I see no reason to disbelieve EVERY single word they say, just as I don't necessarily believe every word they say. Obviously there are major gaps in the story.

Some things are clear from what's written...the guy was having sexual contact with the girls. It's also clear the girls were going over to his house. I find no reason to disbelieve the comment the girl was over his place cooking him breakfast (it seemed odd to me that they made a point of saying it). Now, I do take issue with what they said about the 11 yr old reporting him. She might not have told ON him, she might have been bothered and mentioned it to a friend, who then told their parents, who then told the cops and began this investigation.

I am also suspicious of the 18 yr old girls comments. I think it was known she used to hang with the guy at his house and they pressed her for info. Being 18 now, she might have thought it was ok to tell them that they had sex in the past. It's possible that ALL his other relationships were consensual...we just have no way of knowing.

At any rate, this article didn't really see biased one way or another to me. I didn't see him called a "pervert" or a "pedophile", and they kept saying things like "The police said" or "according to court documents"...so it SEEMS like they were trying to at least report the "facts" given to them by the police dept. Of course the police are usually full of shit and will put their own "spin" on the issue to make it seem the guy did molest all the girls against their wishes, even if that's not true.

I just don't buy it. This guy was not a family friend or relative that the kids could not avoid. These girls obviously were going to his house on their own, that one girl did it for three years. Why would she keep going back if she didn't like what was going on and wanted it to continue?

So, no bluegrass, I'm not totally buying all of what they said, nor am I dismissing what they said. In the end all we have to go by is their words. We try to read between the lines and fill in the blanks...but since none of us were there, we'll just never know will we?

Inf.