I'm new to posting here, but have been reading around for a few days, and just fully caught up on this thread. I also spent quite a while lurking on some other boards, but I was mostly afraid or unable to post on them, so it is very nice to find a welcoming community which is a more regulated, less hostile place for discussion.
I don't see any reason to suspect the family at this time. It can't be ruled out, but without any specific empirical reason to be suspicious, all speculation is equally valid and equally uncertain.
I'm quoting this particular post below because it is well organized and contains several of the points I wish to examine -- not to pick on this particular poster at all. Though I disagree in parts, I found the post to show clear thinking and raise important issues.
1. They may call him "the baby" because the father's name is also Joshua, and if I heard Nancy Grace correctly, the 6 year old is named Joshua as well. It is less important what they call him, and more important the tense he is referred to in.
I agree that calling him "the baby" is not indicative of anything suspicious. In order for this to be suspicious, you would first have to figure out how many people do this when nothing is wrong. If a significant number of people do, and I think they do, then it is meaningless.
2. There is NO way a baby walks out of a trailer with that many adults present. And if he beats the odds and walks out isn't it dark and freezing---so he'd probably want back in. I don't think an 18 month old could navigate stairs, brave the cold, and see in relative darkness well enough to get very far.
Variations on this point have appeared repeatedly through the thread, but I disagree. I believe the large number of people could actually make the child slipping out unnoticed even more likely. One or two people would be less distracted, with less noise and chaos around, and most importantly, they would not assume that someone else must have an eye on Joshua.
But in a large gathering there is a greater feeling of safety, and hence a lesser degree of vigilance. If you glance around and don't see him, you assume he is somewhere where an adult is supervising, because adults are everywhere. Some of us might be naturally or habitually more anxious, but I think this pattern is extremely commonplace in family gatherings.
3. The father was in the living room wasn't he? If so, he'd have a direct or partial view of the door, no?
Speaking as a man and a sports fan, I can guarantee that if the game was engaging, the door could have unhinged itself and done a funny little dance and Dad could have easily missed it.
4. I don't think the mother fell asleep, and even if she did there were so many other people in the house that she should not have panicked. If she simply fell asleep, she would probably say that as it would make her story more believable.
I find this one of the oddest parts of the story. I do not suspect the mother at this time, but I consider this one of the most important unresolved questions. My best attempt at answering it now is to refer back to the point about family gatherings -- that she was briefly lulled into a false sense of security, but then realized she was still the primary responsible adult and could not just assume that if she didn't know where he was somebody else must.
Another possibility is that she might not be sure if she fell asleep. It's possible to sort of doze off without really being out all the way, and to later be unsure just how deeply asleep you were. And trying to explain that to the press would result in a confusing statement, so just leaving it blank might have seemed the best option.
5. Something about this entire situation just does not sit right with me. The way the parents speak about that night, the grandpa/girlfriend, the other baby that Joshua was "interested" in, pulling the dad's beanie, the number of people present...all of it together just seems weird to me. I have a 5 year old and a 1 year old. If I don't see the 1 year old for even a couple of minutes---and she's quiet---I KNOW something is up.
I disagree here. I don't think there's anything odd in the family's statements that can't be easily explained by the stress, emotional toll, lack of sleep, paranoia, uncertainty and so on which would naturally occur when a child is missing. I don't see anything strange about the beanie story at all -- it sounds, in fact, extremely persuasive to me, a very realistic little memory of a recent exchange which would normally be forgotten, but which you might find yourself obsessing over if your child was missing.
I hope my post did not seem judgmental, I am trying hard to reserve judgment until there is a suspect or person of interest.
I thought you presented your points well and with a minimum of bias or judgment. I've provided what I see as possible answers, but they were important questions to ponder.
