The first serious challenge came three weeks later.<\/p>\n
Mark\u2019s attorneys filed motions attacking the clean record.<\/p>\n
Not surprising.<\/p>\n
My attorney explained the arguments carefully.<\/p>\n
Robert\u2019s acknowledgment was unreliable because Robert himself committed fraud.<\/p>\n
Margaret\u2019s affidavit contained statements Mark disputed.<\/p>\n
Audio recordings might lack context.<\/p>\n
Old files passed through too many hands.<\/p>\n
Karen had motives to cooperate.<\/p>\n
Vanessa had motives to lie.<\/p>\n
Thomas was compromised.<\/p>\n
Daniel had accepted hush money.<\/p>\n
Paul was dead.<\/p>\n
My mother was dead.<\/p>\n
Margaret was dead.<\/p>\n
Robert was dead.<\/p>\n
The defense did not need to make Mark innocent in one stroke.<\/p>\n
Only weaken the structure.<\/p>\n
One witness at a time.<\/p>\n
One document at a time.<\/p>\n
Exactly his old method.<\/p>\n
Competing explanations.<\/p>\n
My attorney saw my expression.<\/p>\n
\u201cThis is normal adversarial litigation.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cI know.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cAnd his lawyers are doing their job.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cI know.\u201d<\/p>\n
That distinction mattered too.<\/p>\n
Mark\u2019s attorneys were not Mark.<\/p>\n
Challenging evidence was their role.<\/p>\n
I refused to turn ordinary defense work into another conspiracy.<\/p>\n
Still, the strategy felt familiar.<\/p>\n
Attack everyone\u2019s credibility until the center becomes fog.<\/p>\n
The strongest target was Robert\u2019s signed acknowledgment.<\/p>\n
If defense counsel could portray it as Robert shifting blame, then the cleanest document became less clean.<\/p>\n
They hired an expert.<\/p>\n
The signature was probably Mark\u2019s.<\/p>\n
Probably.<\/p>\n
Not absolute.<\/p>\n
Ink dating was limited.<\/p>\n
Paper consistent with the era.<\/p>\n
No perfect scientific certainty.<\/p>\n
That was enough for Mark\u2019s lawyers to argue.<\/p>\n
Then they attacked the wording.<\/p>\n
Judith Rowe has not been informed of the Northbridge transfer structure.<\/p>\n
Perhaps, they argued, that meant not informed of final technical details.<\/p>\n
Not that I knew nothing.<\/p>\n
Has not authorized use of her name or signature.<\/p>\n
Maybe temporary.<\/p>\n
Maybe authorization came later.<\/p>\n
The defense pointed to the spliced audio.<\/p>\n
Even though altered, my real voice said:<\/p>\n
I trust you. Just take care of it.<\/p>\n
They argued those words reflected the marriage\u2019s financial arrangement generally.<\/p>\n
My attorney shook her head when summarizing.<\/p>\n
\u201cThey\u2019re using the originals now, not the edited tape.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cCan they?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cThey can argue context.\u201d<\/p>\n
Of course.<\/p>\n
Mark lost the false recording.<\/p>\n
So the real fragments became his fallback.<\/p>\n
That was how his method worked.<\/p>\n
If one version failed, another waited nearby.<\/p>\n
Prosecutors had better evidence.<\/p>\n
Bank notes showing I was never personally confirmed.<\/p>\n
Pike correspondence.<\/p>\n
Robert\u2019s admission.<\/p>\n
Margaret\u2019s sworn affidavit.<\/p>\n
Karen\u2019s testimony about seeing signature practice.<\/p>\n
The timing of forged documents.<\/p>\n
But none erased the uncomfortable fact that during our marriage, I often did tell Mark to handle things.<\/p>\n
Routine things.<\/p>\n
Bills.<\/p>\n
Insurance.<\/p>\n
Taxes.<\/p>\n
Maintenance.<\/p>\n
I trusted him.<\/p>\n
Defense counsel planned to argue that trust extended further than I remembered.<\/p>\n
That frightened me more than forged papers.<\/p>\n
Because it touched something true.<\/p>\n
I had delegated.<\/p>\n
A lot.<\/p>\n
My attorney understood.<\/p>\n
\u201cYou\u2019re worried a jury will think general trust equals specific authorization.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cYes.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cThat\u2019s exactly why we separate them.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cHow?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cFacts.\u201d<\/p>\n
Again.<\/p>\n
Facts.<\/p>\n
What did I authorize?<\/p>\n
Which account?<\/p>\n
Which document?<\/p>\n
Which transaction?<\/p>\n
Where was proof?<\/p>\n
Marriage was not a blanket power of attorney.<\/p>\n
Trust was not unlimited consent.<\/p>\n
The legal distinction was stronger than the emotional fog Mark relied on.<\/p>\n
Still, I needed to prepare.<\/p>\n
Prosecutors scheduled witness preparation.<\/p>\n
They asked me questions the defense likely would.<\/p>\n
Did Mark handle household finances?<\/p>\n
Yes.<\/p>\n
Did I sign documents without reading every line?<\/p>\n
Sometimes.<\/p>\n
Did I ever tell him to handle investments?<\/p>\n
Retirement funds, yes.<\/p>\n
Northbridge, no.<\/p>\n
Did I know he had business entities?<\/p>\n
Some.<\/p>\n
Did I know details?<\/p>\n
No.<\/p>\n
Did I benefit from his income?<\/p>\n
Yes.<\/p>\n
Did we take vacations?<\/p>\n
Yes.<\/p>\n
Own a house?<\/p>\n
Yes.<\/p>\n
Could I identify every signature as forged from memory?<\/p>\n
No.<\/p>\n
That answer bothered me.<\/p>\n
The prosecutor smiled slightly.<\/p>\n
\u201cThat\u2019s a good answer.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cWhy?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cBecause it\u2019s true.\u201d<\/p>\n
I understood.<\/p>\n
Mark\u2019s system depended on forcing certainty where certainty did not exist.<\/p>\n
I did not need to claim impossible memory.<\/p>\n
I could say what I knew.<\/p>\n
What I did not.<\/p>\n
What I never authorized.<\/p>\n
The prosecutor showed me documents one by one.<\/p>\n
\u201cIs this your signature?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cIt resembles mine.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cDid you sign it?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cI do not remember signing it.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cWould you have authorized this transaction?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cNo.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cHow do you know?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cBecause I did not know Northbridge existed.\u201d<\/p>\n
That was the core.<\/p>\n
They could debate pen strokes.<\/p>\n
They could not produce a memory or conversation in which I knew the company.<\/p>\n
Except the altered recording.<\/p>\n
And now everyone knew it was altered.<\/p>\n
The defense also attacked my mother\u2019s notes.<\/p>\n
Not because they were false necessarily.<\/p>\n
Because she was not available for cross-examination.<\/p>\n
My attorney explained which pieces might enter for limited purposes and which might not.<\/p>\n
The criminal case would not contain every truth we had learned.<\/p>\n
That was important.<\/p>\n
Courtroom truth was narrower.<\/p>\n
Rules.<\/p>\n
Admissibility.<\/p>\n
Elements.<\/p>\n
Evidence.<\/p>\n
My personal understanding could be broader without pretending all of it belonged before a jury.<\/p>\n
I found that strangely freeing.<\/p>\n
I did not need the court to validate every betrayal.<\/p>\n
Some facts belonged to my life, not the indictment.<\/p>\n
Rachel faced similar preparation.<\/p>\n
Defense counsel might ask about Paul\u2019s secrecy.<\/p>\n
His payment.<\/p>\n
His meetings.<\/p>\n
His role preserving evidence.<\/p>\n
She became angry.<\/p>\n
\u201cI\u2019m not going to let them make him look like a criminal.\u201d<\/p>\n
My attorney said gently:<\/p>\n
\u201cYou don\u2019t defend Paul by denying what he did.\u201d<\/p>\n
Rachel looked at her.<\/p>\n
\u201cHe kept secrets.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cYes.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cHe accepted legitimate consulting money.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cYes.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cHe withheld information from me.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cYes.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cHe also tried to stop Mark.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cYes.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cAll of that.\u201d<\/p>\n
Exactly.<\/p>\n
The truth did not need polishing.<\/p>\n
Paul could be flawed and still not be Mark\u2019s accomplice.<\/p>\n
Karen\u2019s preparation was harder.<\/p>\n
She would likely testify under cooperation terms.<\/p>\n
Her credibility would be attacked intensely.<\/p>\n
And fairly in part.<\/p>\n
She had lied.<\/p>\n
Repeatedly.<\/p>\n
Helped Mark.<\/p>\n
Notarized fraudulent documents.<\/p>\n
Participated in the house scheme.<\/p>\n
Received money.<\/p>\n
Held back facts.<\/p>\n
The prosecutor asked what she would say when defense counsel called her a liar.<\/p>\n
Karen answered:<\/p>\n
I was.<\/p>\n
That impressed me more than denial would have.<\/p>\n
Then:<\/p>\n
I am telling the truth now because the records prove where I lied before.<\/p>\n
Good.<\/p>\n
Evidence.<\/p>\n
Not redemption speeches.<\/p>\n
Vanessa would face worse.<\/p>\n
She admitted creating shell companies.<\/p>\n
Altering compliance records.<\/p>\n
Helping enter my house.<\/p>\n
Defense counsel could portray her as shifting blame to reduce punishment.<\/p>\n
That motive existed.<\/p>\n
Prosecutors would disclose it.<\/p>\n
Again, complexity.<\/p>\n
No saints required.<\/p>\n
Then Thomas announced he would return to the United States voluntarily.<\/p>\n
Eleanor told me.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhy?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cTo testify.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cThat\u2019s not the whole reason.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cNo.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cWhat else?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cHe wants to face his own exposure.\u201d<\/p>\n
I did not know what that meant.<\/p>\n
Tax issues.<\/p>\n
Old financial offenses.<\/p>\n
Some possibly limited by time.<\/p>\n
Some maybe not.<\/p>\n
Thomas had lawyers.<\/p>\n
I did not ask for predictions.<\/p>\n
He said in a statement:<\/p>\n
I spent too long using Mark\u2019s wrongdoing as a reason not to admit mine.<\/p>\n
That sounded like something Margaret might have wanted him to say decades earlier.<\/p>\n
He returned.<\/p>\n
No dramatic arrest at the airport.<\/p>\n
Legal arrangements had been made.<\/p>\n
He met investigators.<\/p>\n
Turned over remaining files.<\/p>\n
Then asked to see me.<\/p>\n
I refused.<\/p>\n
Not angrily.<\/p>\n
I simply did not need another personal reckoning.<\/p>\n
Eleanor understood.<\/p>\n
\u201cHe said you might say that.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cGood.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cHe asked me to tell you he\u2019s sorry.\u201d<\/p>\n
I accepted the information.<\/p>\n
Not forgiveness.<\/p>\n
Not rejection.<\/p>\n
Just information.<\/p>\n
The family trust question moved separately.<\/p>\n
The professional trustee petitioned a court for instructions after Margaret\u2019s final amendment resurfaced.<\/p>\n
My attorney explained possible outcomes.<\/p>\n
Maybe I would become trustee.<\/p>\n
Maybe the amendment would be challenged.<\/p>\n
Maybe a successor mechanism would apply.<\/p>\n
No certainty.<\/p>\n
I surprised myself by caring less about the result than expected.<\/p>\n
Margaret\u2019s intention mattered emotionally.<\/p>\n
The money did not define whether she trusted me.<\/p>\n
Her letters already proved that.<\/p>\n
Then a new issue emerged.<\/p>\n
Defense counsel found an old deposition from my divorce.<\/p>\n
During questioning about finances, I had said:<\/p>\n
Mark handled most investments. I generally trusted his judgment and didn\u2019t ask for details.<\/p>\n
I remembered saying it.<\/p>\n
It was true.<\/p>\n
Mark\u2019s attorneys planned to use it.<\/p>\n
My attorney showed me the transcript.<\/p>\n
For the first time in months, I felt afraid.<\/p>\n
Not because the statement was false.<\/p>\n
Because I could hear how easily it could be transformed.<\/p>\n
She didn\u2019t ask for details.<\/p>\n
Therefore maybe she knew enough.<\/p>\n
She trusted his judgment.<\/p>\n
Therefore maybe she authorized him broadly.<\/p>\n
Same old fictional Judith.<\/p>\n
Except built from my real words.<\/p>\n
My attorney said:<\/p>\n
\u201cThis is not fatal.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cI know.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cDo you?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cNot yet.\u201d<\/p>\n
We spent hours on the distinction.<\/p>\n
I trusted Mark to manage investments we actually discussed.<\/p>\n
Retirement accounts.<\/p>\n
Mutual funds.<\/p>\n
Household savings.<\/p>\n
I did not know he used my identity for companies.<\/p>\n
You cannot delegate management of something you do not know exists.<\/p>\n
Simple.<\/p>\n
The prosecutor asked me to say it naturally.<\/p>\n
Not memorized.<\/p>\n
I tried.<\/p>\n
\u201cI trusted my husband with the things I knew he was handling. I didn\u2019t authorize him to invent things in my name.\u201d<\/p>\n
There.<\/p>\n
That was my truth.<\/p>\n
Then the defense discovered another recording.<\/p>\n
Not altered.<\/p>\n
Real.<\/p>\n
A family dinner.<\/p>\n
Twenty-two years ago.<\/p>\n
Mark discussing \u201cthe company.\u201d<\/p>\n
My voice in the background:<\/p>\n
As long as you know what you\u2019re doing.<\/p>\n
My stomach dropped.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhat company?\u201d<\/p>\n
No one knew immediately.<\/p>\n
The recording contained no name.<\/p>\n
Defense argued Northbridge.<\/p>\n
Prosecutors investigated context.<\/p>\n
The date matched Mark\u2019s ownership of several legitimate later businesses too.<\/p>\n
We needed more.<\/p>\n
The rest of the tape was recovered.<\/p>\n
Before the quoted line, Mark said:<\/p>\n
I\u2019m thinking of putting more into the software company.<\/p>\n
I remembered that.<\/p>\n
A legitimate company.<\/p>\n
Publicly known.<\/p>\n
Years after Northbridge\u2019s original structure.<\/p>\n
Not evidence I knew Northbridge.<\/p>\n
Context saved truth again.<\/p>\n
A clipped sentence suggested one thing.<\/p>\n
Full recording another.<\/p>\n
I almost laughed.<\/p>\n
Mark\u2019s entire world depended on cropping.<\/p>\n
Photos.<\/p>\n
Audio.<\/p>\n
Documents.<\/p>\n
Relationships.<\/p>\n
He removed surrounding facts until ordinary behavior looked incriminating.<\/p>\n
Now investigators kept restoring context.<\/p>\n
Then one evening, my attorney called.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe defense wants to introduce Mark\u2019s personal journal.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cWhy?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cIt contains entries describing conversations with you.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cReal conversations?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cHis descriptions.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cWhich say what?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cThat you knew about financial structures.\u201d<\/p>\n
I felt anger rise.<\/p>\n
\u201cHe wrote himself evidence.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cPossibly years ago.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cCan that be used?\u201d<\/p>\n
She explained legal issues I will not pretend to summarize perfectly.<\/p>\n
Some entries might be offered for limited purposes.<\/p>\n
Some excluded.<\/p>\n
Arguments pending.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhat does the journal actually say?\u201d<\/p>\n
One entry from fifteen years earlier:<\/p>\n
J understands enough. Better she not know details.<\/p>\n
I stared.<\/p>\n
\u201cThat helps them?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cThey may focus on the first sentence.\u201d<\/p>\n
Of course.<\/p>\n
J understands enough.<\/p>\n
But the second sentence undermined full knowledge.<\/p>\n
Another:<\/p>\n
Told J accounts complicated but under control. She accepted.<\/p>\n
I remembered conversations like that.<\/p>\n
Mark telling me business structures were complicated.<\/p>\n
Me deciding not to ask further.<\/p>\n
Did that make me complicit?<\/p>\n
No.<\/p>\n
But emotionally, guilt tried to creep in.<\/p>\n
I should have asked.<\/p>\n
I should have checked.<\/p>\n
I should have insisted.<\/p>\n
Then I stopped.<\/p>\n
Responsibility for fraud belonged to the people who committed it.<\/p>\n
Regret about not noticing was not guilt.<\/p>\n
That distinction took longer to learn than any legal rule.<\/p>\n
The journal contained one entry that defense counsel apparently did not like.<\/p>\n
They still had to disclose it once prosecutors obtained the full volume through process.<\/p>\n
Date: one year before divorce.<\/p>\n
J asked for account statements. Delayed. Need cleaner explanation if she asks again.<\/p>\n
There.<\/p>\n
I had begun checking before I remembered the pattern clearly.<\/p>\n
Another:<\/p>\n
She notices inconsistencies now.<\/p>\n
And later:<\/p>\n
If she talks to independent accountant, problem.<\/p>\n
Then:<\/p>\n
Prevent without seeming defensive.<\/p>\n
My pulse changed.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhat did he do?\u201d<\/p>\n
I remembered.<\/p>\n
Around that time, I proposed hiring an independent financial planner.<\/p>\n
Mark said unnecessary fees would waste money.<\/p>\n
Then he recommended someone he knew.<\/p>\n
I agreed.<\/p>\n
The planner was in his network.<\/p>\n
Not independent at all.<\/p>\n
Investigators checked.<\/p>\n
The planner had no proven criminal involvement but relied heavily on statements Mark supplied.<\/p>\n
Another controlled channel.<\/p>\n
The journal became less defense evidence and more map of concealment.<\/p>\n
Mark had preserved his own thought process.<\/p>\n
Again.<\/p>\n
Insurance becoming exposure.<\/p>\n
Then the prosecutor called me personally.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe found something you need to hear before trial prep continues.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cWhat?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cAn entry from the day you filed for divorce.\u201d<\/p>\n
I waited.<\/p>\n
She read:<\/p>\n
J finally did it. I thought fear of complexity would keep her longer.<\/p>\n
My throat tightened.<\/p>\n
Then:<\/p>\n
Do not fight emotional issue. Fight information.<\/p>\n
And:<\/p>\n
If she gets complete picture, marriage is irrelevant. Control gone.<\/p>\n
I closed my eyes.<\/p>\n
There.<\/p>\n
Mark himself had written the truth.<\/p>\n
The divorce was not what cost him control.<\/p>\n
Information was.<\/p>\n
The next entry:<\/p>\n
Need property route before Pike or Helen surfaces.<\/p>\n
He already knew those archives existed.<\/p>\n
Or suspected.<\/p>\n
The moving-truck plan was not merely evidence recovery.<\/p>\n
A race.<\/p>\n
He needed to retrieve records before I gained enough independent information to stop needing him.<\/p>\n
He lost.<\/p>\n
Then my attorney said:<\/p>\n
\u201cThere\u2019s one more entry.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cWhat?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cWritten after he saw police approaching your house.\u201d<\/p>\n
My heartbeat changed.<\/p>\n
He had made a note then?<\/p>\n
Apparently on his phone.<\/p>\n
One line.<\/p>\n
J called police, not me.<\/p>\n
Below it:<\/p>\n
This is worse than expected.<\/p>\n
Not because police existed.<\/p>\n
Because I chose another source of authority.<\/p>\n
Another interpreter.<\/p>\n
Then:<\/p>\n
If she won\u2019t ask me, she\u2019s already too far.<\/p>\n
I sat quietly.<\/p>\n
For years I had imagined my turning point as the divorce filing.<\/p>\n
Maybe it was.<\/p>\n
Maybe there were many.<\/p>\n
But Mark\u2019s own journal identified the one he feared.<\/p>\n
The day I stopped asking him what was happening.<\/p>\n
That was enough.<\/p>\n
Then my attorney\u2019s voice changed.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe defense is withdrawing the journal as an exhibit.\u201d<\/p>\n
I almost smiled.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhy?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cYou know why.\u201d<\/p>\n
Because context ruined the version they wanted.<\/p>\n
Again.<\/p>\n
Another cropped story collapsing when the whole record appeared.<\/p>\n
But Mark\u2019s lawyers still had one argument they believed could damage me.<\/p>\n
Not that I knew.<\/p>\n
That I should have known.<\/p>\n
A moral argument disguised as factual suspicion.<\/p>\n
How could a wife of twenty-seven years not know?<\/p>\n
How could millions move without her noticing?<\/p>\n
How could she sign so many documents?<\/p>\n
How could she accept the lifestyle?<\/p>\n
That question frightened me because strangers might ask it sincerely.<\/p>\n
I asked it myself.<\/p>\n
Then Rachel said something simple.<\/p>\n
\u201cYou didn\u2019t know because he spent twenty-seven years making sure you didn\u2019t.\u201d<\/p>\n
Yes.<\/p>\n
Not magic.<\/p>\n
Work.<\/p>\n
Forged forms.<\/p>\n
Controlled accounts.<\/p>\n
Filtered professionals.<\/p>\n
Family pressure.<\/p>\n
Competing explanations.<\/p>\n
Threats to people who tried to warn me.<\/p>\n
Surveillance.<\/p>\n
Cropping.<\/p>\n
Blackmail.<\/p>\n
Silence.<\/p>\n
He did not hide one secret.<\/p>\n
He built a system for hiding.<\/p>\n
Ignorance was not evidence that I was foolish.<\/p>\n
It was evidence the system functioned.<\/p>\n
Until it didn\u2019t.<\/p>\n
Then one final pretrial discovery arrived.<\/p>\n
A handwritten index card from Robert\u2019s desk negatives.<\/p>\n
Mark\u2019s handwriting.<\/p>\n
Question:<\/p>\n
How much does Judith need to know to feel informed?<\/p>\n
Answer:<\/p>\n
Less than she thinks.<\/p>\n
I read it.<\/p>\n
Then turned the card over.<\/p>\n
Robert had written a response.<\/p>\n
You underestimate her.<\/p>\n
Mark\u2019s note beneath:<\/p>\n
No. You overestimate how badly people want the truth.<\/p>\n
For most of our marriage, he had been right about one thing.<\/p>\n
Truth can be expensive.<\/p>\n
It can cost marriages.<\/p>\n
Family stories.<\/p>\n
Reputations.<\/p>\n
Money.<\/p>\n
Comfort.<\/p>\n
The mistake Mark made was assuming cost meant nobody would ever pay it.<\/p>\n
I already had.<\/p>\n
The first serious challenge came three weeks later. Mark\u2019s attorneys filed motions attacking the clean record. Not surprising. My attorney explained the arguments carefully. Robert\u2019s acknowledgment was unreliable because Robert … <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":10927,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-10985","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-feel-one-story"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/feelonestory.online\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10985","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/feelonestory.online\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/feelonestory.online\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/feelonestory.online\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/feelonestory.online\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=10985"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/feelonestory.online\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10985\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":11072,"href":"https:\/\/feelonestory.online\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10985\/revisions\/11072"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/feelonestory.online\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/10927"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/feelonestory.online\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=10985"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/feelonestory.online\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=10985"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/feelonestory.online\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=10985"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}