Ditto. I've seen that type of statement made many times and wonder the same thing. I've heard it with ' nice new home, new renovations, great new job ' etc etc and I wonder how we know this? Do we know what ER's old job was vs her new job? Are they similar or did she hit the job jack pot and triple her income with her move?
Which brings me to another question that I'm sure no one has the answer to but here goes........ I wonder if ER and MR were ' carrying on' while ER was married to MH way back when and then similarly at the end of the ER/MR marriage was ER ' carrying on ' with MH? Not that it matters actually, but it would make any normal x spouse jealous feelings about 10 x worse for each man if so.
I've wondered too. From what I've seen/read her job before the move was better, there seemed to be nothing wrong with the home in Bayfield so that may or may not have been a step up, I had wondered about the "carrying on" too, but wasn't sure if we could discuss it. If it's ever determined to be allowable, I'll add my thoughts on it.
IIRC the text Dylan sent her was around 7pm.
I don't get why you think she should be worried to death that she hadn't heard from him by 4ish on the monday. IMO she would have thought he's with his dad and his friends and that she would hear from him in the evening.
When he left CS, he believed he was going to a friend's that night. She's stated that he always let her know where he'd landed at night, or at least text her to let her know the following morning. If she was that worried about him being with his father, why hadn't she tried to contact him even once before MR told her he was missing? I'm not saying she's lied, or that it's suspicious that there was no contact, but it does make me wonder if there may have been a slight exaggeration about his texting. MOO
If this were my hubby, I can say with certainty that he would have a very hard time speaking to a missing child on t.v. That's just who he is. For some men, it's just difficult in a crisis situation. They know that if they try to say more than a few words, it's going to sound worse, so they say as little as possible.
What MR said in the beginning was that LE was looking for his son, and he didn't want to speak to the press and take the focus off Dylan. I think he was right about what would happen if he spoke publicly, but it also happened when he didn't. MOO
]It would stay readable via forensics until overwritten. So if Dylan received other text messages after he deleted some, the new text messages could overwrite the space that the deleted messages took[/B].
I found a paper on the forensics of reading text messages from phones. (Seriously.)
http://www.willassen.no/svein/pub/mobilememory.pdf It gets fairly technical early on, but the beginning is a good read.
But as others have said, the cell company would have records so reading info from a phone we don't have can't be done.
BBM
Just like quick formatting a hard drive or deleting a file on a computer. Either can be easily reversed, but advanced formatting, formatting and repartitioning, changing the MBR, etc. will make it much more difficult to get anything at all from the removed info.
Well this article says 'HIRED A CRIMINAL LAWYER' so to me that would mean he retained one. Other articles say he 'CONSULTED AN ATTORNEY'.
<SNIP>
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012...g-two-weeks/UPI-85631354470782/#ixzz2Grx9a6pg
I always find things like this amusing. When posting something with one view of a person/theory, people say that nothing but a direct quote means anything, while posting something paraphrasing the opposing view will be proof that something is a fact. I'm not being critical, because I'm sure I've done the same thing myself. As I keep saying - it's (almost) all about perspective.