Of every statement made, I found this most interesting. I am torn as to whether this is meaningful or just an odd phrasing.
It sounds like a riddle but I highly doubt there was intent.
Things you might NOT see that would matter: someone not in a group photo where you'd expect them, someone who had been at an event and then was unexpectedly absent, something that was missing from the house, something that is missing from a secondary location.
MOO: I think they were mainly referring to things you
see or do not see on a
video: for example, if someone says they left at 2 AM but they are not on any video on the route home at that time, this helps the PD. Or if they see which way the perp is NOT taking as he leaves the house, it helps them find the way he/she actually took.
3. I'm in the fence about whether the killer was impulsive or was working with a well laid out plan. I think about the kidnapping of Jayme Kloss, for example. The guy who killed her parents and kidnapped her was not sophisticated and seemed impulsive to me, but they likely would have never caught him if she hadn't escape. He was way different than I'd pictured in my mind, and before heading the details of the crime I would have thought he'd plotted out every detail and planned for that exact moment. It doesn't mean that this event was not fully planned out, but I don't think you can assume it was.
MOO: Yes, it is very important to keep in mind, that if, for example, we are not aware of any DNA from the scene, it does not have to mean the perp is a mastermind: obviously PD might have DNA and not tell us, then PD might have not found the right/viable DNA just yet, or the killer might have just gotten lucky and DNA is somewhere but actually missed, or the killer might have just gotten lucky and really left no viable DNA behind. All these are probably more likely than a criminal genius.
They ruled out everyone who spoke on the 911 call. Not everyone in attendance. If it’s a close contact entirely plausible they would put themselves on the scene the next day as it explains away evidence.
The unwillingness to answer the question about the perpetrator attending the first floor is telling. Easy to rule out and not prejudice to any trial. They have tended to be quite open about what they have ruled out. Not doing so here is telling IMO.
These 2 aspects stood out to me as well, but I am not sure what I think about either of them.
I think the dog didnt bark because he probably knew the person.
MOO: Some dogs bark. Some dogs don't bark. Some dogs bark at some people. I see no evidence to say anything about the dog knowing or not knowing the person. Our dog always barks whenever someone enters the door: including me and my partner, even though she knows our steps and wiggles her tail minutes before we enter. Our friends dog does not give a f about anyone using their front door and only barks at other dogs.
Out of the whole press conference the only thing interesting that came up is the 911 call and the wi fi pinging question. What the hell is the point of these stunts? Why is nobody asking about the DNA, handprints, what do they have on the killer
MOO: honestly, it would be just a waste of time to ask questions you know they cannot answer. I wanted to pull my hair out when the Fox news lady started talking. IMO, the questions about if they have enough resources and sharing information about the vigil were way more useful than just repeating "unfortunately we cannot share that right now" for 10 times.
