To be fair to the other poster, it isn't clear it's what you're saying. In fact, it sounded like you were insinuating the opposite. There was no need to insult them over that comment, the discussion was civil until that point.

I fail to see how this is a rebuttal. Isn't it important to have the facts straight when in court? And just to be clear, I am in no way defending the crime, as I said it is sordid enough. I just think it's important to state things as they are in public discourse to avoid misinformation.

Exactly, that's why female criminals, like Karla Homolka and Brenda Spencer are often referred to as "he" or "him" in media, because no woman could do such vile acts. /s

By exaggerating facts to garner more outrage, you contribute to the overall misinformation around the subject. The comment you replied to was *also* to rectify someone that has exaggerated the situation. The crime is sordid enough as it is, no need to pretend the victim was a baby. (Unless the word baby could describe a 10 years old in some circles.)