This is where my head is going when I see this letter, and knowing that 2 days ago was when LE finally got the opportunity to speak to AP. AP tells LE about some incident a month prior to JRN's disappearance, which she experienced with someone, and AP reportedly came to her defence. He was likely able to offer a description. The person may have been able to have been identified enough for LE to know who it was, in fact... considering it was 2 days ago when they finally met up with AP (April 14th according to the Missing page), police could have set up a 'lineup' for the following day (yesterday, Apr 15), asking AP to come back in to see if he could pick someone out?
And perhaps that individual had already been interviewed by police with nothing of note to share with them? And so now they're asking the person to come clean, since it's now only a matter of time before the clues will all come together, with more coming in. And they're telling the person, 'ya, ok, so this happened and we know it, but there are always 2 sides to every story, so come in and tell us *your* side'. And police have also asked for more tips, no matter how seemingly insignificant, perhaps to gather more of the overall picture in relation to what they now know. Sounds to me like game's over, just about anyway.
The glaring thing that doesn't really fit into my theory above, is... under which circumstances did AP *also* come to find JRN's ID? Was it from that same night a month prior to her disappearance, or was it after she went missing? It would be highly unlikely that AP would witness an incident a month prior, and then also find the same victim's ID a month later when she went missing. The ID being found, I'm thinking, must have happened a month before... which kind of makes sense because if found *after* she went missing, then wouldn't LE have mentioned 'her ID has been located'?
