MM, can you elaborate without elaborating - "If I had an opportunity to talk to them I would ask them one question. But that is a question I cannot ask on this forum. Perhaps one of these days....." Is this about Stacy's decisions?
I agree a young Yorkie would typically lose its mind with visitors, but possibly not. And that leads to multiple possibilities:
* Abductor was stranger but entered with Sherrill and/or Suzie so was not deemed a threat
* Abductor was known to Cinnamon and therefore not a threat
* Abductor was indeed a stranger but because he/she was allowed entry by her owners Cinnamon calmed down
* Cinnamon did flip out but no one heard (or disregarded)
* Is there a sliver of a chance that Stacy didn't like or was allergic to dogs and THAT is why Cinnamon was in the bathroom while Stacy got ready for bed?
I'm not convinced on extensive staging of the scene. Most experienced criminals get the hell out and don't visit unnecessary rooms in case they leave evidence. And a novice might not have the where-with-all to "keep it clean," especially in a spur of the moment crime. In '92 one might not be overly concerned with DNA, but definitely with fingerprints...unless he/she knew they'd already be in the house...Otherwise, was abductor ready ahead of time with gloves?
Flashing neon sign for me is the purses lined up. Were all three women herded into the house upon their coming home and told to put them there? Or were the purses already in the house, presumably in different places, and then collected? And if collected, why? To check IDs on who was who of the girls since it'd be obvious who was the older woman?
Nothing about Stacy. Without elaborating I will simply say this. Who do they truly trust to tell them the truth?
For what it is worth, I believe to my core, we have been sold a bill of goods that are grossly misleading. What I mean by that is every few years lip service will be given to the same old stuff said over and over and even here we are asking questions long settled. It is as though if enough sand is thrown in the gears of progress it will grind to a halt.
We can see this when the weekend of dump of bad political news is revealed. The ones who are being looked at will more often than not do this. If they really want to gum up the works, they provide boxes upon boxes of legal documents and other items that would take dozens of people to sort through. We have been given a lot of irrelevant information but not what we need to know. We can't even get a straight denial of certain things like who flunked the polygraph or if that is even true. We haven't gotten a flat denial about the George's sighting. We have never been told if it was a certain fact that Stacy and Suzie even arrived. We have never been told how it was possible that anyone other than a trusted person OR a cop could have gotten into the house. These are simple questions. Instead we are told that a "confession" is needed. That's not police work. That is unacceptable in my opinion.
Here is something most people do not know. There were two front doors; the regular door and a storm door. They opened in opposite directions. Any occupant only needed to open the main door but not the storm door. They could have talked to anyone who came to the door without letting them in.
Did you know this? The infamous broken globe with the burning light was direct wired to the lamp in the front yard. When the front porch light was on so was the yard lamp.
Did you know this? Suzie did not have a key to the side door. Why? Why was that not explained?
Have we been told if it was anyway possible to have entered the house in any other way except through the front or side doors? Surely we can't believe someone came down the chimney like Santa Claus.
Why doesn't the police department hold an open press conference for the press and the public? If they can't or won't answer a question, say so. But don't hide behind some claim of "it's an open case and we can't talk about it." I once contacted a reporter for the local newspaper, the Springfield News-Leader." He told me personally they REFUSED to talk about it. What kind of nonsense is this? I worked for 40 years with the public. I could never get away with refusing to talk about a case I was working with the state of Missouri. If I would have done that I would have been called on the carpet or even fired. What makes the police so special? They have produced nothing in 25 years. I'm not accepting of that. No one should be either.
