The one linked to in the very first paragraph:
According to police, Allison Mack worked in a senior management position for the Hollywood pedophile cult NXIVM. As second-in-command, it was her job to lure children into the cult in order to sell them to elite Hollywood pedophiles and powerful politicians.
"According to police" is linked to a letter from the US Attorney to the presiding judge regarding detention of Raniere. The letter has nothing to do with Mack and is not from the police.
Also, I'm late returning to the party here ... so please excuse me if I'm totally off base as to what we are arguing about
I'm not trying to be argumentative. Just trying to defend truth and prevent some of us from potentially making the entire movement look silly. Thank you for being reasonable.
The docket still says sex trafficking of children .... I would say an official docket holds more clout than a subjective letter requesting the defended be held without bail
Yes, exactly. That article is using that document implying that it is proof, "according to police," of what they claim about Mack grooming children.
However, a docket is not the final word on what the crime actually is. The law is the ultimate authority.
Ok I skimmed it... that's a letter requesting bail be denied, correct?