Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: CharlesWayneCT

You are the one making up hypothetical families.

The facts are that the children were not removed from the cult compound because of Sarah. The investigation began that way.

However, the evidence that led to the removal of the children came from the children’s own stories about - and the frank evidence of - sexual abuse: underage girls who were pregnant or had been pregnant.

If you want to get hypothetical: What do you imagine would have happened if the adult men and women had been honest about names, ages, and relationships?


328 posted on 05/10/2008 1:41:51 AM PDT by hocndoc (http://www.LifeEthics.org (I have a mustard seed and I'm not afraid to use it.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 327 | View Replies ]


To: hocndoc

There are families who make the claims as I stated. They are not hypothetical.

You are the one who brought up Sarah. I was just noting that we hadn’t found out who she was yet.

You claimed that Sarah proved the men lied, but I was noting that so far as we know, the men were correct that there was no Sarah meeting the description they gave.

But I note we don’t have all the facts yet.

So in fact my reference to Sarah was in direct response to your inaccurate claim that “Sarah” showed the men were lying.

As I never said the kids were taken because of Sarah, your insistance on repeating that piece of information is a canard, and non-germaine to our conversation. Try refuting something I actually said.


329 posted on 05/10/2008 12:51:06 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 328 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson