posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 12:51 PM
Again, I just don't get it. Why do people who make public statements in media/news and then complain later that they want to be left alone or that
people don't believe them?
Well, even if I were a person on the street who was involved in an event (not including children) that I am likely a primary witness because of
accidental involvement I wouldn't do 30 interviews that are conflicting. I have no interest at all in being on the news for any reason--even if I were
passing by a news crew, I would change my path.
No one has the right to be calling this guy, but I do believe we have some duty to call him out as an after-the-fact confused witness.
Where the escaped children went is moot anyways, point is they did escape and that is a good thing. This guy should have just left it at that and
slammed his door after the kids he harboured were returned to their parents and kept quiet until he was asked for details by a local official who came
with the directive of collecting actual, calm testimony from a professional in these cases.
Sorry, but if someone is going to be allowed on video by these various interviewers while acting frazled, hyper and confused...the should expect some
sort of doubt in their various story versions.
It is no different than if someone were a witness in a court and he/she keeps adding to the story or mentioning the same situation in different ways.
This is what it gets them for perhaps trying to gain prolonged exposure and attention.
edit on 16-1-2013 by dianashay because: (no reason given)