Ok, cognisant of what moderators/admin have most recently about the importance of not posting comments that are directly accusatory of BM, I am writing the following with same in mind:
Video posted by BM, imploring whoever has Suzanne to let her go/that a substantial reward is available.
Re the video content - I am not prepared to discuss, in detail, the specifics I cite about the content. I don't want to dissect the various elements I refer to, for obvious professional reasons.
In the course of my clinical work, I have analyzed multiple appeals given by relatives/friends in the case of missing persons and suspected murder cases. Sometimes I've done this as a forensic psychiatrist. Earlier in my psychiatric medical career, I did so as a clinical psychologist. In situations where I have detained patients under mental health acts (for their own or others' protection), I have sometimes been privy to police interviews with those patients.
So, appeals made by individuals are commonly some of the richest sources of evidential material. They are always analyzed by experts, as part of LE inquiries. The interviewee/s are never told this, for obvious reasons.
The video made by BM is one in which I immediately noted 9 phases of some of the most serious red flags. This is a very high index. I'm not referring to common tells, known by a large percentage of populations with an interest in crime sleuthing. And when I refer to phases, this does not refer to one instance, but rather a particular set of behaviours, however many times they occur during the course of an interview.
The evidential material unwittingly provided by BM would give absolute justification for LE conducting immediate, extensive analyses on the home, very possibly for the purpose of reconstructing a crime scene. It doesn't render him guilty. It does, however, provide an abundance of clues.
The video content gave the police a valid reason to examine the home address. They would have been remiss had they not done so. For those of you saying it took the police over a week to go over the house, they would have needed justification for a search warrant. BM's video provided that in bucketfuls.
This case will probably turn out to be a murder. It is highly unlikely that Suzanne ran away. Look at the photos with her girls. They are close and love one another. She would not leave them without a word. The police will know when they were last in touch with her.
The police have BM's car and phone. They will already know when and where he travelled. They are asking for home camera etc footage from the 8th onwards because they desperately need physical evidence to show certain people on film who can be identified. This is most likely to corroborate existing evidence to make it more watertight.
Obviously this is my personal opinion but draws on my medical background also.
With regard to the LT team. It is my opinion that the level of expertise with which they are operating is exemplary. They are not at liberty to tell us the kinds of things some people are speculating about. They have closed down the sharing of information intentionally, and we should respect that, rather than criticise it.
It's possible that Suzanne's body will never be found. For those who have said they are clutching at straws by destroying someone's property, it was first reported by a CBS channel, I think, that the owner of the property got in touch with LE (the owner was interviewed by the channel), after hearing the news about Suzanne being missing. He wanted the police to know that BM had worked on his property, laying subsoil, the weekend she was reported missing.
LE responded with lightning speed.
Look at the facts. LE brought in CSI and FBI straight away. They assigned over 90 officers to the case. That points to a leader who is keen to marshall all the expertise he can, as quickly as possible. The police personnel, in my opinion, are behaving both expertly and robustly, which I find impressive.
If I can find the interview link between news channel and owner of the house, I'll do so before tomorrow morning (on call presently)
