So he kidnapped B. to prostitute her?
I am really wondering about him not having been charged yet for the mom's murder.
It must not be clear cut....
I wonder if JE is putting some of this on B......
I wonder what kind of test results they are waiting on? Toxicology?
I think the "abduction with intent to defile" means "with the intention of having sex with her" which would be subsection (ii). I don't think he planned to prostitute her to other men which would be subsection (III). There is (or was) a federal statute that folks used to quote as being "transporting a minor across a state line for immoral purposes" which back in the day, before we even thought about, let alone knew about, interstate prostitution of underage children, male and female, that was usually interpreted as meaning the abductor had taken the child (almost always female back then) to have sex with her. The best part of the charge being made under subsection (II) is the stricter sentencing.
Someone told me yesterday that they had spoken with one of BMS's close relatives and asked, flat out, if LE thought they had the right guy (JE) and was told "definitely" but that LE was trying to do everything right and gather and process every piece of evidence possible which was taking awhile. They didn't/wouldn't say whether LE thought there was anyone else involved.
I think we tend to get spoiled watching all the crime-scene analysis shows on TV where the crimes are solved in ah hour. We want to believe that real crime labs work the same way. They don't. They're over-burdened and under-staffed and don't have a lot of the magical equipment we see on TV because it's either way too expensive or hasn't even been invented yet. But, like you, I'm wondering if things are just not that clear-cut. If that's the case, then they're hoping that each forensic report they get will clarify things. Must be sooo frustrating!