I was speaking specifically regarding SandyQLS’s statement which indicated that relationship status wasn’t even in doubt and she accepted that PF no longer had a “significant other”. The discussion was whether PF, if innocent, had a duty to check on KB during that entire week she was gone. Kind of hard to debate the point when we couldn’t agree on relationship status.
There’s also the question of Websleuths rules. My understanding is that any speculation must have a basis in fact. News media using the term “custody” doesn’t do it - especially when many of them also use the term “fiancé”. And your reference to the aunt doesn’t qualify as a fact, either. For one, we can’t discuss FB stuff. Two, if something is posted and then deleted, it’s no longer valid for consideration. And three, we have no way of knowing if what she posted was accurate. It could have been faulty second-hand info. The fact that it would be posted and then quickly deleted should make it less trustworthy, not more.
Meanwhile, both CB and PF’s attorney have been on record that they were in an active relationship. CB even called it “good” and “strong”. Those are things that I believe we should give more weight, given who they are coming from and the direct or semi-direct nature of the quotes.
By the way, if they actually HAD broken up, and I was PF’s attorney, I would be getting out in front of the hoopla over his lack of involvement and saying, “My client and KB actually were no longer together romantically, and that is why he didn’t feel that checking up on her after the 25th was appropriate.” But the lawyer has not said that. Maybe he’s not a good lawyer. You don’t necessarily get a lot of good attorney options in a small town. I’ve lived it.