Firstly, from what we see online she hasn't committed suicide. I think if you actually commit suicide it pretty much guarantees you can't raise your kids. I don't know what was said, it isn't listed in the reports either, but there was obviously enough for concern. I wonder how you would feel if you were the subject of so much abuse?
Second, if posting many times means I have a personal connection then there are plenty of people commenting on this article who must be close and personal family. Plenty have posted their hate messages multiple times calling her and her family liars at every stage and only one has had the guts to retract even part of those accusations of lying once actual evidence is produced. It seems if you post multiple times with hate or doubt that's fine but if you post because you have issue with the way people deal with this and claim to be spouting facts when actually they wouldn't recognize a fact if it smacked them in the face and sang 'I'm a fact' to the tune of Dora the Explorer 'I'm the Map' then you must obviously be a completely biased and lying family member.
I have posted here because this was where I first saw people like openyoureyes claiming to know the ultimate truths but was in fact incapable of reading correctly and of understanding how even basic policing might work.
So save your indignation for the trolls on here that thoroughly deserve it because I don't object to your feelings about suicide vs. the responsibility to your kids. Don't you dare support the bile spouted here in the supposed name of truth by people that get some sick pleasure from trolling. My comments are the least liked on this article even though when I have questioned the evidence that something has been a lie I've been correct.
Lastly, because until the evidence from the Walmart videos is produced I don't see any more reason to post I would like to point one last thing out to openyoureyes....
You are a total hypocrite - you accuse this woman of lying and spout nonsense to justify it. You don't have the guts to admit when you've been wrong either. Yet despite calling her a liar about a LGBT related issue you happy spout off stories about the abuse your own family received without producing a single shred of evidence that what you said has any basis in fact.
IF any of that happened they have my deepest sympathy and respect that they survived such awful things; but they also have my deepest sympathy and regret that they are in any way related to such sick and twisted waste of bio matter such as you.
For all you haters out there, the dislike button is the red one in case you are struggling with such long words.
Oops. Misread. I actually think that meant that they couldn't get the video because the team wasn't there rather than the video wasn't working. Maybe there will be something after all.
Interesting. Following the links to the report. 'Possible battery' is mentioned but it isn't attributed as a statement or quote to anyone except Lt Baldwin. It seems to me that it was the police officer that used the word battery rather than Katie. My assessment about emotional state looks to be incorrect. The differences are down to the use of different words by different people involved.
Also, unless the public comes forward we may not get video since they say Walmart doesn't have video. Not because there was no incident, just because 'Loss Prevention wasn't on site'.
Nope. Not a family member and not even in the same country.
My view on the data is that now we appear closer to real facts. I have to assume the update by the author is mostly accurate with the only potential exceptions possibly being verbal differences. I haven't seen a written report, just this update that has been received verbally. That said it is probably accurate.
Tells me a few things. First you (and others) were wrong to state the attendence by a police officer was a proven lie. The road closure etc. while valid evidence to cast doubt was not sufficient to prove a lie. This update clearly states an officer attended so that much appears to be a vindication. People are reading between the lines and finding words that are not in there.
There does appear to be a discrepancy between what the family said was an ongoing investigation compared to this update stating the family was informed it was under the wrong jurisdiction. Is it a lie? Is it a misunderstanding? I don't know. It seems very strange to me that the family would call the police because of harassment and threats and then decide not to follow up with the correct jurisdiction. I don't understand it. I'd be interested to see if there is a further update from the family about that. Right now it just doesn't make sense to me.
I'm obviously pleased that my arguing against supposed facts that have turned out to be incorrect assumptions has been borne out. Real information like this is what is required to establish true fact. A little smugness on my part.
Comment on slap vs. cuff vs. battery. I don't believe the battery part. Both Mark and Katie have both said that it was not that serious a contact but it was more the verbal threat and aggression around the sexuality of a two year old. Remember the story about the incident originally was that she was unhappy about the incident but the crux of her article was about attitudes toward LGBT. Based on other evidence in the updates after the 11,000 reported emails and mention of harassing phone calls (I understand from other places that some very nice individual posted details of their home address and phone number) that Katie ended up in a very bad state emotionally hence the Baker Act. Since the police statements indicate suicidal statements I think it isn't unfair to infer at this stage that she would be in a severe state of paranoia and now less likely to understate something or to be unemotional about it. More than likely she increased the incident in her own mind due to the emotional state. This last part is supposition as I have no facts to base this on, just my own reading of a situation and an attempt to put myself in her shoes at that stage. I'm sure people will have different opinions.
Perhaps I'm wrong about that last part but I'd be interested if people think this emotional state assessment could be valid.
Do people still believe this is a hoax? So far evidence being produced has refuted allegation of lies surrounding visits by the police following reporting of the incidents. There still isn't full clarity but I think it's clear that not everything they say regarding this is BS. Please keep comments about other stuff she posts being unbelievable out of this. The question here is whether this story is true or not. Even the boy who cried wolf told one truth.
I hope to see more about the outcome of the investigation of the original incident. I honestly hope that there is vindication of the original story since I've been appalled by the vehement denouncing of her story by so many. If it happened the guy was totally in the wrong. He was entitled to his opinin but that does not entitle him to touch the child or verbally abuse. I would like to see that outcome since the true facts coming outt are proving the nay-Sayers wrong (at least in part). Will the rest hold water?
We still need the remaining evidence before we can understand the real truth. Right now I'm just rooting for the underdog in this one. ;)
Some things missing from that article before I would take it as supporting the claimed 'fact'.
The office became aware of the blog post. Doesn't say how. I'd like to see the statement that says there had been no contact from this family. I can see why this might be doubted but this does not outright refute it.
Polk county was specifically mentioned in the blog so a deputy was requested to go meet. This does not say this was the first or only visit by a deputy from any office, just that one went out. It doesn't even say when it happened.
There is more detail here but it came out after you claimed a fact. You did not have this data so it could only be assumption or inference. Perhaps it may turn out that your assumption was right but this does not yet validate your claim.
If there is a report or statement from Polk or lake county clearly stating any claim by the family that they had reported anything or that they had been visited is false then I will bow my head and admit that you guessed right. That still wouldn't mean that you stated a fact earlier since this data was not available.
I pity whoever gets you on jury duty. You appear to have a very low bar set when evaluating circumstantial evidence. If it sounds fishy they're guilty before all of the evidence is in.
All Comments »
Powered by Foundation
© Copyright 2013,
Charleston City Paper