I am never one to take up for readers, but what she said is plausible isn’t it? I mean it’s effing stupid how readers don’t place their accounts on time out when they step away for long periods and why after all this time on this earth, they don’t know to do this is beyond me, but giving her the benefit of the doubt shouldn’t hurt anyone. Since she is offering refunds, why would anyone not take her up on her offer? I haven’t had a reading, but it’s something to think about. js.
I have to disagree with this. You give someone the benefit of the doubt after they have proven a level of trustworthiness. You have to look at the sequence of events. She conveniently only messaged people who left her negative reviews and offered refunds to only those people and not to the ones who left her positive. If all those reading in the last month were done by the “house sitter” then she would need to refund everyone who got a false reading that month. Also, the timing of everything is suspicious. If she was an established reader like let’s say psychic Ari or Rachel Marie who are known to give legitimate readings then all of a sudden everyone started getting copy pasted readings, then I would say yes to giving the benefit of the doubt. But removing the reviews would be very detrimental to people who are in a vulnerable state and seeking guidance to scammer like this one.
Anyone can disgree, nothing that anyone says on this forum is in stone.
Is the level of trusworthiness not her offering of a refund and apology; How is she not established...because we haven't said so?
All I suggested was to take her up on her offer to get a refund. I really don't know her life behind the scenes and what really happened.
