From what is known I am in the "community abduction" boat as well. The odds when dealing with this type of proximity, usually favor a family/neighbor/community abduction. Knowing this I would start with the RSO on Moore Court. From Google maps, and not knowing the date of the captured pic (2009-2012??), the house from what I can tell, has a for sale sign on it. So this person or the people living there are rather new to this community.
Couple thoughts:
1. My condolences to the family. RIP JR.
2. Immensely elated they caught the Wyoming perp. Just about blew my top when I came across that case. Amazing work by both LE and the public.
3. A few very interesting posters on FB. Have no idea who this is but RW tops my interest board.
4. I feel like a few people here are TOOOO into the "body intact" debating here. It seems as if every third post contains some use of the word "dismemberment" (last time you will see me post this). Not to mention its the same few posters still discussing this. I dont know about anyone else, but after the "intact" statement (which that is all that is known) I already had an idea as to what, the outcome would eventually be. Yes it definitely does have relevance, but to continue debating for thread on end, with no new information? I think its rather pointless, especially with no new information. No one here is going to crack this case with just "body not intact" known. I submit maybe a sub "Not intact" forum for those who must drain the minutiae out of this topic.
Couple questions:
1. Are county lines in play with where the backpack and body were found?
2. As in the Wyoming case, are LE looking for all video within 80 miles? Is that even possible? (Not sure the size of Westminster). Especially video in or around the neighborhood where the backpack was found. Car wash video??
3. Absentia? I am curious as to your use of "Absentia" as your userid. Can I ask how you came up with or why you decided to use? I ask because the legal use definition would fit this case, no? And you just joined because of this case, right??
"suggests recognition of violation to a defendant's right to be present in court proceedings in a criminal trial"
"trial at which the defendant is not physically present"
4. And not terribly relevant, but I noticed the young boy in their family had a black eye during their first interview? Anyone know the scoop? Not at all saying its related, just something I noticed.
Lastly, to the SK, you done f##ked up son. You've made SOOOOOO many mistakes. LOL. Amateur. Should be only a matter of tyme. Do the last and arguably only decent thing in your life and turn yourself in and go out like a MAN!! Not like the insecure little girl your actions have led us to believe your are. TICK TOCK!