Furthermore .... if it was the friend who did something .... he would have to be be the fastest child snatcher who was able to hide a body so well that hundreds of searchers could not find it .
All within a few minutes , and within a hundred feet of parents and grandfathers.
Not impossible , but nearly.
People get fixated on the scent of the child from the moment he went missing , as though that would be what dogs would track
Doesn't work that way. The child had been there since the previous day and his scent should be in many places around the campground
Unless he was kept beside the fire pit for those 17 hours , but that seems unlikely. Even allowing 7 hours for sleep leaves 10 active hours
The only way a tracking dog would be useful is if a scent trail led away from the area he had commonly been in ..... and we know that did not happen , so either the child is still within the campground area (water) , or the dogs were no good , or he was carried away , or was driven away from the campground
To be carried away or driven away requires 4 nearly blind people , or 4 people who have done a magnificent job of sticking to a fictional story.
I don't have any issues with the parents. But I am suspicious of the family friend. He told inconsistent versions of where he was when the baby went missing. He originally said he was ' fishing at the creek' but in the tv interview he said he was with GGP at the firepit. That bothers me that he has told 2 versions. And he has a criminal history which includes an arrest for sexual assault. And he has a history of drug/alcohol abuse. And was one of the last people to see the baby. So I don't think it is necessarily 'creating monsters' that don't exist. I have followed way too many cases here where the monsters DO exist.
Not necessarily. He had a much bigger window than a few minutes and few hundred feet.
I had to step away from this case for a while because it was getting too conspiratorial for me. I came out of lurkdom to say THANK YOU for this wonderful post! Common sense and logic does it for me.
I know it's probably too "boring" but I still think that little DeOrr is either in the water somewhere or in the woods having died due to exposure.
I have tried and tried to jump on some 'other' bandwagons, but there just isn't enough evidence to convince me of anything sinister here just yet.
TBH, this is new to me because I'm usually always jaded and cynical wrt parents and other bystanders in a missing child's case, but this one just seems different to me for some reason.
IR is still in my sights though.
This is virtually the exact scenario I have imagined the entire time. Wandered away, fell in the creek, knocked out, swept down the river, stuck somewhere or under something. He is there. They will find him. My heart breaks for everyone involved. IMVHO
Sadly, If this little guy did fall in water and drown then he very possibly could have been taken by wild animals after the fact. Note at the 8:40 or so mark the Chief Deputy says something like...~There could have been some type of interference with a predator sometime in the scenario at the beginning or partway through~ and Sheriff Bowerman agrees. I did see this posted on another list but since it is on the video I think its OK to share...Heartbreaking thoughts! and I doubt any of this family thought there would be bears and wolves running through their camp sight.
Un cut interview
I always thought the parents exaggerated how long they were gone, not because they committed foul play, but because they felt bad for leaving and this happened. I think they got cornered into that statement and couldn't retract it. Which l feel also accounts for moms looks of frustration in the interview.How do we know how big of a window he had? I've heard three different times mentioned, the latest being that GGP just turned his head for a minute. If one thing could just get nailed down, besides the fact that little DeOrr is missing, it would be easier to discuss this case :banghead: IMO
To me parents are victims, persons present are witnesses, and people you may suspect have had a hand in events or know more than they say are persons of interest. Jmo
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
I share similar views with you on this. I do very much believe there will be charges eventually in this case. I'm not as confident that we will find this baby though.It's possible the sheriff shares your definition, however, he placed everyone there in his POI category because he doesn't want to isolate a particular person who he believes DOES know more. If he gets more information, he might change that category for one, some, or all. Do I believe the parents or GGP are anything more than victims, no I don't. IR might know more . . . . The sheriff seems to think so. He had to have a reason to take IR up there a second time. The sheriff must have thought he knew more than he indicated during the first visit.
The only TV interview of IR that I saw was the one early on a Monday morning , he was not dressed , not fully awake , and said nothing about fishing.
Was there another interview ?
(CNN) -- It's a familiar scenario: A major crime is committed. Police investigate possible leads while the media asks for information. Soon, authorities say they have a "person of interest."
Steven Hatfill, seen here in 2002, denies any connection to the deadly 2001 anthrax attacks.
Raymond Clark was named a person of interest, and then charged with murdering Yale grad student Annie Le.
But what does this term mean?
"The 'person of interest' tells you nothing," says Cynthia Hujar Orr, president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. "They are suspicious of that person, but the police don't have the evidence they need."
Didn't they start using the term POI after the Richard Jewell case?