Why, becuase he publicly stated what a lot of peopel wondered privately (ie: not on a nat'l tv or radio show)?
oh yes, so classy to do that when a child is in play here. I think the most important thing is to say negative things about the pervert who did this crime, not bash a child! Sorry, but that is disgusting if you ask me and anyone who has that opinion of Shawn Hornbeck is disgusting to me as well.
I expect that a lot of people would have private questions. But that's waaay different, in this case when an abused young man is at stake, than asking these questions publicly.
Please......Devlin did not KIDNAP a child because he wanted a best friend and I am sure Shawn did not stay because he could skip school and play video games all day. Have you ever had someone close to you be horribly abused? I have, and that child went through her days like NOTHING was going on. And you know what, it was going on right under our noses. It was not until she got to college that she had a mental breakdown that it all came to light. I would bet anything that Shawn was abused and told horrific things and stayed in order to protect his family, either from being hurt or humiliated by what was going on because the abuser ALWAYS puts the blame on the child. Another thing, it certainly would fit that since Shawn was maturing he did not fit Devlin's fantasy anymore, in comes Ben. I would not be surprised if there was a boy there when Shawn showed up 4 years ago. If there was and something happened to the other boy and Shawn was witness to it, by God, you had better believe he would not second guess a threat. They should have cadaver dogs checking Devlin's property.
That's reason enough. It's one thing to wonder privately, another to raise questions on a blog or FR, and quite another to question the motives of a victimized child on the top-rated cable "news" show in the country.
O'Reilly didn't merely ask the question, he drew conclusions. Then, when confronted on it, he backtracked and claimed he was merely asking questions. He was irresponsible in his speculation and he is a coward for not owning up to it.
You said -- "Why, becuase he publicly stated what a lot of peopel wondered privately (ie: not on a nat'l tv or radio show)?"
Have you read what Michael Reagan has publicly stated?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1770349/posts
This should make things clearer to you. If he did anything (in order to "answer" what many Americans were "thinking" already -- he should have presented *this* (as Michael Reagan did).
Regards,
Star Traveler