Thanks for your comments. even am not sure why i put in an extra neglected child ;-). Actually it was done in very little time thats why these little important details were missed.
The failures and success continued with more failure.i tried to imply with the time line that this wasnt the first lot of kids being executed. this was done to show how sometimes science goes out of balance and something meant to save people starts killing them.
And the "was a little short" comment was a complement. everyone else said it went on and on. ;-)

i'll try to clear out as much i could.
1.The name on the door was a subtle way of saying that robert wasnt his real name.
2.i am a male, but still if i saw a person whom i had burried 10 years agostanding in front of me i would faint surely. Maribell being attached to him dearly, combined with the fact that she was an FBI agent, would not pass out physically atleast, but would be in a state of complete blackout, as per me. so the 'fog of unawareness'.
3.i agree that the history lesson was a little more, than people looking for entertainment, needed. i would surely work on that.Thanks for that one :-).
4.again tried subtly putting it... there were many such projects going on. many children had already been executed and this lot may not have been the initial one. So the age difference.
5.a 2 year old telling me that i would die seems very disturbed and depressed to me.aggression was one of the symptom but may not be seen in each of the cases.
6.The involvement of US govt. takes care of why lockley was involved as well. failure of the US govt has to be covered up by one of their own.
7.Maribell and FBI is near to uncovering another one of these projects-- hence the death threat.
8. What about the other children???
But thank you very much. i came to know from what point of view i should be writing. And even i would have given it a 3. ;-)

Jus here 2 learn. it cud have been better but i cudnt devote a lot of time on it.

Thnx u. Actually it wud have been better but all i had was 4 hours n thats da best i cud manage in them. n yes... after publishing i read it once n i 2 thot that robert's explaination went on n on :-)

Thnx u. Actually it wud have been better but all i had was 4 hours n thats da best i cud manage in them. n yes... after publishing i read it once n i 2 thot that robert's explaination went on n on :-)

Thnx u. Actually it wud have been better but all i had was 4 hours n thats da best i cud manage in them. n yes... after publishing i read it once n i 2 thot that robert's explaination went on n on :-)