Arnie M
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2013
- Messages
- 2,079
- Reaction score
- 1,920
Perhaps you should go back and read because we were not all saying VERNAL was with Deorr.
The fact that LE denied this happened doesn't mean it didn't. As we all know, LE can choose to tell us whatever they see fit (as it should be).
Furthermore, VERNAL is "wacky" and nothing he has said thus far has been "correct."
I don't think the store clerk was suggesting the parents were at the store with the baby at 6 pm. The clerk said she remembered seeing a bawling baby at around 6 pm with a man in a black truck.
I am sure there are many black trucks in the area and many crying babies. So why was Vernal so quick to discount the sighting?
Shouldn't he have been really interested to know about that sighting? How'd he know it wasn't the kidnapper with his missing boy?
There was no sighting of a filthy bawling baby at the store. Someone made that up. Yet Vernal was eager to tell everyone that the sighting was him and DeOrr. The sighting that never happened. Vernal didn't say the sighting was a rumour because the clerk saw no filthy, bawling boy, which would have been the truth; instead he said that the man with the filthy, bawling boy was him and DeOrr, just earlier in the day.
There was no sighting of a filthy, bawling boy. Someone made it up. IMO the parents made it up.
We can give any rendition we want ... the point was Vernal said there is no way he was there with his black truck and his son at 6:00 pm friday .... he was commenting on erroneous witness reports and the problems it caused for everybody.
And my comment is the fact that this erroneous report keeps coming back to life on webslueths