I originally thought that maybe Desiree's statements about the search being a success, and finding a number of things that could be relevant to the case may have been designed to scare DS into giving more information since she has apparently answered some questions...but then I decided that wouldn't make sense. Because if DS had given info about where something might be found, then wouldn't LE have done the searches? But if not, then how did Desiree come up with the "right" spot after so much time and find a number of things- she couldn't say that to get more information if she weren't pretty sure it was the right spot. Because if DS and TH know it isn't the right spot, then her saying that would make it obvious she was trying to trick them. Am I expressing this in a way that makes sense?
Hi ... I first joined this forum when I found it in 2011 while following Kyron's case. I then went away for awhile (though I would check for news in MSM every few months). Then recently I began feeling a need to follow this case again, and I came back here. I've read all the recent posts, and read clear through a lot of the old threads just to refamiliarize myself with things.
Anyway - I wanted to respond to nosysw's post up there. Yes, you made sense completely. I've wondered a lot about the connections between the recent "flurry of activity" - DDS talking to the GJ, DY dropping the civil suit, then the search. I think they must be related - can't just be a coincidence. I think the search was based directly on something DDS told the GJ and LE relayed to DY.
Why DY and not LE themselves doing the search? Maybe DDS's information was enough to clarify an area, but wasn't enough that LE thought it warranted a brand new search, but DY thought differently. Can't blame her - if I could pull together the resources, I'd be willing to try anything, I suspect. And then it might well make sense that DY was dropping hints to DDS or even TMH. Maybe they didn't even find much (I've wondered what could be found 3+ years later, that LE didn't find in the first place), but that doesn't have to stop DY from saying what she said. She's not LE - she can insinuate whatever she wants. kwim? Maybe she knew it was the right area (from DDS' testimony) and thought it would light a fire under either or both DDS - TMH to say what she said.
Last thing: I found this article (link below) and thought it was interesting. It's written by a KATU reporter from his own perspective, not directly quoting people or anything like that, but he says it is based on "conversations related to KATU" by people involved in the search. The article is from July 22. (Sorry if it's already been discussed, but I haven't seen it).
He specifically says: "
While those involved in the investigation will tell you that they have a strong idea of what happened, they will also concede that they are a long way from being able to prove it. Its one thing to get an indictment; its another thing to get a conviction. They could obtain an indictment but they are still not where they need to be which is to be able to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Its a different standard and they dont want to get an indictment until they can clear that second, higher bar."
(BBM) I just thought that was interesting - sounds to me like they know exactly who they are after (beyond mere suspicion) but just don't have what it takes yet to assure that final conviction. I can't remember when DDS talked to the GJ - was it before this article, or after? Really wonder how much it changed things.
Or am I just reading too much into that, wishful thinking?
Thanks for reading, sorry it was kind of lengthy, hope I didn't just repeat stuff everyone else has already said. I tried to catch up first. :blushing:
link:
http://www.katu.com/news/field-note...till-working-Kyron-Horman-case-216511391.html