I know that last blog said there would not be another one until after I return from NH but this has to be corrected.
In the newspaper article of a couple of weeks ago, there was an error. The truth is simply this: there was a possibility that Jim Vittums DNA (not necessarily blood) might have been found on Stacey Burns due to her efforts to remove a chunk of wood from an infected wound in the back of his hand. The article indicated he said that her blood might have been found on his hands. THIS IS NOT THE CASE. I wish this mistake had not been made and this is an attempt to correct it.
I dont see what difference it makes dna on his hands or hers its still there
yes it does make a big difference. I’m really glad to know they miss printed in the paper and was fixed as I know a miss print can and has ruined ppls lives and after reading all of that I to was thinking Jim was guilty now I no longer think that as it would sadden me to think a local could do such a act
I guess i should have said it made no difference to me so just calm down ive said it many times but i will say it again i dont for a minute think jim killed stacy though it has been reported that he had a violent temper and some people may think thats enough for someone to kill i dont. Anyhow i do think it is local and i never said jim was not in someway involved .
The difference being that there was a reason DNA was there (the rather large splinter Stacey was squeezing the night before witnessed by several including her own daughter I might add. Big difference.