Absolutely! How can you be questioned for hours but not remember what they asked?
I'm pretty sure he remembers... but he may be smarter than we think if he's convinced you he doesn't.
Absolutely! How can you be questioned for hours but not remember what they asked?
My bad. I am just now catching up.That's not the name I was referring to. She spelled out another persons name who is being accused pretty heavily on other forums.
Laura died from a drug overdose though, and the crime was disposing of a body. From what I read atleast.
They have not been identified as POIs or suspects. There are posts about this from the mods on the first page of the thread.Both names are in reported articles as witnesses.
Gotcha. Apologies.That's correct. I posted that to answer the question about what happens if a farmer finds a body in a cornfield during harvest time since that is how she was found.
Red herring: something that misleads or distractsAbsolutely! How can you be questioned for hours but not remember what they asked?
As to your point about the mom’s comment about the red shirts. She said that she didn’t think one was missing but it was possible that she had another. I take everything said by family members with a grain of salt though, these people are in the midst of horrendous grief and don’t want to even think about the worst being true.Thought I read a recent article in which the mom said "both of" MT's red shirts had been located?
re: polygraph. Can't blame anyone--guilty or innocent--for saying no to a polygraph. Surprised dude hasn't also lawyered up. But if the FBI or any LE knocked on my door and asked for a polygraph---about vandalism or murder or anything else--I'd hand them my attorney's card and close the door.
Agreed. And the guilty tend to stick to too many unnecessary details, & tend not to vary far afield from said script. The almost too good to be true story. They alibi themselves upfront, stating where they were or what they were doing before even being questioned on those details.Red herring: something that misleads or distracts
I would say that a person who is innocent doesn't remember everything he was asked, or the answers he gave to those questions. A person who is guilty, on the other hand, better remember everything he was asked and what his answers were.
We really have to be careful with tossing around terminology regarding the mental stability of someone we only know a TINY bit about. WC may, indeed, have a mental health disorder (though I would imagine, if that were the case, it would be in the court records along with the stalking charge -- as a defense). Or he may be on the high-functioning autism spectrum. Or he may just be incredibly awkward socially (and under incredible stress to boot).
What if WC is simply a diversion tactic on the part of LE? What if he has absolutely no idea what happened to Mollie?
He may very well end up being guilty, but this is America, and our justice system doesn't operate backwards: we aren't guilty until proven innocent; we are innocent until proven guilty.
If you are committing vandalism and are spotted, you simply run away. It’s a misdemeanor usually. You don’t follow who spotted you and commit a kidnapping and likely murder, just to keep them quiet. I just think it’s too far fetched. Also we have heard absolutely nothing about this vandalism since it happened, which makes it even more unlikely to be connected. It could simply be spray paint or a broken window.
We really have to be careful with tossing around terminology regarding the mental stability of someone we only know a TINY bit about. WC may, indeed, have a mental health disorder (though I would imagine, if that were the case, it would be in the court records along with the stalking charge -- as a defense). Or he may be on the high-functioning autism spectrum. Or he may just be incredibly awkward socially (and under incredible stress to boot).
What if WC is simply a diversion tactic on the part of LE? What if he has absolutely no idea what happened to Mollie?
He may very well end up being guilty, but this is America, and our justice system doesn't operate backwards: we aren't guilty until proven innocent; we are innocent until proven guilty.
Yes it wasWasn’t it in a earlier thread that mods were going to allow conversation on WC but to use the initials?
True. But if the person who took her knew her, and they had been in the house in the past, then forensic evidence of their having been there, wouldn’t help the case.From my own experience... if there was anyone in the house, at anytime with Molly, LE and the others specializing in forensics, would know who it was by now. Believe it or not, you always leave some trace behind, whereever you go. So a perp didn’t float into the house and not leave a single ounce of evidence/dna/prints/fibers etc. in the house. Gloves don’t cover up fingerprints, and you always have shoe/footprints as well. And im sure they have taken evidence from the driveway/street too.
For sure, the sooner the better. But just in case it raises hope, Chelsea Bruck was discovered six months later in the woods, covered by dirt and brush and they still got DNA that eventually got the conviction.Exactly. The longer a body is exposed to the elements, the less likely physical evidence can be obtained. Speculating that there is in fact a body to be found, is absolutely not a stretch at this point. In fact, it is more probable than not.
she could have had other from prior years.I am sure LE spoke to her boss and co-workers about the shirts, whether Mollie had taken a third etc...
Generally if people hit someone and do the wrong thing, they flee. They do not take the body with them. If she was hit, they would have almost certainly found the body, and possible physical evidence of that occurring (car parts, blood). Also her phone would have been found by now. It’s possible of course that hitting her was intentional, with the intent of kidnapping her.