrez has more. Gabe?
To watch the whole segment, click here.

If you read the New York Times, you were told that police had “found no evidence of” the alleged gang rape. The party at which it was alleged to have occurred didn’t even seem to have happened.

If you watched Lawrence, you were told something substantially different. You were told that police were suspending their investigation into the alleged rape.

That was an accurate statement, of course. But it avoided the basic facts about what police had found.

In fairness, Lawrence said “discrepancies” had been found in Rolling Stone’s report. Incredibly, this was the sole example his viewers were given in Gutierrez’s videotaped report:
GUTIERREZ: The shocking story initially led university officials to halt all Greek activities. But soon, Jackie’s friends began to raise doubts.

RYAN DUFFIN: She said that there were five men. The Rolling Stone article reported seven.

GUTIERREZ: Rolling Stone apologized to its readers, saying there now appear to be discrepancies in Jackie’s account. On UVA campus, some students worry the discredited story will have a chilling effect on future sexual assault victims coming forward.
Gutierrez’s basic chronology is hopelessly jumbled there. In fact, Rolling Stone apologized for the “discrepancies” several months ago.

That said, Gutierrez gave an absurd example of the types of “discrepancies” involved in this debacle. In fact, Jackie’s friends have contradicted her various claims in all sorts of major ways. Beyond that, her various stories are full of fundamental claims which didn’t pan out.

Indeed, the backstory to this debacle involves a non-existent suitor, “Haven Monahan,” who Jackie apparently invented in September 2012 in an attempt to make a male freshman jealous. But what example of a “discrepancy” was served to Lawrence’s viewers?

At first, Jackie reported five attackers. But Rolling Stone later said seven!

(In the original account, Jackie was forced to give oral sex to five men. In Rolling Stone, she was vaginally raped by seven men, for a period of three hours, on a bed of broken glass.)

Jackie said five; Rolling Stone said seven. It’s virtual journalistic fraud to offer that as the sole example of the “discrepancies” in this mess. That said, Gutierrez was working with some very soft soap this night.

After a very soft report, it was time for Lawrence and his panel to create a safe space for us liberals. We’d get to hear our favorite points repeated all over again!

Here’s the way the hapless O’Donnell started his panel discussion. For him, this was the main take-away from Monday’s events:
O’DONNELL: Thanks, Gabe. We’re joined now by Karen Desoto, former defense attorney and prosecutor. She’s a legal analyst for the Weekend Today show.

Karen, what the police seem to be saying today, as one of the lessons of this, is go to the police early.
DeSoto agreed with that idea. “Yes, absolutely,” she said.

Police had said many things that day. Lawrence chose to walk away with an absurdly anodyne lesson.

From what he said, you might have thought the problem with this remarkable case involved Jackie’s failure to speak to police right away. In fact, she has refused to speak to the police, in any way, right to this very day.

Seven deeply vicious rapists are loose on the UVa campus. In response to this situation, this is what Jackie has done:
CHARLOTTESVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT (3/23/15): On November 20, 2014, Detective Via again attempted contact with “Jackie”. This time “Jackie” responded and agreed to meet after the Thanksgiving break.

On December 2, 2014, “Jackie” came to the Charlottesville Police Department headquarters accompanied by University Dean Laurie Casteen and legal counsel from the Legal Aid and Justice Center. While there “Jackie” declined, through legal counsel, to provide a statement or answer any questions.

Since that time, despite numerous attempts to gain her cooperation, “Jackie” has provided no information whatsoever to investigators.

In an effort to access certain records pertaining to “Jackie” that would aid in our investigation, efforts were made through her legal counsel to obtain her written consent. Those efforts, too, were met with negative results.
Lawrence’s viewers weren’t asked to hear that. Instead, he offered a bromide a person could offer any day of the year.

As he continued, Lawrence threw to Professor Warren, who is defining himself as one of the most reliable hacks in the world of liberal TV. He voiced an array of talking-points designed to make us glad:
WARREN: Right now, Lawrence, there are over 100 universities that are being investigated around sexual assault charges by the Justice Department, ongoing investigations, right now. And so it raises a bigger question: What is the role of the university in creating a safe campus climate for all of its students?

I mean, you look at UVA and take sexual assault, and then Martese Johnson, who, by the way, went to my high school in Chicago, and was brutalized by, not campus police, but another law enforcement agency.

And, in this case, you don’t have campus police doing this investigation, you have Charlottesville police. That raises a larger question: What are campuses doing, or not doing, to keep all of their students safe? Why aren’t they the first place of recourse for students who in some way feel violated?
We’d have to call that jumbled passage a ball of confusion. That said, it involved a set of talking-points and insinuations which make all liberals glad.

Most strikingly, we got to hear that Martese Johnson was “brutalized” by that other agency.

The investigation of that event has just started. But so what? The professor already knows what the probe is going to show—just as Lawrence once knew that Michael Brown had been a victim of first-degree murder.

Rather plainly, nothing can stop our “liberal” professors from behaving this way. They’re paid to dumb us liberals down. They’re only too happy to do it.

At this point, DeSoto jumped in again, reacting to the professor’s suggestions. What she said flew in the face of the day’s revelations:
WARREN: What are campuses doing, or not doing, to keep all of their students safe? Why aren’t they the first place of recourse for students who in some way feel violated?

DESOTO: Well, that’s an easy answer because universities are—it’s a business. And you want people to go to your school. And moms and dads don’t want their daughters to go to school where there’s a high rape incidence, right? So you’re going to want to protect that.

You’re going to want to, maybe, cover that up because you want students to go there. So that’s part of the problem.

I mean, are you going to have campus police? Are you going to report it? So the policies and procedures that a lot of these universities are what is in question. I mean, are you going to be for the student or are you going to be for your image? And that is the huge problem here.
DeSoto voiced another one of our tribe’s favorite scripts. The universities won’t call the police because they’re running a business!

That may well be a problem. But in fact, that day’s report had seemed to show that UVa called in the local police three separate times in this case, starting in April 2014. Jackie refused to cooperate every time.

For the Washington Post’s report of this matter, just click here. To see Jezebel’s Anna Merlan say the same thing, just click this.

DeSoto was stating the standard point while skipping what the report had shown. At home, we liberals got to feel glad as we heard a favorite script.

There was more, but let’s quit.

Lawrence and his panel staged an awful display this night. They conveyed little sense of what had been revealed that day. Instead, they rattled a series of tribal talking-points.

Viewers were given little idea about the shape of this remarkable case, in which a young person made an assortment of claims and a group of adults at Rolling Stone staged one of the most gigantic fails in journalistic history. All in pursuit of the latest perfect example!

Lawrence’s viewers got little sense of that. They heard that Jackie said five, while Rolling Stone later said seven. Also, the universities won’t call the police, even though UVa did!

As usual, Lawrence gave us a tribal “safe space.” But what do we mean by that?

Tomorrow: Assistant professor knows best!

Friday: Our liberal conversations to nowhere


  1. Oh, I get it! Both the Rolling Stone story and the Martese Johnson case both happened at the University of Virginia! So it's exactly the same!

    And since Martese Johnson is black, let's throw Michael Brown into the same stewpot as well!

    Such insight can be found nowhere but here!

    Bob, did you catch the news about how the co-owner of the bar who refused Johnson entry said that contrary to the claims by the ABC cops, that in no way was Johnson drunk or belligerent, and in fact, they had quite the cordial conversation before Johnson calmly walked away?

    1. Welcome to The Aggrieved White Men's Sanctuary.

    2. So you don't care how reliable the source is, you're going to believe it.

    3. I'd say the co-owner of the bar would denied Johnson entry would be a pretty reliable source.

      But then again, as Bob always tells us, who can believe those darned, old eye witnesses anyway? Even when they do agree with all the details and there is video to back it up!

    4. Anon. @ 1:43: Man, you a idiot! Reading comprehension does not seem to be a strong point for you. Your conclusion, because Bob highlighted reference to Martese Johnson, that he equates the two cases, is extraordinary.
      I suggest that you go back to the Dick and Jane reading primers and study them closely for a while. Then perhaps in time you can progress to more complex works.

    5. Ah, Horace weighs in with his tired "Reading comprehension" insult again! Pathetic and lame.

    6. Poor Ho Pleigh - someone who can't write complaining about someone who can't read.

    7. I don't believe Bob has ever attacked Martese Johnson, though he's briefly alluded to his case as another example where liberals are prematurely jumping to conclusions of racism before a full investigation of the facts.

    8. OK, you and Bob let me know when is the proper time for me to form and express an opinion, all the while reserving the right to change it if new evidence is forthcoming. You know, like adults with functioning brains often do.

      You see, some years back I recall a similar lecture about WMDs -- a subject our One True Liberal Blogger quickly dropped. Wonder why? He could have blogged for years about the lies that got us into that war, and the horrible conduct of the press to fawningly publish them.

    9. It will be interesting to see if Bob brings up Martese Johnson again, unless he can somehow find a way to "seem" to "imply" that he was a "thug" who had it coming.

    10. Count on it if a fuller investigation determines that he was resisting arrest and that the arresting officers used reasonable force to subdue him.

    11. Since reasonable force includes choking someone to death for selling individual cigarettes, it is certainly a possibility.

    12. Benny's VDARE class must've adjourned early.

    13. Don't count on it if it turns out Johnson was "cordial and not intoxicated in the least". You know. Like the co-owner of the bar who turned him away at the door said he was.

      Johnson will disappear from this blog faster than the Monty Hall Problem.

    14. @6:11, If the quote that's been repeated here dozens of times regarding WMD's is your damning evidence, then I think your indignation is way overblown.

      As I recall Somerby opposed the Iraq invasion. Irregardless, many did not see Iraq as a threat to the United States, certainly not worthy of the cost, moral and otherwise, of invasion, occupation, and blowback. Somerby was right about not going to war with Iraq, and for good reason. Credit where due.

    15. Yes, 4:52, Somerby did oppose the invasion of Iraq.

      But he also:

      -- Said Bush wasn't lying when he said Saddam tried to buy uranium from Africa.

      -- Believe a month after the invasion that there were still WMDs somewhere in Iraq that would turn up any day now.

      -- Jumped solidly on the side of the Bush/Cheney adminstration in the whole Wilson/Plame affair.

      In other words, Somerby spoke out of both sides of his mouth. And you, of course, remember only one side.

      By the way, "irregardless" isn't a word.

  2. Hey, if ya'll aren't too busy, could some of you trolls hop on over to the Atlantic and heckle the author who reports the following: "Loveless writes that many experts equate 10 points on the NAEP to roughly a year of learning,"



    1. Nice non-sequitur, trollhunter

    2. Hey, one would think that the author, Mikhail Zinshteyn, is quite the Bobette! He even calls the NAEP the "gold standard."

      But uh oh! In the very next graph, he calls "federal lunch subsidy" as a "commonly used proxy for poverty."

      That is certain to raise the ire of Somerby!

    3. But wait @ 2:26. there is more:

      "countries noted for their superior performance on a much-cited international test—including Korea, Japan, Finland, Poland,and the Netherlands"

      They are damned script followers, taking that trip to Finland and even mentioning the miraculous Poles!

    4. Here are Loveless's exact words.

      "Should these gaps be considered small
      or large? Many analysts consider 10 scale
      score points on NAEP equal to about a year
      of learning."

      And Bob should feel vindicated. Loveless uses the exact same "analysts" as does Bob. They are listed below.

      There is no reference to any of Loveless's unnamed analysts crying in his report.

    5. Hey, this Combox sidebar on NAEP got more comments in less time than the last two posts Bob himself devoted exclusively to public schools!

      Your Anonymous @ 1:58 gets results!

    6. Anon @ 1:58. Done!

  3. I feel like my thoughts in the last post were swallowed up by spellcaster spam. I do not think the article about Columba Bush and her family were poo. They were very informative and help me better understand why the Bush family is so much more in favor of immigration reform than others.

  4. Oh well, another MSNBC narrative bites the dust while Lawrence gives us all the ol' Okie Doke.

  5. The pseudos are on a roll!

    I've heard the guy who recently shot the cop in Ferguson is claiming he did nothing wrong. He admits pulling the trigger, but claims he was aiming at someone else, the cop just happened to get in the way. Great new cause for the Nu-libs, defending his "innocence".

    1. Did you major in Gibberish at Dumbf*ck U.?

    2. Anonymous @ 4:11

      A great example of the people pseudo-libs are too lazy and tribal to talk to. They are also too dumb to persuade the likes of @ 4:11 in the advance of progressive causes, and Somerby, for some reason, keeps postponing his lessons on how to do that. Maybe he will share it after he tells them how to close the gaps. Achievement gaps, that is. We do not really know if their is a pay gap. Though it surely is not for equal work. And if it is, it may not be a measure of discrimination. I don't know. I was not there and if I was I am reasonably certain I did not seem to be working my self.

  6. Nobody seems to want to comment about the topic du jour. Somebody keeps saying that is a not a reflection on the esteem in which the blog author is held. I will.

    Baltimore Bob the Blogger once again reveals himself in full sanctimonius hypocritical glory, lecturing liberals on the basis of a weak television infotainers segment on the Rolling Stone/UVa rape case.

    "The story of Rolling Stone’s gang rape debacle is extremely complex."

    Yes Bob of Baltimore, it is. And you covered it in full repetitious glory back in December, 2014. starting after Rolling Stone itself pulled the plug on their own story because the media destroyed it. You know who ran a whole segment on how bad this story in Rolling Stone was? Chris Matthews on Hardball over at the one liberal channel. In a four part series on how bad the Rolling Stone story was, the Blogger from Baltimore never managed to mention it. Disappeared it you might say. Well, why give any credit to Matthews. He almost got somebody killed. And he elected Bush... more than anybody else in the War on Gore.


    When Baltimore Blogger Bob got through with his fourth part. one commenter wrote: "TDH has been beating this dead Rolling Stone horse after the media drug it out of the barn and rigor mortis has set in......"

    Now, based on a police report that only adds a uniformed face to the death of a story people realized was bogus three long months ago, Bob wants use it to shame not the Rolling Stone, but liberals.

    "Over here on the pseudo-left, we refuse to be deeply embarrassed."

    Horseshit, Baltimore Bob. Most people. left and right, pulled the plug on any belief in the Rolling Stone article before you posted your first words about it. And why should anyone, much less anyone in your self created "pseudo-left" be embarrassed by something they had nothing to do with?

    Was Lawrence O'Donnell's segment on this topic bad? Yes. But even with good coverage it would be a repeat of what anyone remotely interested in the story knew months ago. Because of the guild.

    1. And who was it that first began pulling plugs on the Rolling Stone story way back in late November? Was it a police investigation? Was it the DOJ?

      Negative. It was the Washington Post! You know, part of that "mainstream press corps" that only tells favored narratives and writes novels, making things up as they go along, at the expense of the truth!

    2. 1) Why did Jackie lie about a bottle being thrown at her?
      2) Why did she lie about calling her mom?
      3) Why did she lie about her roommate?

      29 comments later, the troll hasn't touched any of these 3 hot potatoes.

      Because he doesn't wanna get burned.

    3. The post, Mr. Potatohead, is about media coverage not about the psychology of the subject of the original piece.

      Suggesting a blog commenter could/should answer the questions you asked is like suggesting I can/should answer why you flash your ass in comboxes with such regularity. That is a tater I can't handle either. You can, so feel free to explain for everyone's amusement.

    4. Hate Bob much?

    5. Bob Somerby is what he imagines Nick Kristof to be without any of the latter's accomplishments.

      That define my feeling for you?

    6. I don't think they hate Somerby, I think they hate it when he calls out their heroes.

    7. So well and good, some segments of the corporate media discredited a story obviously heavy on the sensationalism but lacking any substance. The question posed by the post is why then won't Lawrence O'Donnell just let it go? Does the Boston Strongboy feel the need to let his gullible audience down easy after having given the story earlier play?

    8. The real question here is why you think Lawrence O'Donnell wields such enormous influence over American public opinion.

      Oh, I forgot. Because millions upon millions of stupid people tune into him every night to know what to think.

    9. "Does the Boston Strongboy feel the need to let his gullible audience down easy after having given the story earlier play?"

      One might make that assumption based on the implications or what Bob Somerby seems to say in this post. However, examining the previous work of Bob Somerby on this subject, which was extensive back in December, I find no evidence that O'Donnell gave this story any play.

      That is not to say O'Donnell did not cover the story earlier. Only that Bob Somerby saw nothing in that coverage worthy of note until now.

      Somerby holds up the New York Times coverage of the press conference as worthy of comparison of MSNBC's effort. What Somerby disappears is the actual headline in the print edition of the paper:

      Story of Rape Keeps Falling Apart

  7. Matthews didn't almost get somebody killed, he merely reported that President Clinton's henchmen were stalking and threatening a Clinton sexual harrassment victim, even going as far as killing her dog. Later a deranged maniac was discovered laying in wait for one of the named henchmen armed with a gun

    Nothing but sound journalism.

    1. "TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 2014

      Last night’s opening segment: Way back when, Chris Matthews’ appalling conduct almost got somebody killed.

      For details, see our previous post.

      During that era, two years of Matthews’ appalling conduct sent George W. Bush to the White House. People are dead all over the world because of the things Matthews did.

    2. Those who saw him work back in the day saw Jack Welch's best investment in the news business, Jack had a political agenda and Chris earned every penny. A real National Treasure.

    3. @7:30 First sentence is what Matthews aired.

      Second sentence factual aftermath.

  8. Troll, at his 9:07 version, gets mad at not being able to explain Jackie's numerous lies. Bob's post noted it, yet Troll says the post is about everything but Jackie's lies.

    Those potatoes burn. Bob scores.

    1. Hot potato? Feels pretty cold to me months after "Jackie's lies" were exposed by the Washington Post.

      But you and Somerby go ahead and pretend that this is all new and never reported before.

    2. A Perez. Tuber stupid for words.

  9. Like the subtle sexism of the subtitle!

  10. An amazing testimony on a spell caster who brought my husband back to me, My name is Mary Owen, I live in London, we got married for more than 9 years and have gotten two kids. thing were going well with us and we are always happy. until one day my husband started to behave in a way i could not understand, i was very confused by the way he treat me and the kids. later that month he did not come home again and he called me that he want a divorce, i asked him what have i done wrong to deserve this from him, all he was saying is that he want a divorce that he hate me and do not want to see me again in his life, i was mad and also frustrated do not know what to do,i was sick for more than 2 weeks because of the divorce. i love him so much he was everything to me without him my life is incomplete. i told my sister and she told me to contact a spell caster, i never believe in all this spell casting of a thing. i just want to try if something will come out of it. i contacted Dr Brave for the return of my husband to me, they told me that my husband have been taken by another woman, that she cast a spell on him that is why he hate me and also want us to divorce. then they told me that they have to cast a spell on him that will make him return to me and the kids, they casted the spell and after 1 week my husband called me and he told me that i should forgive him, he started to apologize on phone and said that he still live me that he did not know what happen to him that he left me. it was the spell that he Dr Brave casted on him that make him come back to me today,me and my family are now happy again today. thank you Dr Brave for what you have done for me i would have been nothing today if not for your great spell. i want you my friends who are passing through all this kind of love problem of getting back their husband, wife , or ex boyfriend and girlfriend to contact Dr Brave ,if you need his help you can contact him through his private mail: bravespellcaster@gmail.com or you can contact him through his website http://enchantedscents.tripod.com/lovespell/ and you will see that your problem will be solved without any delay and If you have any other problems like....

    1: You need you EX, Wife, Husband, Friend, Sister E.T.C.
    2: You need a lottery spell
    3: You need money spell
    4: You need a job spell
    5: You need good luck spell
    6: You need a spell to cure your sickness
    7: You need a spell to have peace and be happiness
    8: You need a spell to travel
    9: You need a spell to look handsome and beautiful
    10: Breaking of generation cause
    11: Child bearing spell
    12 You need a job promotion spell
    13: You need money spell
    14: Spiritual protection
    15: Herbal care

    Contact him for a quick solution via his Email:bravespellcaster@gmail.com

  11. Dr Malaika doesn’t ask for testimonies and he doesn’t charge. His email is odogwumalaika@gmail.com He is genuine and people get to meet him by luck.
    But right now am your luck if you meet him. Every other testimonies of spell casters you read here are scams.
    Dr Malaika lives in Nigeria and I happened to meet him by chance after a friend told me about how he brought back
    her ex and restored her lost womb. She also told me about how Dr Malaika cures all forms of illness ranging from
    HIV to Cancer, Fibroid, and Infertility and also Money spells. I followed those other internet testimonies and was
    hugely scammed to the extent that I wanted to kill myself. Dr Malaika turned my situation around, He made my ex
    come crawling on his knees to have him back. His email address is odogwumalaika@gmail.com , mobile: +2347065448120
    but please don’t make him know that I published
    him on net. He is just wonderful and I wish whoever that finds him good luck.