1. Kimberly Wigglesworth @sammie jones ...... the The wrost worst (noun here as worst does not modify
anything) was for 3 three (proper grammar please) mths months they said i I (proper grammar please)
was on drugs and drink drank (the sentence is in past tense not present) alot a lot (there is not such
word a a lot, it is actually two words) of wine and that I (good grammar please) let the my six-week-
old son’sFather father (Father is only capitalized in the middle of a sentence when referring to a priest
or God) of my son beat my 6 week old son beat him (I have removed the poor grammar and the
redundancy) ...... . (A period marks the end of a sentence, not ….) my My (The start of a new sentence
requires capitalization) ex (ex what? Ex dog? Ex lover? Ex felon? Ex Husband?) ex-husbad and I were
not together anymore and I let allowed (using big girl words here) him have shared to share 50/50
custodsy custody ...... . (A period signifies the end of a sentence) and he Jackass (or whatever the ex-
husband’s name is) was out of work unemployed (removes the redundancy of the sentence), (commas
are a nifty part of grammar) so I was not going to ask for child support until the spring when he went
back returned (another word signifying a higher than second grade education) to work........ . (Again, a
period marks the end of a sentence) but he Jackass (again, please utilize a name) was mad angry (Being
married to you would make me crazed as well, but we will assume you meant angry) because i I (again,
utilized as a proper pronoun, I is capitalized) did not love him and he was faking to be a his attempts to
fake (Middle school grammar is very tricky.) being (So tricky to remain in the proper tense) a good
father was not working in did not cause me to love him again Honestly, this entire sentence is a train
wreck. Don’t worry, I will show you below how it should be properly written)....... . (End of a sentence,
yet again). so (No, not “so”. How about this…) To seek revenge (Now given you cannot actually know
his thoughts or motivations, this is an assumption. He could have just been a piece of shit that liked
beating infants.) he broke 11 bones on his in our son’s (Bones are not ON a body, they are in or inside
a body. “His” does not properly signify which person you are speaking of, thus the use of “our son’s”
6 week old six-week-old (proper grammar) body..... . (Do you honestly not understand that periods as
punctuation marks really do exist?)and (Let’s just eliminate THAT run on sentence right now.) the The
(Remember, we capitalize the first letter in a sentence.) state of CT Connecticut (No, no. You actually
spell out the entire word.)let him get away with most of the crime because DCF The Division of Children
and Families (DCF) (When you plan to refer to an organization by their initials, you first provide the
entire name followed by the acronym in parenthesis.) would not give the second MRI to the courts
before the father told took (One does not tell or “told” a plea, they take, took, made or make a plea.) a
plead plea (It’s plea, not a plead.)....... . (Sigh, there are all those damned dots again.) DCF screw
screwed (A horrendous word choice, but if you feel the need to utilize it make certain you use the
correct tense.) up because they feel felt (Yet again, please use the correct verb tense.) that woman is
more of a DANGER to her child if a deacon from the church Sexual sexually (It is either “sexual assault”
or “sexually assaulted.” In this case, “sexually assaulted” is correct.) assaulted her as a child ........ . (Once
more, that punctuation mark eludes you.) when When (A basic rule in first grade composition, you
should know to start a new sentence with a capital letter.) I pointed out to (I seriously doubt that you
pointed AT Corrine, so must assume you mean that you pointed OUT something TO Corrine.) Corine
Corrine (Given how much you slander Corrine, one would think that spelling her name correctly would
be second nature to you by now.) that she can could (Correct tense can be such a pesky little thing.) be
sue sued (I am making an assumption that you really don’t mean Corrine can now be a woman named

2. Sue, but in fact have yet again failed to maintain sentence tense.) for that (insert word here) (You
have failed to provide an adequate background to determine what “that” is.)........ , (A comman, in
grammar, represents a pause in the sentence.)WAXMAN told her she has the right to assume that I am
was (You have used the incorrect tense, yet again.) on DRUGS and let my son be hurt by his father...... .
(Sigh. I am so tired of reminding you that sentences end with a period.) so Thus, (You are not in
kindergarten and therefore sentences do not begin with the word “so.” “Thus” in an excellent
transitional word.) I said thank you WAXMAN “Thank you, Waxman,” (When referencing “I said,” what
you said is placed in quotation marks.) because now we can now ( No, no. The word “now” does not
need to be repeated twice within 4 words.) assume that CORINE Corrine (Honesty, Corrine is not that
difficult of a name to spell correctly.) KILLED her twins for the greed of her candles (Now, I really don’t
believe her candles were greedy. We will fix that down below.) ..... . (Sentences end with a
punctuation mark called a period.)
Now, after all that extremely tiring work of correcting all the grammatical and spelling errors in your
original passage, we have:
The worst was for three months they said I was on drugs and drank a lot of wine and that I let my six-
week-old son’s father beat him. My ex-husband and I were not together anymore and I allowed him to
share 50/50 custody. Jackass was unemployed so I was not going to ask for child support until the spring
when he returned to work. Jackass was angry because I did not love him and his attempts to fake being
a good father did not cause me to love him again. To seek revenge, he broke 11 bones in our son’s six-
week-old body. The state of Connecticut let him get away with most of the crime because the Division
of Children and Families (DCF) would not give the second MRI to the courts before the father took a
plea. DCF screwed up because they felt a woman is more of a danger to her child if a deacon from a
church sexually assaulted her as a child. When I pointed out to Corrine that she could be sued for
(something) , Waxman told her that she has the right to assume that I was on drugs and let my son be
hurt by his father. Thus, I said “Thank you, Waxman,” because now we can assume that Corrine killed
her twins for the greed of her candles.
Congratulations, this is now an adequate upper elementary school paragraph. Now, let’s rewrite it
into a paragraph that a high school graduate could write:
For several months, the “X” group utilized my son’s death to disparage me. They claimed that at the
time of my son’s injury, I frequently used drugs and drank wine to excess, and thus allowed my ex-
husband to abuse our little boy. This is completely untrue. Shortly after my son’s birth, my husband and
I separated. In an attempt to make the divorce as amicable as possible, I agreed to a 50/50 custody
arrangement and, since my ex-husband was currently unemployed, I determined I would not seek child
support until he returned to work. I can only assume, based on what happened next, that my husband
resented the fact that I no longer loved him and his attempts to ingratiate his self upon me by acting like
a doting father were ineffective and decided to take that anger out on our son. Jackass, who has never
provided an explanation for why he did what he did, broke eleven bones in our son’s fragile, six-week-

3. old body. Given the circumstances, the state of Connecticut and the Division of Children & Families
(DCF) were notified by the hospital about the suspected abuse of my son. However, they failed
miserably in protecting my child. First, they neglected to supply the courts with the results from the
second MRI prior to my ex-husband entered into a plea deal with the state. And, secondly, they made
an assumption that because I had been sexually assaulted as a child by a deacon in our family church,
that I was somehow culpable. This assumption by DCF infuriated me, as I know, absolutely, that once I
was informed of the abuse of my child, I advocated for him tirelessly.
The loss of my son to the system and the unfounded allegations that I was somehow complicit in my
son’s abuse devastated me. Thus, when Corrine began stating that I had allowed my son to be abused
by his father, I was infuriated and I informed Corrine that she could be sued for uttering her baseless
allegations. When Waxman publicly informed Corrine that she was within her rights to assume I was
under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol and allowed the injury to my child, I had enough. I decided
that since she had been told it was within her rights to wrongly slander me, I could do the same to her.
Therefore, I publicly stated that Corrine intentionally killed her children so that she could establish the
Angel Candle Company and profit from their death.
Now, let’s examine the problems inherent in your claims, which render your conclusions actionable:
1. Waxman did not inform Corrine that she could assume that you were drunk. Please provide the
SCREENSHOT of that post, within a flow of documents which provide the legitimacy of the post.
2. Corrine did not make an assumption that your son was abused. That is a fact, as verified through
posts made by yourself, as well as from documents on the internet.
3. You have continually provided contradictory information pertaining to your son’s abuse. All of
these posts are archived, providing ample proof that Corrine’s statement has factual basis, as
she believed that the information that you provided, pertaining to your own situation, was in
fact the truth.
4. Your posts are illegible, rambling and are often lack sense. They appear to be written by a
person that is inebriated. While this could, in fact, be true, I am more prone to believe that you
are illiterate and as such should stop embarrassing yourself with your posts.
5. Your claims, on the other hand, that Corrine murdered her children are not only without basis,
but are made with full knowledge that you are lying. You obtained the information about her
daughters’ premature births and subsequent deaths from her personal site. At no point does
she state “murder”.
6. Your actions, in fact, are slander and are committed with the intent to cause significant
emotional harm.
7. Your actions meet the criteria for a lawsuit, which you would lose.
Hence, this would be my recommendation, to you, for the above paragraph, in which you just provided
Corrine absolute proof for a lawsuit, should she wish to file one.

4. I failed to provide clear details on what happened to my son, which, coupled with information about his
case on the web, has led people to wrongly believe that I was complicit in his abuse. I was not. I simply
want people to understand that. I have wrongly accused Corrine of murdering her twins, because I was
angry. I apologize for my actions and hope that we can both simply walk away from one another with
the understanding that our children will no longer be brought into the battle surrounding Lori Hanrahan.