Is this really about children at all? The narrative and conclusions drawn in this story don't seem to make much sense or add up to anything worthy of an indictment. I'm not sure it's properly distinguishing private consenting activity between adults from its inventive alleged conspiracy to sexually abuse children. I suppose I'd've had to have seen that private conversation, but that's the problem with private conversations-- they aren't written with the intent of being understood by complete strangers out on a quest for something to judge and condemn. As a member of the public reading a piece of journalism, are we supposed to sit here and believe that precognition has somehow 'saved the day?' I'm not sure that the crime itself wasn't the eavesdropping and authoritarian attacks on the private expressions of consenting adults. This story seems like more of an affront than a relief.