Things police likely have which we dont:
- the phone activity of all parties, as per pings and call logs from the telcos, and forensics on BR and AR's phones
- the phone activity of the home line if there is one
- KR's internet activity
- CCTV from neighbouring properties
- financial forensics, personal and business
- forensics on the house itself
given all that, they would have a much more robust theory than we have going on what is and isn't being said ...
It always surprises me how people read into things - I don't see it as unreasonable at all that he had an idea of what was in her purse, especially because it was a large sum - that is the time someone else who shares your finances is most likely to know how much there is IMO. Maybe he didn't even know, maybe they found out from a store employee or register records how much she likely had, maybe everyday she retains $850 for a float, maybe it was the cash takings, maybe Borce gave her $850 to pay some bills and that kicked off the financial argument -
she doesn't handle the money well, he doesn't give her enough and doesn't he know how much running the house costs, if she hadn't have bought x I wouldn't have to give her this, well he bought z so he can afford it. Anyone relate to that? Not that we have a lot of fights about money, but when we do it is almost always over an irregularity in the budget occasioning money being moved between us out of the normal routine. It causes stress and then everyone's spending gets a cross examination and defence!
Also, when I go for a walk I often take my handbag. I want my purse, phone, both set of keys ... why would I empty out my bag to take them to awkwardly hold, especially if I am storming off in a huff? I just pick up the bag and go for a walk, even if it is a big stupid bag.
I also am a bit surprised at the sexism in this thread. I know crime is very gendered but that people outright dismiss his allegations is concerning, no wonder male victims of this kind of abuse keep their mouths shut. He was an abused kid when he got to them, he was probably being a little **** by 15, when was he ever credible enough to make this allegation? By no means should we take it by gospel but to just write it off as untrue is shortsighted. You can be an addict, manipulative and attention seeking and still have been the victim at some point ... many addicts have been. If you have never met the ilk of woman who would do such a thing, you've had a good run, there are women out there as selfish and damaging as any man can be. Which brings me to people's inability to believe that mothers abandon children, grown or otherwise, that this is so much less likely than a man murdering his wife. I know our domestic violence situation is dire, but it is not the only way women go missing.
All that said, I still find the pattern of his posting changing on June 29th the biggest red flag of all the colours of flags we've got going here. Picked up in frequency and intensity of message. I feel like he had some contact with one or the other of them on that day at a minimum that stirred it all up, if it was a coincidence, it is a big one. It could be the fight wasn't just about finances, maybe Borce contacted him after his fight with Karen to lash out at him stirring it all up. It could be something much worse. I feel like all the options are still open with what we know, from Karen being cruelly wrongly accused whilst she is missing from a random attack after leaving the house after a fight, to it being Borce, the step-son or an accomplice, through to Karen is missing of her own accord, likely with someone's help, because there was too much mess to stay and clean up, the facade was forever broken. Who knows what the step-son may have told his Dad that makes the allegations that much more credible to him?
