Actually, the way it reads to me is that she contradicts what was said in the last police conference first, then says basically that she called the police to try and get them to confirm or deny, and that the officer she spoke to declined to provide her with any details. She was then refered to someone who didn't return her phone calls. So she is saying right up front that they told her nothing. Therefore it seems to me that anything she says is not from the horses mouth, but in fact from her own sensationalist musings. She is providing false information that fully contradicts the police, and then saying at the end, that there has been no new information in 3 months, so how is it she would have new information? When asked why she believes she is right over LE, she answers basically that she didn't like the way Det. Carbone looked shifty as he contradicted her opinion. Three times.
To me it actually seems like nothing more than a grab to try to raise hits to her site, especially the way instead of answering a very valid question, the one at the crux of her piece, she instead directs you to add another hit to her list of visits, effectively doubling her count, very clever. But unfortunately the link takes you to another opinion piece where her opinion today is supported by her opinion at a press conference, that she didn't like the look on the detectives face when he answered the opposite of what she is claiming, 3 times. Bloggers like her are trying to make money off of their musings, and the only way to do that is to increase hits. Even though we all know that there is no new information out there being released, we all went to that site and gave her plenty of hits she would not have gotten otherwise, good for her. I will know better next time.
