http://www.examiner.com/x-34328-Sea...earch-but-no-new-suspect-in-Lindsey-Baum-case
Excerpts bbm:
Why is it that LE did not discover a conflict until one year after the fact?
Lab analysis?
What did LE ask and what did the subject reply during original interviews conducted within days or only a few weeks of LB having gone missing, and what was recently determined that caused LE to re-investigate one year later and eventually determine the subject's replies were in conflict with assumed fact? Read on to discover why I use the word: "assumed".
The questions / answers might have included topics such as bedding, blankets, clothing, utensils, glassware, toys, salvaged discards, frequented areas, habits, etc.
The underlined, bolded statement, above, is in conflict with LE's claimed reason for reinvestigating this man. Defense lawyers would have a field day.
The way LE presents it, they've already assumed a conflict based on their "own determination" but yet, they must wait for forensic investigation to be completed before they can verify as facts?
Ok. So what does LE "now believe to be true" that is in conflict with what the subject provided one year ago?
LE's recent beliefs might be fueled by other's statements or observations regarding the subject, such as:
Or perhaps, LE has concluded the perp must be someone who was out of the ordinary in McCleary, but low key and close enough to the situation, i.e.: observed LB while she was at the pool or otherwise while she was dressed only in a bathing suit?
- Did he drive his car the evening of or within days of June 26, 2010?
- Did he visit the storage unit the evening of or within days of June 26, 2010?
- Did anyone other than himself ever sleep on a particular mattress?
- Did he launder his clothes / bedding using equipment in the house or did he visit a laundromat, out of norm circa June 26, 2010?
- Can he explain why his DNA might have been retrieved from a particular area or item?
My hope is LE is very close to solving this case, returning LB to her family and making an arrest ... but to date, it seems LE is grasping based on assumptions because it appears as if evidentiary facts are far and few between in this case.
I hope I am wrong.
I like your thought provoking questions they are very good questions. It sure makes one think. Could it be possible that LE is going over many of the statements that where made the following days after Lindsey went missing and finding that some of the statement warrant to be looked at. After reviewing the shell station video and who might of been around him at the time, maybe making some other connections to someone else who might have been at the shell station.
[*]Can he explain why his DNA might have been retrieved from a particular area or item?
I would think IMO they would of had to previously searched an area to gather and obtain those items to get that DNA and have it on file so they would be able to make a comparison later.
resulted in the need for lab analysis to confirm what hes told us. "before we know if the information he has given us is factual"
Wondering if there was someone else that night who might of been at his house and maybe left to other areas. The he's told us and the information he has given us is factual. Sure does make one wonder. Yep definitely thought provoking.