Ok, I had this thought last night, while the thread was closed and reading the Susan Powell thread. Mods, if you feel this is inappropiated, please delete.
Because of some of the suspicious circumstances surrounding MP in Gail's case, I was wondering why he had not been named a POI. Those following other missing person's cases with the same circumstance are aware-- the hubby is usually named a POI and the circumstances are frequently labeled as suspicious by LE---not so here. It's just a missing person's case..not suspicious. Josh Powell is one of those hubbies. His children were removed from his custody--mainly because he is a POI under suspicion and being investigated in Susan's disappearance...along with being suspected and investigated in voyeurism , as his father was recently arrested and charged. Heads of organizations advocating for children and their lawyers have stated this is the main reason for the children being taken, and he would most likely not be given custody of the children again until cleared of both. I'm just speculating on whether this would be a factor MP's attorneys would be working hard to thwart, because of a custody issue?
I have seen so many comments on this thread and the previous 11 threads trying to compare this case to all the other missing person cases that we see. However, as Fran said in her statement above, each case is different. Each case is unique! It has been stated that Matt must be guilty of something, because he hasn't done this or that, and because that is how all these cases go, well, that is taking a lot for granted and in my opinion is increasing the chances of never finding the truth. Yes, if it were my family member missing, I would want her found, but I would not want the wrong person accused. I would want to know the truth-the real truth of the matter, not what everyone thought, because that is how it happened with this case and that case.
In answer to your question, there are some very odd circumstances with Gail's case. She was seen driving away, under her own steam. She also had a conversation
WITH LE and her sister just before she disappeared. We have not been given the contents of those conversations. Those conversations are the key here. I believe that she told LE what she was planning to do. I think she may have even told Diane. The problem arises when she did not end up where she stated she was going. I believe that Matt has not been named a POI because the LE know where Gail was planning to be and how far she got on that journey, and they also know where Matt was and what he was doing. They may have knowledge that Matt had no idea where Gail was headed and therefore could not have possibly followed her or had her followed. LE has much more info than we do, and the fact that they haven't named Matt a POI, they continually state there is no evidence of foul play and that this is a missing persons case clearly shows that whatever Gail told them, it was not that Matt was after her.
Continually bringing up the other cases and names like Josh Powell, Drew Peterson, and Sam Parker seems to be an attempt to associate Matt with them. Again, in my opinion, that is taking the easy way out - not spending the effort and time to search out what really happened, but jumping to the 'usual' conclusion. Gail deserves better than that. Her children deserve to know what really happened, not what was thought to have happened, based on what happened in other big cases of the time. Again, if this were my family memeber, I wouldn't feel they were getting justice unless I was positive the right person was accused, charged, and prosecuted. It doesn't matter how many times those names are listed together, it does not change any of the facts in any of the cases, and so far in this case, the LE does not appear to consider Matt a POI.
In fact-there has been no POI named at all in Gail's case. Why? Because LE has not found evidence of a crime, and you can't have a POI unless you have evidence of a crime. Those of you who follow these cases know that the naming of a POI or suspect, means LE has found some evidence. It may be circumstantial and not enough to be confident in a conviction, but it indicates that they have something. That's the major difference between this case and every other case that has been brought up. In all the other cases, LE *knew* they had a crime. In Gail's, they don't appear think they do, and based on what they were told in that last phone conversation with her - may know for sure they don't.