Hopefully this post will not get deleted, as my last one was. I'll try to articulate the points I made in the deleted post in such a way that it does not offend anybody.
1) In cases like this that go unsolved for a period of time it seems reasonable to consider the possibility that the person or people involved might have some connection to law enforcement.
2) The Golden State killer is one of many examples of numerous unsolved murders and rapes in which there was ample evidence of 'selective blindness' in the investigation, in fact those many cases could have been solved quickly simply by judging all facts on their merit.
3) The case mentioned in the deleted post yesterday involved a newscaster in that region who disappeared. The police chief in that town had returned from serving in Vietnam and quickly gotten a job as a police officer in an area that seems to have then had a number of unsolved crimes. I don't know if the numbers are statistically significant but there are several websites about it. He then went on to become police chief in the town where the newscaster would soon disappear, and was fired shortly after that. A female police officer in that town voiced suspicions that some local police in that town could have been involved with kidnapping the newscaster, but the police who she accused were active, and successful, in discrediting her. It is not clear what the facts are, a person should do their own research.
4) There have been, and are, many areas where police are dominated by a small circle of people with military backgrounds who preside over an area where there have been an unusual number of certain crimes. In Suffolk county of course the now jailed police chief was not hired out of the military, but that area was known for large circles of a certain kind of former military type. I am not against the military and certainly not against Vietnam vets, but neither am I a young guy who ignores realities. Some of the best people I've known were Vietnam vets, for whatever reason, I think those people learned a lot. Also some of the most dangerous people I have known were from that era. Is there a similar police culture in the area where this girl disappeared? I don't know. Is it wrong or offensive to ask? Is it okay to subtly accuse numerous people who almost certainly were not involved but then to avoid merely considering the possibility that the abductor could be from a group more likely to be involved?
5) As far as I know there is no firm evidence, nor even any indication, that justifies accusing anybody who has been mentioned as a suspect in this case. The same applies to my comment that a police officer might have been involved. There is no evidence, one way or another. to accuse anybody. But if a person wants to examine facts, rather than simply have the social experience of gossiping about a crime, examining facts should equally apply to all groups of people, and not just those who are not able to defend themselves.
Was some effort made to identify which police vehicles might have been in that area, at that time, and to look for evidence in those vehicles?
