Have you watched the video I linked? :dunno:
Either way, it's a fairly unimportant detail and as there have been complaints about "nit picking" I'm not going to get into another bunch of right fighting about it.
I came across it and thought I'd share.
The difference is a matter of feet between public and private land and my point really was that the area is completely accessible by ordinary car and far, far more well used than I had originally thought.
ETA: Here's what I originally said -
By the way I found a youtube clip of the area they were found, it is very gloomy and out of the way. It is also on private land, has a house within easy walking distance, and is completely accessible by ordinary car because it is kept mowed right up to where the woods begin so someone could easily have driven right up then walked the girls in or possibly even carried them although this seems unlikely as the undergrowth in the wooded area was very high at the time.
I find it quite disappointing that only one irrelevant detail is being ripped apart (even though we have no way of knowing for sure if it's actually wrong!) yet the rest of what I said has been overlooked.
The location of the crime scenes are pretty important in an abduction/murder of two children. The difference is not a matter of feet.
The location identified in the video is not the location that you identified on private land on the 25 acre parcel. The location of the bodies is no where near the place identified by the person with a video camera.