Also, I noticed that Fred supposedly says that "I’ve recently been shown two very early comments by the author of a blog about my daughter, Maura, that represent the most insidious and reprehensible tactic that I can possibly imagine." I very well could be reading too much into this, but I took this to mean that IF Fred really doesn't ever glance at JR's blog...that someone deliberately went back and showed him this particular post. So, has Fred only seen a few posts out of hundreds? It seemed very much like Cherry Picking to me. There has been some good out of JR's Blog, but someone, or someones, only want Fred to see the material they've deemed as atrocious and outrageous. I get it, JR hasn't been writing about Fred with rainbows and butterflies, but it just seemed, to me, that a few sentences were separated from the entire blog and were meant to paint JR as this heinous monster. Could JR have possible reworded the initial post? Sure. Did it warrant a lengthy, long-winded, just overall odd letter "From Fred" on JS's blog. I'm not sure. Seems fishy to me. I just think there's more to it. I understand that Fred has lost a child in all of this. Simply unimaginable. I know there is no blueprint as to how you should act when something like this happens to your family. That being said, I just feel that Fred is somewhat of an outlier. We've seen families/parents of missing children and young adults, and Fred's behavior just doesn't fit with what I would call the Bell Curve of human behavior in that situation. I'm not saying he's guilty of anything. I'm just thinking of it from a vantage point of statistics. Statistically, Fred's behavior the last 12 years would cause him to be an outlier, or just outside the norm. Again, that doesn't mean guilty or not guilty to me..it simply means..noted.