V. Richards: Innocent until proven guilty

The spouse had an interesting idea this morning. After hearing my take on John Nehring and the year-old charges being filed against him, he’s proposed we do all of our shopping at V. Richards until a verdict is reached.

Sure it’s inconvenient. But Brookfield, I know all too well how a reputation can be lost once the paper decides you are news. It’s all about something to print without any regard for truth. I’m willing to support the enterprise until the truth wills out.


  1. However, doesn’t the article state that both Nehring and the driver confessed? So why the delay in charges?

  2. Wait, hubby brought up an interesting point. Maybe they were investigating him further to see if this was an isolated incident or common practice.

  3. It’s probably unfair to speculate without reading the reports, but I saw in the paper that he admitted to paying the driver for the stolen produce.

    What wasn’t said? That they knew the produce was stolen. Maybe the driver stole it. All the produce manager did was ask the driver if he had anything he wanted to get rid of. Maybe the store thought they were buy surplus produce and paying the driver for it.

    Someone had to actually STEAL the produce. Who was that?