tiredblondy
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2004
- Messages
- 5,666
- Reaction score
- 155
okay, I am now confused.
so according to this LE says it appears the intruder intended to attack the little girl, and this does not appear to be a botched robbery or other crime gone awry. from this link http://www.modbee.com/2013/04/29/2693050/sheriff-says-intruder-intended.html#storylink=cpy
but from the presser during the Q and A a reporter asks if LE believes this was random and the officer says "we don't know, that is still part of the investigation. Investigation has taken a number of different avenues and we don't want to give any one part of the investigation lighter than any other . . ." [paraphrased]
in response to Q "how much concern should the public have that this person could strike again?" A "Do we fear? No. Are we concerned - absolutely that is why we have staffed up accordingly . . "
As to their request about negative comments, I think they are making a huge mistake and reading online. Every article I have read there are the usual "where were the parents?" "Look at the son" "this story stinks, the 12 year old did it"
I think those sorts of comments are what they are reading and find negative.
Oh thanks, I have not seen any of those comments. I'm sure that's what they were talking then, I thought I'd read everything but I must have missed that. How awful.