Discussion in 'Missing Persons Discussion' started by Mysti88c, May 12, 2020.
mmm.....That's an interesting thought.
Well, yes, if we ignore the photos they carefully chose to put on the flyer, then maybe they don't think she went missing while biking.
Trying to guess what LE knows from everything they didn't put on this flyer a month into their investigation seems futile, to me.
Another possibility is that they were looking for information about when SM was last seen. Given her remote location, she might be seen more commonly on the trails in biking gear than in town in street clothes. Even in my suburban location, there are people I only see (and regularly see) on the trails. I might not recognize them if I saw them in the grocery store.
Or it is not relevant, anymore. MOO
They need to broaden the area beyond the bike trails. IMO
I also question the bike ride the day she went missing. What gives me pause is LE selecting two photos of her for their released poster. One she is wearing a bike helmet & sunglasses. IMO, that’s what she probably would have looked like riding her bike. Perhaps they are trying to jog the memory of anyone who saw her at all, even if it was days/weeks before she went missing. Not sure. Like others, it’s strange to me they don’t list an appearance description of her. Even if they suspect foul play from the start, that info would matter, at least to me. IMO
Someone call the Sheriff and ask. lol
I think once this case breaks we will be here sitting with our mouths wide open. Something smells in CO!
I’m hoping someone gets a conscience but I also believe that’s wishful thinking in this case.
I wondered if anyone was going to mention the difference between a Baptist church service and a Roman Catholic mass.
Not at all the same thing.
I can't really put my finger on why, but I've never really had the impression that BM was much of a literal churchman, with weekly attendance, and/or involved in any church ministries or groups.
On the flip side, I did get that impression of SM.
Any church or place of worship (and associated functions) is/are also good venues for networking in your community.
I'm not saying that that would be a primary reason for attending but it just happens to be a way of being in good standing with other parishioners.
I do think that was one of the reasons for the June 10th canvassing.
LE wants to demonstrate they considered all plausible scenarios before ruling them out.
They want to show their work to a jury, i.e., that they followed the evidence where it led them, versus having tunnel vision and only considering evidence that fit their theory.
I'm also convinced that's why LE included a picture of SM with her bike helmet alongside a casual photo of her on the missing person poster.
It's going to weaken any defense argument that LE made a "rush to judgment" in this case, that they never seriously entertained the theory that she may have actually gone for a bike ride that day, blah, blah, blah and blah.
If a defense attorney attempts to raise that issue in court, LE will now be able to counter, "Oh, but we did seriously consider that possibility. That's why we included the photo of her with her bike helmet on our missing poster."
And there's this, too:
We don't know whether or not LE found her helmet during their searches.
If SM's helmet was/is missing, LE obviously wants the public to keep an eye out for that evidence.
If they've found it, it's abundantly clear that Sheriff Spezze doesn't want anyone, including BM, to know.
What I'm seeing and hearing from LE has me very, very impressed.
Which is to say, I love the fact that they're keeping virtually everything close to the vest.
I love their silence, because it's abundantly clear that BM hates it.
Somebody else is pulling the strings now.
The puppeteer has become the puppet.
I know this is sort of petty but what has been really bothering me is the Give me fund setup for ALL the tons of personal searches that must be going on. /s
I do think there was some searching done in the very beginning by family and friends of SM but for that fund to still be out there it implies they are still doing ongoing searching for her and need that money to help support that effort. But we have not seen or heard about them doing any personal searching.
Its frustrating to know that honest good hearted people will donate and have donated and yet we have no idea where that money is really going and we have no idea if any subsequent searching really has taken place beyond the first week or two.
Observation: with the SM disappearance, the inevitable goldilocks condundrum has emerged as frustration increases.
- FBI / CBI were called in too fast to assist
- LE did x, y, or z too slow
- LE pursued <theory> too slow
- LE pursued <other theory> too fast
- LE is being too quiet
- LE was too visible in digging at that house's foundation
- Searches done by <LE, agencies, etc> are not visible enough
- etc, etc
Whatever it is, whether it's the investigation itself, or anything about the case, or anyone working the case or related to the case, the goldilocks condundrum means things aren't being done in the right way, at the right time, involving the right people, involving too many people, not publicly disclosing what's going on, not being visible enough, etc. There never seems to be much that's "just right."
Drew Peterson’s children come to mind. I know there are others.
- Michael Peterson's step-daughters (Kathleen Peterson's daughters)
- Marni Yang's children
yes there are many out there.
Watch several episodes of Dateline and you'll see examples.
Sarah Ristevski still supports her father even after he plead guilty of killing her mom. She refuses to see him as a killer, only as the loving father she knows. I cant imagine how hard it would be on anyone, but especially children in these cases.
I strongly believe that the M's vehicles were positioned (not just parked) during the home search to create a classic LE roadblock formation. Incoming traffic would have had to stop, then with permission proceed slowly though the narrow opening to their right between BM's pickup truck and a tree.
In these screen shots from the Channel 9 drone-like helicopter video, I note that the truck is parked with the tail end toward an approaching vehicle, thus exposing the most difficult angle to push it with another vehicle due to the high profile and hitch extended directly from the frame. The crossover SUV parked beside it is pointed the opposite way. It does not have those extruding features, and the vehicle is reinforced in the front end to withstand collisions. The end gate of the trailer is down in the ramp position facing incoming traffic, making it impossible to push at all, but it is angled so that if it was pushed from the corner, it would slide sideways into the side profile of the Bobcat loader (or Diggy-thingy).
It's not very likely, in my mind, that BM thought this out all by himself. I'm guessing LE had some input. IMO
How do we know those are the Ms cars? I always thought the white SUV was a police car talking to someone in the grey car.
IMO both the vehicles in that photo are LE. I can see light bars on both roofs and lettering on the sides of both.
I think that if the defense tries to show that LE used "groupthink" and zeroed in too early on one suspect, there will be several days of testimony from three different agencies about the various leads they checked out and how many tips they followed. The jury will likely be very impressed by the thoroughness of this group.
This is not Spezze's first rodeo, not by a long shot.
As to your last sentence, I do not think it will be applicable in this case, just as it wasn't in the Patrick Frazee case. I also don't think it will work in the Gannon Stauch case - and especially not Suzanne's case.
The phrase "an investigator" is a curious choice, as in this case, there are many different investigators. The early days focused on tracking and dogs, and surely some information came out of that (about where Suzanne wasn't). At that point, while BM may have been a POI for LE, LE says they worked to rule out suicide and mountain lion. They looked for evidence of abduction and found none. I'm sure the actual individuals, dog handlers and so on would be happy to testify.
However, in Colorado, I believe it is the case that if the defense intends to try and point the finger at someone other than the defendant, they have to so state and the Judge will require them to provide cause before the jury is even selected. Any line of questioning that tries to head toward "another candidate may have done it" will be strictly managed by the Judge.
Someone will correct me if I'm wrong. At any rate, I think the main investigators in this case will be able to show they did not narrow down too quickly (the canvasing alone shows they're trying to cast as wide a net as possible).
All moot if this never gets to trial.
I respect your opinion as it pertains to this situation, at the same time I respectfully have to say that your general statement is incorrect. Sadly, Mothers quite simply do do that, as do fathers, siblings and children. Tragically, it happens all the time.