Just another very strange and inconsistent statement to add to all the very many others.. Karen stating that the sketch that was shown looked nothing like the abductor of Holly.. So, of course first of all it makes no sense for her to make this statement due to her never having seen the perp who abducted Holly.. How could she have known or have been able to make a statement that it looked nothing like the perp.. Secondly, who exactly would have been the person to have given the description of the perp in order to make the sketch?? Would it not have to have been Clint who gave the description for the sketch?? Right?? He is the only person that according to the Accts we have been given, it is only Clint who had any visual whatsoever of the perp.. So would it not have to be Clint that gave the details for the sketch??
Which leads to the last point of with it being only Clint who would have been able to give the description for the sketch.. If he is giving the details how then does the sketch look nothing like the perp?? Does that make sense?? With Clint giving the artist each detail that he can to have the artist then incorporate into the sketch..
How then does the sketch look nothing like the perp?? It does not make sense if things are as we have been told they would be.. As Clint would only actually be able to give at best descriptions that are not detailed as he never saw the face.. He may could give head shape, hair color, and a few other details, but whatever the face that was drawn in the sketch how could Clint, and especially Karen, with neither having ever saw the face of the perp how could Clint even be able to make the statememnt that the sketch looked nothing like the perp, much less Karen make this statement..
** just wanted to make sure to reiterate that I just brought forward Carla's drawing and post from thread 26 of the Bobo residence.. Much thanks again, Carla!