Maybe it is time for a summary of what we think we know: No insults intended to anyone, myself included.
How a reporter writes a sentence can really have us thinking many different thoughts. We are down to pretty much 1 journalist dedicated to this "story", and it will be his view and narrative that we will follow.
It makes me think of an experiment we did in a high school English class. We were speed reading and playing with leaving out keywords like "the", her, him, "it, and, - others common words I cannot recall. When these words are removed from a sentence (or skipped over when reading) the story and or meaning can change entirely. Like the game Telephone, the initial statement never is repeated back after 6 or 7 others pass on the whispered sentence. Same for reporters who are told you only have space for 800 characters, remove 1,000 words and we can go to print with this story!
Also, communications are always difficult if the expectations are not clear, understood, and the same on all sides.
A little IT help desk story about communications and if things are not well communicated; a user in Canada is supported by the US HQ, her email to help desk was that something was wrong with her new keyboard, it would not let her type in Canadian. (she just got a new laptop and add on keyboard; pre imaged/set up and delivered the day prior)
Help desk sent via overnight courier a new keyboard. The user said the same problem,
2 more keyboards were sent, same problem
discussed sending new laptop, because the laptop key pad had the same issue
Help Desk said they will investigate but do not see a Canadian keyboard as an option to purchase.
This went on for 6+ weeks until a non-technical person better understood her issue, it was not the actual keyboard that was auto-correcting her spelling as she wrote, it was Microsoft and the US image they had used to set up her machine, no matter how many times she would correct the spelling it would not let her override the US dictionary on the laptop. (she could have added the Canadian spelling of those specific words to the dictionary manually - but that is another topic)
We really have very little 100% proven 100% factual knowledge and or details of this case, We have what reporters had space to share and get us wound up about. I once read a great statement something like " Most people listen with the intent to reply, not with the intent to understand completely before offering a reply" - meaning we hear the first few words and are already forming our response when the speaker has not even finished their thought and reasoning for us to consider.
So I catch myself yet again knee-deep in weeds on subject matter that really probably has no bearing on the circumstances and most likely the outcome of this case. We grasp at straws to keep the conversation going, not a bad thing, but maybe too invasive to the family and their privacy. I myself need to remind myself, they (the Sherman family, relatives) or their close friends may read some of our posts and first and foremost they are actual living and breathing human beings who are more appalled than we are of what was done to this couple.
Reporters I assume are guilty of this as well, they want a story and may have selective hearing when details shared do not help the narrative.
Close to everyone here only wants what is fair and just for this family, we do not pry into private details for untoward reasons, but I am sure they must feel like they are living under a microscope - like celebrities and the paparazzi, and many tidbits of juicy information shared with media outlets or on blog sites were for clickbait and really not worth the time to write the article.
The witness(es) that gave details of what they say they told police was 6 weeks after the killings, memory would be getting confused already, with all of the talking to family and friends they would have done, reading the paper and online details any info that could be found scrutinized, I am sure they would be adamant to mention details that were missing from the media reports when speaking to police though, so I believe there is truth in any actual interview with police, if that is what they shared in the interview great, maybe they are told not to say anything about certain things? the last bit about the detective asking her who did she think did it, sounds off to me, but again this was 6 weeks later and maybe she was really really close to Honey (Confidant) or maybe they ask everyone. But KD only mentioned that about her.