[TheBigB]

Okay, let's TRY and discuss this civilly...you said this: "point out the line where the story you quoted says she changed her story as you have claimed repeatedly." Let look at what happened...the story that involved MK changed, that is true. If the first report was from "secondhand accounts", them where did they -get- those accounts? MK was the only one who could tell anything. IF the story changed from one day to the next, then WHO did the first story come from originally? Do you see what I'm asking?

[Jolly Green]

I'll take this real slow... "secondhand accounts" came from someone other than the girl, get it? Like maybe a parent who was out of their mind with fear, (who mis-interpreted what the child had said) who called the dispatcher, who relayed the info to the media to get out the Rachel Alert. The girl was never in that loop.

[Illbay]

Do you see what I'm asking?

This is what intrigues me. Look back over what you wrote. Do you not see that your conclusion is based on, by my count, THREE separate assumptions, on no basis other than your own imagination?

That's what is galling to me: People like you have NO PROBLEM spining these concoctions, then next thing you know they become "truth."

Exempla Gratia: "Mary Katherine changed her story..." That has been repeated over and over again, and yet over and over again those who've been paying attention to the actual FACTS have corrected this. But it makes no difference. You'll just continue parroting the same mythology.

You have GOT to be a Democrat.