If they found evidence pointing to a family member, that may be a reason not to show them evidence they’ve collected. It leaves an opportunity for someone to trip up and say more than they should, revealing information the shouldn’t know. Like, for example, the position of the bicycle tire.
MOO
Is there a downside to matching serial numbers with records? Seems like better identification of the bike for trial purposes than witness ID, but I’m not a lawyer. MOO
I don't see a downside to that at all. And of course, fingerprint analysis. It wouldn't take the FBI very long at all to take fingerprints from the bike and run those.
Unless of course, someone wiped the bike - but I bet that didn't happen as either Suzanne was riding her bike that day or someone wanted to make it look as though she was. If so, then the stager may have worn gloves, but some of Suzanne's prints should be on the bicycle. Unless she too wore full-fingered gloves at all times while handling her bike.
But shooting a pic of the bike via text to one of the daughters would work too. There are only about 70 women living in Mayville (and some of those are quite elderly and some are children, so let's say 40 adult women). Let's say Suzanne's bike was a certain brand and it was turquoise. And the bike found near her house matched that description.
Suzanne's bike is missing from the house, a bike is found nearby, it matches the description of Suzanne's bike. What more does LE need at the outset? There would surely be ways of looking at touch DNA if it remained in doubt that it was Suzanne's bike. But common sense dictates that it is her bike, unless someone else reports a bike missing and Suzanne's personal item, found not too far from that bike, is also found...
The only mystery is how the church in Indiana finds out about the bike being "crashed" within 24 hours. I do not believe BM got a chance to see the bike in situ. I'm guessing as soon as he arrived home (to find LE at his house), they asked him a lot of questions, including what brand Suzanne's bike was, etc. How many helmets she might have, etc.
I doubt they gave him full run of the house at that point, but I do think they had some questions for him. I'd love to know what he told them about where he'd been that day. "Denver" is not specific enough.
BTW, I see some interesting theories emerging here on this forum.
BBM. Really? Do share with us what those distinct roles happen to be.
I think most folks, when they are working, their cell phone is on. There is no evidence whatsoever that BM's cell phone was "off." I also don't believe we have been told who asked the neighbor to phone police. I think it was the daughters. Are they suspects?
I also believe data can pinpoint where that a cellphone is located whether it is on or off.
I'm not sure why you think BM's mother or nephew are somehow suspicious. I have no idea where either lives, this was prior to SM reported missing and we are not allowed to sleuth them.
JMO
Barry says it with his own mouth (that he told the girls to call the neighbor, and then tells the neighbor to call the police - so apparently he too talked to the neighbor; it's in the youtube that we are permitted to discuss). IIRC
I will type "IF" in caps so perhaps you'll get my meaning. There are only so many possibilities. If you disagree and think there are many other possibilities, I'd like to hear your own IFS.
IF BM's phone was turned off during any portion of Sunday, Mother's Day, I believe LE will find that suspicious. I find it suspicious. This includes repeated turning on and off the phone.
IF his phone was NOT turned off, then they have his digital footprint.
(The third option: Barry had no phone is not on my table of IFS because he says he used his phone that Sunday).
There are, in my mind, no other options.
He either had his phone on, or he didn't. If he kept turning it on and off, that's suspicious. But since he admits using his phone to contact daughters and the neighbor, obviously, it wasn't off the entire time.
I believe his phone was likely on (who would turn their phone off while their two daughters traveled through remote mountainous territory, worried about their mom, and while their wife was missing??)
Regardless of what he did to put the phone on "airplane mode" or disconnect location services, it can still be used to track his whereabouts pretty closely. I suspect he was, as most people are, a user of Google maps.
But even if not, his phone will leave GPS-based data.
I do not think BM's mother or nephew are suspicious. But the nephew appeared in public and mentioned facts of this case and the mother's name is involved via the G +++ M, and both seem to have knowledge of the case. My question is how did they get the knowledge? It would be so nice if instead of putting words in others' mouths, you tried to give hypotheses about all of this.
Why does the nephew feel so concerned about the condition of the bike? There are many other questions I have about his statements. Personally, I think he (and other family members) were being played - but by whom? Certainly not LE.
