So, just to recap, our potential short list of suspects should include:
MB's boyfriend
MB's uncle who lived in a trailer behind the house
Naomi
Naomi's little boy
Naomi's mom, Patricia
Clint's stepbrother, Brian Glascow
However, despite possession of tens of thousands of deviant *advertiser censored* images, a serial killer fetish, documented threats to Hailey's mother, failing a polygraph, and of course, being the last known person to see Hailey alive on the day he inexplicably quits his job and then lies about it, we should EXCLUDE:
Shawn Atkins
Sound about right?
It has allready been established that the deviant *advertiser censored* images were not in the possession of either SA or BD, they were in someone else's home and have not been tied to either SA or BD. It is unrelated to this case, so put that to rest.
All of the other stuff mentioned is fairly typical for lower ecomomic stratas in society, it does not imply any sort of guilt. We need to rely on facts or evidence directly bearing on the case. Such as physical evidence of a crime or opportunity or motive to do so. If SA or BD can be excluded based on evidence which reasonably places them elsewhere when the possible crime could have occurred, they
are excluded no matter what you might think of them as human beings. The fact that people don't like them does not make them suspects.
Well, if there really are pictures of HD wearing the earrings on the xbox the night before she dissappeared, and if the rings were subsequently found at the fathers house, it pretty much proves that she was there that day contary to what they claim. And it would be reasonable to question why. If that is true then it pretty makes everyone in that household and what they say questionable. It also means that HD must have been in one piece at least until SA got back from Big Spring, and he simply would not have had enough time to do anything in the window that would have been available.
So,
if the earring allegations are true then SA is pretty much off the hook. I don't see how BD could believe he is involved if that is the case, it isn't rational. In fact, I would say that it is fairly clear where her suspicions lie, even if she isn't overtly saying so. Why she isnt being blunt about it, now that is an interesting question.
Like I said,
if these allegations are true then whatever happened to HD probably happened after she left the house that afternoon. I don't see what other interpretation there could be. There are a whole lot of possibilities after that point, we simply don't have enough information beyond that to speculate. However, it would imply that at least some people in CD's residence and possibly others have not been forthcoming. As I said in a previous post, that does not imply guilt as all of the people involved in this case may have their own reasons for not being entirely truthfull, reasons that would likely have nothing to do with HDs dissappearance.
When I read posts here we see people say "I would do this" or "I would never do that", but they are not BD or SA or CD or any of the others, the posters don't know what is going on in these peoples lives, what is important to them personally and what other secrets (which have nothing to do with HD) they might not want the relatives or friends and especially LE knowing about. So, a little white lie here, a little less explanation there and so on in public. They might be hiding something, but that does not mean that something has to do with HD. It could be that is just standard practice in their social circles. That is why we need to focus on things which are fact, or claimed to be fact, and be objective in our assessment of these things, and not go on emotion based on whether we do or don't like a particular person.
Also, we know there is a discrepancy between what MB's mother publically claimed and the text message allegation. So, we do not have the full story there either.
Whatever the case, if there really is pictorial evidence of HD wearing the earrings the night before, it is a game changer.
