I understand what you are saying about IM and I do not mean any disrespect to IM ..but how does running a horse rescue ranch elevate IM to a moral high ground ? CL & NL devoted time and energy , compassion to the rescue horses too and are looking like the prime suspects in EC's disappearance .
:thinking: "how does running a horse rescue ranch elevate IM to moral high ground ?"
There is no way to know the nature of IM's ethical principles from afar. Nor do I know anything about her morality.
I'm concerned about this ~
http://definitions.uslegal.com/g/guilty-by-association/ ~ when people assign guilt simply through association. To me, that isn't fair or a just way to treat another person. I'm applying my ethical standards and withholding judgment until further info is released as to how things went down as far as IM is concerned.
Afterall, she told LE the scoop on the things NL said. The case broke on Sunday, June 29. Monday Erin's car was found.
Tuesday, July 1, police went to the ranch. I'm uncertain if IM sat on alarming information because we don't know when Nicole made those statements to her.
And, IM was stuck with them at her ranch but cooperated with LE and the investigation illustrated when she opened her door and led LE to the closet where CL's .22 rifle was located prior to LE having a search warrant.
The Lee's arranged to stay at the ranch prior to June 28 (I believe).
When we changed stations while in the army, we'd often book two or three nights in a hotel or temporary housing on post.
Moving is a huge mess and it's nice to be able to go somewhere to rest up, take a bath, sleep in a made bed, have a meal and all that good stuff. Often times the quarters have to be cleared before the military member's duties are over. In CL's case they were packing and moving July 1 but he wasn't released from official duty until July 7 iirc. They must have planned in advance to stay over at the ranch until beyond that date. Maybe LE restricted CL from leaving for a time beyond July 7 too.
Also there were three people to consider afaik. What if IM was thinking beyond just C and NL's circumstances?
Is she going to say, 'get the h outta here' considering a third person may have been present?
