my reporting hasn t changed. the lawyer, the authorities, the lawyer is not the issue here, it s the timing, and yes, they were told not to talk, and they changed the time line. look, if the feds believe they changed the time line by buying this kid a day, you can t lie to the feds, tit s a crime. we would see something moved on them real fast. my reporting remains the same, the night of the 13th or morning of the 14th, the federal authorities were told that the kid hadn t come home. what they did with that information, when they communicated it at all to the north port police, that s on the feds. not on the family. do you believe the time line change makes a difference, and do you believe the family is staring at any kind of legal exposure? so, chris, it has to make a difference, right. going back to the issue of human nature which we lawyers always say you know this very well, right. we argue common sense and good
and so you can t blame people for i don t think they re jumping to a major conclusion than drawing an inference, if you didn t insist, it must mean you did something wrong, and i would hasten to say if i were prosecuting a case, that s the inference i would ask a jury to draw. not there yet, but this is a circumstantial case so far. 97% of cases are going to be circumstantial. you talk about the family, they changed the time line, how did they get a day wrong. my reporting hasn t changed. the lawyer, the authorities, the lawyer is not the issue here, it s the timing, and yes, they were told not to talk, and they changed the time line. look, if the feds believe they changed the time line by buying this kid a day, you can t lie to the feds, it s a crime. we would see something moved on them real fast. my reporting remains the same, the night of the 13th or morning of the 14th, the federal