Comments by "Martin White" (@martinwhite418) on "WBRC 6 News" channel.

  1.  @Angela_J0607  There is no way a child is on the side of the road with not one person calling 911. You are delusional if you believe that.
    26
  2.  @scaringthecheese  OK, that makes the story make even less sense. The timelines of this story don't add up. Not even close.
    10
  3.  @teepitts7270  I never claimed to know "everything". I know what you should know. Let me ask you this. When did she see this "child" in relation to when you see her stop in the video?
    10
  4. ​ @saylremi There are no reports that the missing person called 911?
    7
  5.  @Tsadie1  I can't see quite what your seeing, you may be looking at this on a clearer device. I would say within 3 days we will have some clues as to what happened here. Timelines matter, and the story as we have been given it, don't make sense.
    6
  6.  @forevrsubs  Everyone was "mentally ok" before they weren't.
    5
  7. ​ @Angela_J0607 Yea, sure, the 14 people who stopped first, never called the police or anything. That's it.
    5
  8.  @sayittomyfaceidareyou8629  The petito story made sense. This is more like the Rudy story. The timeline doesn't fit here. The "facts" as we have been given them do not align. In the Petito case, you had facts that didn't make sense, and that later bore itself out.
    5
  9.  @forevrsubs  She has unkidnapped herself.
    4
  10. ​ @marleemum7057 This makes no sense. The child story.
    4
  11. There was no child. This story is nonsense.
    4
  12. Likely not what happened.
    4
  13. What trick? There was likely no child.
    3
  14. ​ @thechronicillnessdiaries2773 Nonsense.
    3
  15. ​ @Angela_J0607 But the story doesn't work as presented.
    3
  16.  @officialpowerofbanana  The "turn around" part only works if A. A camera sees her car do this. B. The call to police comes minutes before the video we are watching, because you can't exit and come back around in less than 4 minutes because C. You can't see a child 200 yards ahead of you and stop doing 80 mph where the child is.
    3
  17.  @tetrac71  "grown" people do run away.
    3
  18.  @marleemum7057  They are saying the "facts" of the tragedy don't make sense.
    3
  19.  @tomcat5151  But that doesn't make sense, how could someone know she, that one girl, was going to circle back in 5 minutes?
    3
  20. @Rebecca-hc5ju  Oh, it's going to be really clear where she was.
    3
  21.  @metalbarbie7226  I think we the driver of the vehicle get out, yes.
    2
  22. You're gonna be the next one that pulls the attention stunt.
    2
  23. I know how she feels. I picked up 6 toddlers on the side of the highway today. Let her out of jail, I need good, honest help picking em up.
    2
  24. But could you spot a moose toddler? Like a moose baby, like maybe if it had a moose diaper, maybe?
    2
  25.  @seeleygirl6178  Yes, and the timeline of this doesn't make sense.
    2
  26. This story of a child is nonsense.
    1
  27. You said nothing.
    1
  28.  @kato_sga  The timeline makes no sense. How do you "see a child" at 80 mph? A child no one else saw? How would you see a child with all that traffic? All you would see is the traffic in front of you. This scenario is not possible.
    1
  29.  @kato_sga  The nonsense is over.
    1
  30. @katomedia7107  Well, you're probably aware, rapists/kidnappers never just "drop you off" at the house when their done. The story could not work as it was presented to us. I don't really understand why or how people can't calculate what seemed so easy to calculate to me.
    1
  31.  @forevrsubs  The timeline does not work. Period.
    1
  32. ​ @jquin4135 Have you heard a call where the missing person called police?
    1
  33. ​ @blkprincess You mean like "missing" Rudy?
    1
  34.  @teepitts7270  When people can't answer simple questions, it's because they don't want the answer to be what it is. I asked you a simple question and got nonsense back.
    1
  35.  @angelinabasilio660  Yes, they do.
    1
  36.  @teepitts7270  She has unkidnapped herself. Good news.
    1
  37. @tomcat5151  Hello. First, we would have to be told if she is claiming to have gone around, exited, and came back. That is an 8 mile trip, 8 minutes. That would mean there has to be around 6 minutes after she first sees a child for the police to get there, assuming she waited 1 minute to call and one minute for dispatch to get the info. During this time, nobody else claims to have seen this child. Meanwhile, she has seen it twice. The first drive-by, and the second time when she is "talking to the child." Again, nobody sees this child waiting by the road either time. And it would have had to be seeable for her to know when to stop. Seeing the child the first time would have been almost impossible. Look at the traffic. She never has a wide view. Just vehicles in front of her blocking her view. If she saw this "child" twice, she saw something twice, by herself. Other vehicles would have had multiple occupants per vehicle. If the "child" was only there in the 8 minutes that she saw it twice, then that is around 160 cars that would have passed by and not seen a "child" and yet she manages to see it, not once, but twice. If her story is that she did not go around and re-exit, there are even bigger problems with her story. If she claims to have exited and came back, and the police are on scene in less than 8 minutes, this is a big problem, because of how long it would take her to come back around. If the police get there within 7 minutes of the call, and we know police got there after her, then she would have had to do well over 100 miles per hour to get back to that spot to be there in time for the police to arrive. I'm pretty good at this. The story is nonsense.
    1
  38. There likely was no child.
    1
  39. Silly ideas.
    1
  40.  @appliancedude63  The claim of a child on the side of the road is likely false. There is no scenario where it is not false.
    1
  41. Because the story is not likely as we have been presented with it.
    1
  42. @pepsilover4727  Yes, it's bad that she is missing, no matter how it happened. But you can't see a child at night, doing 80mph. All you would see is all that traffic. And yes, the chance she is not just the first person, but the only person to see this. So, she sees a child 200 yards away at night, and stops her car and is talking to the child? Nonsense. A lot of people on these videos are agreeing with the nonsense based on what the missing girl looks like. I find that odd.
    1
  43. Yea, that's it. She saw a kid, whatever, ridiculous.
    1