wendiesan
Active Member
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2013
- Messages
- 3,362
- Reaction score
- 10
http://http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/stay-strong-urges-family-of-missing-nathan-o-brien-and-his-grandparents-1.2694198
After listening to this interview, at approx. the 9:10 minute mark, one thing I found a little strange was the fact JO responded 'no comment' to the reporter asking whether the sale was still going on when she left, and what was the last time she saw NO. Is there a possibility she knew that there was somebody coming by to pick stuff up? Not at all victim blaming, just trying to figure out why this question would have received a 'no comment' answer. IMO strange, none the less.
If you notice, after the reporter's question, first RO and then JO look off camera towards the Calgary Police Service Public Relations Officer. They have obviously been told by CPS not to talk about certain aspects of what happened in order that the investigation would not be hindered. The reporter's question seemed to have touched on one of those aspects, and so both Nathan's mom and dad checked to see the PRO's response before saying no comment. The PRO then responds to the reporters, saying "we'll get into those in a second".
Earlier in the interview, when asked if there were any valuables in the house that "an intruder may want to target", JO responded with no comment, and the PRO immediately said that if reporters were getting into investigative questions, she would ask a police officer to answer those questions. Reporters then turned back to asking questions about Nathan.
The PRO was, IMO, setting boundaries for which questions could be asked of the O'Brien/Liknes family members and which would have to be directed to CPS officers. I think that by keeping topic areas specific to either family or CPS, file investigators could keep tighter control over what was said to the public, keeping the information given to reporters consistent and making sure that certain aspects of the crime time-line and scene would only be known by the police and the perpetrator/s. As well, the CPS PRO may have been safeguarding the family's privacy, limiting the intrusiveness of reporters' questions.
JO and RO were, IMO, doing everything they possibly could to follow police instructions in order to bring their little boy home. It seems odd, but IMO, that is because of CPS restricting the areas about which they could speak not because they were hiding anything about their own actions. JO and RO were grief stricken, and frightened for their son, for AL and KL, but they wanted as many people as possible to recall what they saw the night of the sale/disappearance. The more they could connect with a viewing audience, the better chances could be that a tip would come in which would pay off. If the disappearance was, in fact, a kidnapping, they had to keep emphasizing the qualities about Nathan that made him a real person, in an attempt to make the kidnapper see Nathan as human and not as a thing.
JO and RO, and JL, were, I thought, very strong in representing their loved ones to the community and making a case for them to be returned, especially for Nathan to be returned.