DS > Re****ts that were fabrications on their face or
DS > re****ts that should have been unfounded
DS > because there was no credible evidence
DS > to sup****t a positive finding.
Yes, all FIFTEEN TIMES you were
re****ted, yet you keep trying to dodge your own
"Where there's smoke there's fire" reasoning.
DS > As opposed to all the evidence found
What evidence did they find?
DS > and admissions you made in the
DS > investigation that caused Lisa
DS > Watkins' daughter to be removed.
If they had something REAL they would
not have jeopardized it with the big lie
about my ""*** abuse history"".
G > You were investigated for child abuse FIFTEEN PLUS times.
G > I was investigated TWICE ever, 7 years apart.
G > For YOU to try this [ smoke/fire ] fallacy on ME was absurd!
G >
G > You're still defending the indefensible, ala Kent Wills.
DS > When was the last time I defended Kent Willis?
Similar Modus Operandi defense of the indefensible.
