The article doesn’t seem to point out inconsistencies. Maybe I’m reading a different link than you. Can you post it or tell me which it is so I can make sure I’m on the same page? I’m not sure what your second paragraph is about. I’m confused lol.
Right. They stated there was no evidence of abduction and she got lost in the jungle after having gone through the window. At no time did they say there was any involvement by a third person, which is clearly stated in the article as fact. ImoI don't recall the Police stating she left on her own, just that there was no evidence of an abduction. The family believes she could never have gotten there on her own.
So if she didn't leave on her own and wasn't kidnapped / abducted ....
What happened to Nora Quoirin in Malaysia? The unanswered questions over the missing schoolgirl’s death
I have found her fb but haven’t read enough yet to find the inaccuracies just yet, but i’ll be reading more. But it’s not really reasonable for posters to jump on someone for not finding something posted on a fb page when we were discussing an article posted in the thread...which has nothing written about when they arrived in country or when the parents got married. Nobody reads minds here.
That said, the article isn’t incorrect, because I do remember hearing it said that if she left with someone it was someone known to her because there is no evidence at all of an abduction. That wasn’t stated as a fact that she absolutely left with someone known to her but as a hypothetical if/then. If there was no sign of an abduction, and if she couldn’t or wouldn’t leave on her own or willingly with a stranger, then the logical conclusion is she left with someone known to her. This isn’t hard.
LE has not said the logical assumption is that she left with someone known to her. They have never mentioned a third party at all. It is only the viewpoint of the lawyer, who would not know the details of the investigation out side of what we have already read in the media.I have found her fb but haven’t read enough yet to find the inaccuracies just yet, but i’ll be reading more. But it’s not really reasonable for posters to jump on someone for not finding something posted on a fb page when we were discussing an article posted in the thread...which has nothing written about when they arrived in country or when the parents got married. Nobody reads minds here.
That said, the article isn’t incorrect, because I do remember hearing it said that if she left with someone it was someone known to her because there is no evidence at all of an abduction. That wasn’t stated as a fact that she absolutely left with someone known to her but as a hypothetical if/then. If there was no sign of an abduction, and if she couldn’t or wouldn’t leave on her own or willingly with a stranger, then the logical conclusion is she left with someone known to her. This isn’t hard.
No. Most news sources have stated facts based on the investigation whereas her "facts" appear to be her own opinions.
Police have never at any point indicated a third party was involved.
Their theory is that Nora left the house on her own and got lost in the jungle.
Imo
what were you referring to?I wasn’t referring to the news media.
The 'parents did it' option makes even less sense than the other options. And that's saying something!
It makes 0 sense the parents did it if she didn't die the day she went missing, otherwise, they would have had to have kept her hidden, all while being with LE and the media.
Not possible.
What were you referring to? I thought you were talking about the recent article regarding the lawyers statements?I wasn’t referring to the news media.
Can you enlighten us on what other "players" in the "story" have posted? As far as I know, the parents have maintained a dignified online silence?
It was never stated that the family neglected to tell LE about the waterfall, or even if they told them at all. It was reported that the hikers "heard" she was excited about the waterfall.The info about Nora’s condition, put out by the parents prior to her being discovered, was not accurate, the missing info about her wanting to see the waterfall, etc.. Those are pretty big reasons that people in other online spaces have cited as things that gave them pause. Shrug. Everyone is free to believe and interpret info as they please.
ADMIN NOTE:
Websleuths is victim friendly. These parents are victims who have lost their daughter, so if your post is not victim friendly, it will be removed.
OK, good for you I guess? I prefer to explore all possibilities. That doesn’t mean I’m blaming anyone. I just like to see all sides and make an informed decision. People asked how Anne Brennan could have come to this conclusion and so I’m sharing what I have come across. It’s a discussion, not blaming. Just because you don’t agree with someone’s opinion doesn’t make them a troll.
What were you referring to? I thought you were talking about the recent article regarding the lawyers statements?
Time has passed to edit my earlier post, but that is a different waterfall with same name. Check the clarification post above. Sorry.
I agree. And the sighting was on Sunday 7pm.
A direct flight from London arrives at KL at 5pm...... I posted this earlier.
Other *non direct* flights from London arrive later than 7pm ....
Is it ok to say I put "parents did it" somewhere below "alien abduction" in probabilities?
It was never stated that the family neglected to tell LE about the waterfall, or even if they told them at all. It was reported that the hikers "heard" she was excited about the waterfall.
It was also never reported that the parents description of her disabilities was not accurate. This was cleared up a long time ago.
It's not a matter of interpreting information as people please, it's a matter of repeating innaccurate information as reported by the media, and basing speculation and theories on those "facts". Imo