When looking at a missing persons case I very seldom look at the first family pressers. I have several reasons for that.
1) Even a guilty person can have remorse. Either remorse for causing harm or remorse and fear for the trouble they caused themselves. They may be able to use that in their dealings with press and even with LE. And since it is genuine remorse, any guilt usually isn't distinguishable.
2) Usually the statements are prepared, so they have rehearsed them at least in their mind. So what comes out is an emotional appeal and very little substance. Very occasionally they will slip and use the past tense, but not very often. I tend to get caught up in emotional appeals, so avoid them until I have had time to get some sense of the case. You all are good at alerting me to past tense usage, changing story's etc. Thank you for that.
3) Very little substance. Which means that the family has usually given the same story to the print media, and that info is given without so much emotion. What is in the pressor is usually not new. LOL I can be more objective that way.
I do usually pay attention to what LE puts out. They try not to lie to the public. But their wording can be interesting. For instance "we don't have any suspects." LE no longer names suspects. At least not until they are very close to arrests. "Persons of interest" can mean a witness or a person with possible involvement. But most often will be the person thought to be involved.
LE almost nationwide has adopted a certain way of talking with the media at least in the content of what they say. Anytime they deviate from that, it is important. Someone is "cooperating" means that they are talking, it may mean they are agreeing to testing....but it doesn't mean that they are being ruled out. But LE does want to keep them cooperating, so they keep saying how they are cooperating. That was the first thing that caught my eye in this case. They seemed to be 'smoozing' the family.
LE actions. They do the searches. But usually reluctantly and no longer than necessary. The searches are expensive and ties up manpower. So they want to think they have some chance of finding something before they search. Repeated searches around a home, means they are looking at something happening in the home. This baby was 10 months old. She didn't open the door and walk out of the house. If abducted, there would be no reason to believe she would be near the house. An abductor would most likely want to get as far away as fast as possible to avoid being caught. Or they would take her to a nearby home or building. All of which would checked as far as possible the first day. So repeated searches of the surroundings and nearby areas of the home to me says they are looking at someone in the home. Same with forensics. I have never seen forensics in a missing persons home more than one day. (My guess would be that they did Luminol testing that first night since it shows up best in the dark.) Multiple searches with dogs. Court purposes. Because they weren't hitting on anything. One dog or maybe even two that might be possible. But no dog, multiple no dogs hitting is a bad sign. (Person was probably carried and was well wrapped.) My guess would be that at least some of those dogs were cadavar dogs instead of rescue dogs.
