Sorrell sky (sp) post 117
"What then, is the explanation for LE seeking video from the grocery store - after finding a receipt?
"Riddle me this: If DB has been open & honest with investigators regarding her activities before the baby's disappearance, why does LE need video from a grocery store that she visited earlier in the day?"
I think you are saying indirectly (and I agree):
Appears in talking to LE, that Mom had been ---
--- less than open & honest re her timeline that day, and/or
--- unable/unwilling to fill all the little bitty time gaps.
................................................................................................
If receipt was just a "cash receipt" (no debit or credit card #, no preferred shopper #, etc.),
that LE found in Baby Lisa's home, LE w/investigate who made grocery purchase (w or w/out wine),
just to fill time gap, and/or to corroborate mom's timeline
(or perhaps dad's timeline, if he had told LE, he went to grocery).
If cash receipt, LE w/not know that either of the two of them made that purchase,
until verifying by surv. recording (or, as back in the day, talking to cashier, bagger, etc.)
LE seems to have hit a double, w. receipt showing
---wine purchase that day,
---mom accompanied (apparently) by man-other-than-Jeremy.
And if mom had omitted this errand from her timeline to LE, it was a triple play.
What could send the LE hitter to home base?
?Surv. recording of parking lot = Mom drinking wine, alone or w. that man?
Oops, carried away w. sports analogy.
Like folks above said, mom's lie-by-omission (if fact was omitted) c/be big issue.
If she omitted this errand from her timeline to LE, was it to hide from Dad or LE ---
---buying alcohol, as a $ waster?
---buying w. other man?
---poss leaving kids alone (if she did, & if dad h/not known)?,
---the box of wine being consumed or missing?
---her imbibing (if she did) poss contrib'g to death (if Lisa is no longer alive)?
