by rain » Sun Dec 11, 2005 6:59 am
"there you go"<br>but then, who didn't feel this coming 'round again?<br><br>"how does your blurb relate to a 16-year-old kid killing an attorney's wife?"<br><br>well, maybe because I just don't swallow the line that a 16-year-old kid killed Vitale.<br><br>but I do think that someone wanted everyone to "believe he killed Vitale by striking her 39 times in the head with a piece of crown molding, then carved some kind of gothic signature into her back". the stand-out details of 'what' - '39', 'crown', 'gothic signature', and I'd add 'female' -yes. the 'who' - no.<br><br>nor do I take the position that Scott Dyleski was M.C.'d. well, not moreso than most, maybe less.<br><br>but I do wonder why it hasn't yet been suggested that the Hamlins constitute a company project couple - Pied Piper anyone? <br><br>(likewise, but on a slightly different tack, I take the view that Alpizar was 'conveniently' triggered.)<br><br>is the Hamlin case, particularly within the context of a 'concerted assault', related to the EPA legislation?<br><br>meanwhile, back to your regularly scheduled rainbow.<br> <p></p><i></i>