NSS
LE did say she acted alone.
LE also stated (upon discovery of the child) that he was dead before being burnt.
Now (upon further investigation and a prelim autopsy) they feel he may have been burned as COD.
An investigation is a fluid thing, it changes with new information.
LE used more emotion than fact during the initial presser, and whilst I can absolutely understand their horror, I don't want them to stop investigating just because they can place MN there, because IF others are involved I want them punished too.
BTW --- I am a believer in the 'gut instincts' of LE, but lets not disregard the fact that this particular LE agency waited some 6 hours to even log this child into the missing database.
I want to see MN pay for whatever she did here, but I can (currently) see any lawyer saying, someone else brought the child to her, already dead and she was the disposer (and burner) of the child. That doesn't mean she isn't all the cold angry things stated, but there may be others involved.
At this point we have proof of her being at the home at 12.30pm (witnesses), but Jonathan was seen alive by SD after this time.
We could use some proof that she returned, took a phone call, subdued, and removed a 12 year old child without being seen and within 15 minutes, because if I were her lawyer, I'd argue that someone else killed him and delivered him to me.
If we believe MN has no motive except her evilness to commit this crime, then surely we should apply the same criteria to others.
With all the info they had on MN and her visit, and her truck being seen etc, it took several days for LE to get around to interviewing her, so long that the arrest could be made at the same time.