But don't you think that if they did then SB would maybe have the slightest clue as to what happen and if a crime took place? And I would consider knowing for a fact they hide DeOrr and lying to them at that campsite a crime. I'd say his comments go hand in hand with not having any. That's just personally what I beleive from watching all this unfold.
Sent from my SM-S920L using Tapatalk
Sorry if this is long:
I think at this point, there is no question (at least IMO) that there have been lies and a 7-mo coverup of DeOrr's death by the suspects (with or without knowledge of either or both of the other two POI's).
Are you questioning why LE has not charged them with the crimes they KNOW happened even if they can't yet prove beyond a reasonable doubt other things, like the type of death/cause of death/direct involvement of the suspects in the death?
I don't think there is any way for us to ever know the intricacies of what conversations are happening between the DA and LE. But the holding off on arrests is so, so, so frustratingly common in cases. Just poke around. Look at the Teresa Sievers case on WS. Sheesh, I am reading the Ted Bundy book, and in WA, they had remains of women all in one remote place that Ted held close to his heart and the women were from random places, all that Ted had visited during the times of their disappearances. His wife was saying that he slept in the car at night and he had all these weapons and weird masks, plus plaster of Paris and crutches (for his fake cast to lure them, and so much more). Oh, and they knew the murderer's name was Ted and drove the same car!
Yet, they didn't feel they had enough yet to arrest yet. Meanwhile LE shared zero of this info with the public even though the murders were so high profile.
Anyway, that was decades ago. But the point remains that I think it's really complicated. People get off on technicalities too often. SB said he wanted to take his time to get this right. I don't think the public is going to get enough details of the inner-workings of the ongoing investigation (nor should we) to look at all the info and evidence and determine, ourselves, whether LE has enough to stand behind their determinations. We can choose to accept that they know what they are doing and are being truthful--or not.
I DO accept their determinations. And I trust that LE, FBI and Klein are all on the same page for a good reason. But it's for everyone to decide on their own. I just wouldn't base that decision on assuming that we would be made privy to all the info/evidence that they have inside the firewall of the investigation.
Just 'cause we don't know, don't mean it ain't so!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The use of mixed tense in the original sentence is hard to follow as well. So basically the point is that if they lied to LE and know anything about Deorrs disappearance it should be a crime that the parents lied about it.
