maybe it would be more constructive to address that reply to someone talking about her sentencing? i haven't expressed an opinion on it either way.

as far as lying about her background, criminal background checks are par for the course in this line of business. anything drug related ever, or anything indicating a propensity for lying are automatic disqualifications.

I am addressing this: "everybody in this woman's field knows about her now, and will be googling up "massachusetts chemist" for the next 20 years whenever they get a female chemist from massachusetts applying for a position." Googling a liar is a poor defense.

Background checks obviously didn't figure out that she was lying the first time. Why should we trust them a second time?

> Background checks obviously didn't figure out that she was lying the first time. Why should we trust them a second time?

i think you're somehow confused about the core concept of a background check.

i think also that you've got a bone to pick, and you're trying to figure out who it is with. good luck there, little buddy.

If you think a criminal background check is going to be effective at ensuring this woman will never work in this particular field again, that may be one thing, but you were suggesting that mere awareness of this woman would cause potential future employers to use Google to ensure that they never hired her. This would of course be ineffective, since she has been proven to be a liar.

I don't know why you think I have a bone to pick... You seem a little annoyed that I am responding to something that you did not mean to be your primary point. You are going to have to find a way to cope with that.