Comment: Ok well you've changed your

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: I don't think they leaked it. (see in situ)

Ok well you've changed your

Ok well you've changed your story and read some of the article now huh. Anyone can doubt the story all they want, but that doesn't mean it's a lie. I don't know either way and neither do you. I said I thought it fishy when I heard about it myself, but if state and local police confirm the story and have pictures on their phones to back it up, that will be hard to argue against imo. Equally if the Mass state police that were there end up saying they know nothing of this writing, it will be hard to argue that it isn't a lie. You can say they changed their story and it wasn't leaked but it says in the article they didn't want it to be known until the trial, which is why they wanted the officers phones. So it's not a stretch to think they also told the Mass state police to keep hush on the writing two weeks ago. And it was a spokeperson for the Mass state police that denied the existence of the writing, not the officers involved.
Also what newspapers questioned "the details of his "confession" and the boy's lucidity while he was under the influence of pain meds and morphine"? Like I hinted to Ralph, I think it's a little absurd to think an article on the Cleveland Challenger website put pressure on the FBI to come out with another story. Maybe I'm wrong and other more prominent papers/sites questioned the same thing, but I haven't seen it.