See below for the background, and previous stories.

The sickness continues as the details of what Shasta Groene endured some to light.

Not only did she see her brother killed (shot) but she had to listen to her kidnapper rapist talk about other killings.

In a motion to suppress evidence, the details emerge:

Shooting details revealed at Duncan hearing

Judge hears testimony on motion to suppress evidence

The night she was rescued from killer Joseph Duncan, young Shasta Groene gave such a vivid description of Duncan’s killing of her brother, Dylan, that it left little doubt that 9-year-old Dylan was dead.

Nevertheless, authorities anxiously hunted for Dylan out of fear he might still be alive. Kootenai County Sheriff’s Detective Sgt. Brad Maskell said Duncan earlier had left both children chained to a tree in the forest and “our concern was that that situation still existed.”

Maskell was cross-examined Tuesday by defense attorney Thomas Monaghan in federal court in Boise. Duncan’s defense team is trying to suppress evidence gathered using search warrants issued shortly after Shasta’s rescue for a computer and other items in Duncan’s vehicle.

Monaghan told the courtroom Tuesday, “She (Shasta Groene) had reported that Mr. Duncan had killed D.G. (Dylan Groene) by shooting him two times. And the first shot was described by her as an accident.”

Maskell said that was correct.

“But the second shot, she talked about … how it struck the young man’s head and gave a very vivid description of what that did to him,” the attorney said, adding that he didn’t want to be too graphic.

I suppose at some point that sick bastard will claim it was a mercy killing for an accidental gunshot wound?

Duncan told Shasta he killed other children

Young Shasta Groene told authorities that killer Joseph Duncan, during the weeks he held her captive at a remote Montana campsite, described killing at least three other children – a tip that prompted authorities to investigate Duncan as a possible serial killer.

One persistent argument that surfaces frequently revolves around the people who are openly anti war but who claim to support the troops.

So are clearly phony and easily caught by their anti Military prejudices, but others I have long maintained are sincere.

The problem is that most of their support revolves around ending the war.  By bringing them home they figure they have shown the ultimate support.  By impeaching Bush and Cheney, those they claim lied us into war they feel they are supporting the troops.

I don’t particularly want to devolve into semantics here, but I tend to disagree.  The overwhelming majority of the troops volunteered to serve and most have at least reenlisted if not outright enlisted since the war began, so they have effectively voted for the war with their oaths.

Supporting them is a matter of encouragement, faith, allegiance and love.  The anti war nuts too often degrade to discouragement, disrespect and derision.  Not always.  But often enough to be the norm. 

One side thought is that we tend to lump all Bush critics with the Anti War Nutroots and that isn’t really fair.  True, many liberals like to use the Military as a tool to further their Bush Derangement and some Democrats have too often carried an anti war person on their shoulders as proof of Bush’s crimes.  But in being fair, not all are really anti war.

In fact, some that dislike Bush are strongly patriotic and supportive and put their belief in supporting our Military where the money meets the road.

Such is Scarlett Johansson, a young woman who is an open critic of the Bush Admin and Obama supporter, who ignores politics in showing her support in person.  Not one mention of any political aspect to the war or too Obama or anything else in her visit, that I can find.  She came in an honest effort to show her love of the men and women who sacrifice to make us all free.