Well, I actually took the time to read the article. For those commenting without reading it, you should really read it through. Here is my take, while at first blush it doesn't look good, I did notice that a lot of the "evidence" they present is Luther Davis' evidence. On text messages, they cite "a number associated with Fluker" which is not proof it is DJ. They have no bank records and the itineraries they reference are Davis' itineraries that he set up on various occasions. He can write whatever he wants on Expedia. What I'm getting at is that almost all of the evidence they have is circumstantial and while it doesn't look good, it doesn't actually "prove" anything. Further if DJ's mother received benefits, how is that any different from $cam Newton's Dad? We should hire the law firm that defended $cam and Johnny Autograph and turn them loose.