Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the police just release a statement to the fact that everything is on the table and want new information from anyone? They did provide a synopsis of what they believed likely occurred. In fact, they went so far as to state the perp as one person who kidnapped the women and whose whereabouts were unaccounted for on the night the women went missing. They also suggest that this person may not have a criminal background which to my knowledge has never been stated previously. That suggests someone outside the GJ3 individuals, does it not?
Around the time of the crime, the suspect may have spent a considerable amount of time in, or may otherwise have been familiar with, the area of the crime, and he may have frequently been out and about at odd hours, the release said. The suspect also may have developed an interest in the victims.Police added: People who know the suspect may not believe that he is capable of committing this type of crime, and he may not have a history of committing crimes of violence.... (Snip)
http://www.news-leader.com/article/20120607/NEWS12/306070037
You have suggested that entry was gained by means of forcible entry, somewhere other than the front door and included more than one perpetrator. (as I understand your post) How does one square your take on what the police have provided to the public? I am really quite interested in why you have a different view what the police statement appears to say.
My take on the police statement tells me that the police are looking at someone outside the GJ3 who does not ("may not") have a criminal history. I do not mean to be argumentative. I am just looking for clarity. And I certainly would not want to be seen as lying to advance any point of view I express.
I only see three things that have come to light during the events surrounding the 20th anniversary:
1. After organizing and digitizing the case file (which would certainly make it easier to review, so I am sure they have) SPD does not believe that they have the evidence to make an arrest, obtain a conviction, and serve justice in this case. Note that I didn't say that they don't think it is solved or they don't know what happened. Refer back to previous discussions about the differences between a case being solved; being closed; and serving justice.
2. Much like what the FBI did early in the case SPD is asking for help from the public, but specifically from (ex)wives, (ex)girlfriends, family and friends, or minor players in the crime who might know or have suspicions about the involvement of their (ex)loved one or other individual. That is what is referred to in the statement. They are saying to the (ex)wives, (ex)girlfriends, family and friends who may have suspicions and knowledge centered around odd hours their (ex)loved one may have been keeping; who may have knowledge that their (ex)loved one was recently working in the immediate area such as the estate homes just to the west; and who know their (ex)loved one can't account for all his time during the night/morning of June 6/7.
It is a hypothetical statement. SPD is not referring to a specific suspect like you are reading into it. The statement says that the suspect "may not have a history of committing crimes of violence...". If they were referring to a specific suspect as you claim don't you think SPD would know what his criminal history is? And from that you interpret that they "suggest that this person might not have a criminal background...". How do you get that? Can't a suspect have a nonviolent criminal history? Again, if they are referring to a specific suspect wouldn't they know if they have a criminal background or not?
Can you reference for me where it is that SPD says that this person they are looking for, his "whereabouts were unaccounted for on the night the women went missing"? They are not referrencing a specific individual.
In post #737 above you say that you "believe the GJ3 are right in the middle of this crime" but now they can't be because they have a criminal history? Of course, you looked into their background before and according to what you have said they weren't smart enough to carry out this crime. Now SPD says a suspect "may not have a history of committing crimes of violence". Before the 3MW and the coed rape cases the GJ3 were just career burglars, a couple of gun possession charges, escapes, DUI's, etc; just minor stuff, no crimes of violence. Assault charges from fights were the closest thing to violence they had been charged of. Seems to me that fits right in with what SPD is saying about not having a history of crimes of violence.
3. SPD may have forensic evidence worthy of retesting due to the advances in testing technology over the last 20 yrs. That does not mean they don't have any positive forensic evidence or meaningful physical evidence from 20 yrs ago.
I'll add one other observation. The 20th anniversary memorial service on the morning of June 7th was said by Janis McCall to be a celebration of their lives. It appears to me that she intends to put new emphasis on her One Missing Link organization, but move on as best she can. I wish her the best in that endeavor.