When we say an IDI, does that mean the R's didn't know who did it at the time they called the police?
It seems to me if they did not know who did it, they would have been more scared the intruder was still around. The RN said they would be monitored closely. They say the intruder entered and killed their child and move her to the basement without anyone hearing anything. JR said he didn't notice any doors unlocked. I find that notion terrifying.
I would expect the parents would refuse to let BR out of their sight.
I can't understand why PR accepted the RN at face value on the 911 call without even hinting at the idea it was a sick prank or something.
I obviously can't prove it, but it sounds to me the
R's knew who did it. That does not mean the RDI.
Maybe someone else can think of a plausible scenario why they would know who did it but not tell anyone. Maybe they allowed someone they knew to molest JBR and it went to far. Or maybe a criminal did it in retribution for some wrong the R's had done as part of some criminal enterprise. I'm grasping for some scenario in which the R's know who did it but wont say because it would get them in trouble.
I'm posting this here b/c if I write "the R's knew who did it" in another thread, people will say, "sure, because the RDI." In the
911 thread we talked about whether there was erased audio or background noise showing the R's lied. I could never get past the foreground sound: PR accepting the note at face value and showing no concern the kidnapper would strike again or retaliate for her calling the cops.
I am interested to hear a) ideas about how an intruder could have kept the R's from telling LE who did it or b) ideas about how PR could have first heard of the crime from the RN note, believed it, and not expressed fear of kidnappers' next move.
