I take it from everyone's silence, there are no hard facts to substantiate the original allegation?
My recollection was that the incident was ultimately not denied. The cause/reason/build up to the attack was disputed. So it happened, but take your pick on the stories as to why?
If one party to a dispute chooses not to post on a public forum for a multitude of reasons, then why is it assumed the incident happened? Or put it another way, the allegation must be the truth?
"Take your pick on the stories as to why?"
What? This is an invitation to add yet more speculation on something that is just that, a story- no more, no less. Correct me if I am wrong, but this "story" was posted by a person who was not even in the country at the time, who was recounting something that her daughter claimed to have previously witnessed.
Why let the facts get in the way of a good "story" eh?