Each witness described a visually unique person acting so suspiciously that the police assumed, in passing, that the stunningly different drawings were of the same man. Each witness says that their forensic sketch is accurate - but the drawings look absolutely nothing alike.

In light of the substantial differences in the images themselves, along with new information which has surfaced since the time of these drawings release, and our current suspects - many citizens believe these are clearly two different people. Evidence supports the assertion that these are not two very different drawings of the same man - one fat with a mole on the forehead, one skinny with glasses - but clearly two different men. Furthermore, we may know who these men are, and the suspects, brothers John and Tony Podesta, match the drawings precisely.

The two drawings, one man, theory was a weakly held early assumption that is no longer supported by the facts and evidence of the case - an assumption which must be revised to fit the known facts, rather than being used as weak evidence in defense of the suspects, who were unknown at the time of the drawings release.

The weakly founded assumption that these two very different images are of the same man is open to revision to match the facts, rather than the facts conforming to the weakly founded assumption - especially when the suspects, who know each other, who both have pedophyllic tendencies and who were with each other near the crime scene at the time of the abduction without alibi, both match the precise eye witness descriptions so well.

The suspects have pedophile tendencies based on their collection of pedophile art, they have a network of several known pedophile friends, they were staying in the home of a known pedophile, just down the street from the abduction site, they deleted email records just hours after Maddy went missing and have no alibi for the time of her abduction, the suspects attend occultic ceremonies and run in circles where abuse of children is well documented, the primary suspect has offered advice to a convicted pedophile on how to avoid prosecution for pedophelia. A review of the suspects emails (wikileaks podesta files) contains numerous occurrences of language known to law enforcement to be pedophyllic code and which only makes sense when read in a pedophyllic context. Much more evidence is available - and to top it all off the suspects were witnessed at the scene of the crime and drawn with such a high degree of accuracy that the sketches themselves, when combined with means, motive and opportunity are ample evidence to warrant a SIMPLE INVESTIGATION into the suspect's whereabouts.

Lacking formal investigation, we do not need to prove and convict the suspects in the YouTube comments section - but does not such evidence Warrant a formal investigation, for the sake of a missing child?

That is all we ask - a formal, thorough investigation of the facts presented. If it were you or I, the investigation would have been conducted long ago - only the prominance of the suspects has protected them scrutiny, an immoral protection that must end. We demand an investigation based on the evidence.

Are citizens asking too much considering the preponderence of evidence - including the sketches which match the suspects with such uncanny precision? Of course not, we are demanding the normal procedure be followed for these men as it would be followed for any other!

The snopes refutation of these images forensic sketches relies on the illogical assumption that a fat man with a mole on his forehead and a man half his size with glasses are really the same person - if each witness saw their suspect with such accuracy as to point out with confidence such minor details - I have a hard time believing they could not tell if the man was fat or skinny.

Furthermore, the snopes refutation does not address any other aspects of the abundant evidence that these men are engaged in pedophyllic activities within a network of known pedophiles. Even without the witnesses - the suspects means, motive and opportunity would draw them into question - and with the sketches, the need for investigation is irrefutable. To not investigate draws the enforcement of law itself into question.

These are obviously two separate individuals, use your two eyes and your God given common sense - any fool can see that is not the same mane, especially when compared to the suspects we have now developed as described above.

Your (snopes) entire refutation lies in an illogical assumption that the witnesses are wrong, and all of the supporting evidence is coincidence, rather that the police interpretation, made under high pressure and with far less facts than now available, and which has failed to produce a suspect, may have been wrong in saying these two obviously different suspects are really one man.

Logic demands you revise your opinion to match the facts rather than attempting to conform the facts to meet your opinion.