I'd just like to point something out, then I'll try to shut my mouth and not say anything further on this issue; One of the points that I've heard Levi raise (or at least attempt to) during his recent guest appearances, pertains to the source(s), in this particular case, Gma's source(s) for all of her recent proclamations and, as Levi pointed out, Gma Hollar can't even recall precisely who told her what - instead her reply, when asked for specifics, was something along the lines of "Oh one of em in Florida." Why is this so important? Its important, not only because any information pertaining to a missing, possibly murdered child case, should naturally be of the utmost importance, especially when aired publicly on national television - its important because it makes the difference between the individual who is simply publicly sharing their own personal opinion(s) and the person who genuinely has credible information relating to the case.
Let's face it, if NG and JVM invited guests on their programs simply to add another opinion to their panel of guests, we'd all be invited. Gma Hollars opinion is/has been given special favor purely because of her close proximity to the case; the family relation. IMO, that may be enough to get her (Gma Hollar's) foot in the door, so to say, but it shouldn't be enough to keep inviting her back when she clearly can't even give (or recall) the important specifics related to the information she's disclosing.
Sadly, due to NG's and JVM's lowered bar of standards regarding their guest's credibility, they've become nothing more than a public national forum whereby family members and others related to a criminal case can appear to duel it out. Sadly, it has become no different, IMO, than the Jerry Springer Show - chairs being flung across the room. As long as viewers realize this, there isn't any danger (take it with a grain of salt...) but unfortunately due to NG & JVM's programs covering true crimes and cloaked in a "fighting for justice" platform, people take what they and their guests say very seriously. The public's opinions then become prejudiced - not by facts, but by which guest, in this case, it will be Gma Hollar vs. Gma Sykes, is more likeable or seems more believable.
With so much potential to do so much good, what a shame that these programs have been reduced to this but, lets not kid ourselves, this is all about ratings and $$$ - nothing more and nothing less.
JMHO ~
huh? LOL), it's just that has not been my experience here at Websleuths. In my experience, rumors on WS are put in the Parking Lot. You always know what you get at WS. If someone is speaking "rumor" there is always someone to challenge the information someone posted. The majority of posts cite references, links, proof. While those that are opinion are clearly stated as such. There is no shuck and jive going on here. 
