One thing that bothers me about BD's statement and the fact that she doesn't understand why the reported witness sitings on the 27th aren't being taken seriously is what she implies by saying that.
If those sitings are correct, then HD left the house around 10am and went over to CD's house. She picked up NS's son and went somewhere with him for either 11/2 hours or 21/2 hours, depending on what version of the hairdresser siting timeline we use. She may have come home before noon, dropped off NS's son at home and gone home to make a phone call and hang around the backyard for a half hour while talking on the phone. Or she may have just taken the child home sometime around 1pm and the phone call siting was wrong. Which is very easy to determine with the phone records.
At 2pm she texted her friend but never got a response.
At 3pm when SA got home, HD was lying around the livingroom watching television. They apparently didn't say anything to each other until 15 minutes later when HD just got up and announced she was going to stop in at her father's on her way to her friend's house where she was planning on spending the night.
So she may or may not have stopped in at CD's house "for a minute" (this would be the second time that day she was at CD's house) and then she proceeded to go to MB's house.
By 8:36 that evening, HD, MB and an unknown teenage boy were hanging around a local plaza.
Now when you put all these sitings together, it might seem like a normal day for a teenager off school. But to believe it, you have to believe that CD, NS, MB, CG and an unknown teenage boy are all conspiring to keep HD missing and they are all lying about the events of that day.
The sitings of HD walking with a young child and the phone in the backyard seem to contradict each other.
The siting of HD walking with a young child and the siting of HD hanging around the plaza contradict each other too because they each indicate a different family is lying. Unless BD would have us believe that MB's family and CD's family are in this together.
So which siting exactly does BD want LE to believe or focus on? Which family does she want to be scrutinized? I'm sure they have all been interrogated, and there's a good chance that all of their alibis and movements for that day don't support the witness sitings. Just what does BD expect LE to tell her other than we cannot corroborate the sitings with what we believe happened that day and your boyfriend is now the #1 suspect in your daughter's disappearance. What about that doesn't she understand?
Her boyfriend's timeline is all over the place or non existent in places. She admitted that he lied about his whereabouts for two days to her. LE have more than just cell pings. They have computer data from at least two different computers that SA used. They have witness accounts from people at his work and likely neighbors of his mother. They have tips that were called in, possibly putting SA in places where he shouldn't have been those days and possible video surveillance from around the towns involved. We have no idea what information LE has on him but it appears that they have enough to believe that he and possibly some other person or persons associated with him are responsible for HD's disappearance. Right now they seem to be focusing on what SA did with her during those two days.
MOO
