Comment: I must have missed the time

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Rather, redacted (see in situ)

I must have missed the time

I must have missed the time stamp...
I can see from the web address that both articles were published on the 14th, and I'm guessing that the first article, in order of THE ABOVE POST, that it was probably published at 10:59:12, which is AFTER the second article above, which was actually published BEFORE the first one at 10:32:45. Just because Deacon, above, put them in reverse order does not mean they were published in that order.

If they were to redact that paragraph, might it be that they royally screwed up, stating that they had interviewed a dead person?

The publisher has a "search" botton on those pages. If you search "sandy hook elementary" date 12/14/12-12/15/12, you'll get their results page, INCLUDING TIMESTAMPS for associated articles...Deacon states that one paragraph is gone. No, one paragraph was ADDED.

You'll quickly notice that the one with the extra paragraph was published second chronologically. The article where they stated that the "principle said...", but the principle was one of the victims...

http://newtownbee.com/search/default.aspx

----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence