#1 Sergal

curiously, this article doesn't actually say what the defense was, just that it was "because of a vindictive ex" I've heard sisk's name before, never positively, and this doesn't exactly clear anything up

hell some of these are "yes they're actually sex offender, but they're fun too," like what the fuck sisk

Its complicated. The "sisks story" link has the backstory of before-prison. The comments about vindictive ex i believe strictly refer to getting a probation violation put on for unconnected reasons of using a computer by itself (no nefarious purpose, but for art commissions.)

The S/O remarks i believe refer only to people she is stuck in prison with, in that context only, not judging that they are innocent. If you read the "sisks story" link and know how the arizona/utah system works i think that spells out what's going on isn't really fair.

no not the s/ stufff, the stuff she says about other inmates like arpaio's camps are beyond inhumane and should be immediately abolished, but that doesn't mean everyyone is innocent

Yeah. Only talking about sisk here. It's possible to independently verify key points with other sources. The unfair part is that it seems sisk is not a predator at all, and has been forced into the conditions for one. Which themselves are set up to be impossible to meet.

based on this article, i don't know what that means i'm slightly drunk but i'm very desperate to find out people who i've been told are predators aren;t

You should not believe what you hear from random people and should look into details of the page instead, even if it's written defensively there's too much there to write it off as irrelevant. I linked the page without saying much more, but thats what more I'd say here