It seems to me that some of you are assuming that this Joy Baker has the only correct version of events as they happened. I think it's great that she is so interested in this case and looking into it, but she is accepting DR's new story versions at face value, and conveniently ignoring his original stories he told that have changed over the years. DR DID make statements himself early on in the investigation to reporters and in taped interviews (which have been posted here numerous times also) saying he called police because he saw a car in his driveway, and he also originally said nothing about looking around outside, and stated that he went back to bed, "why would I waste my time." This is an actual documented conversation, and not something a newspaper made up.
I feel we should be here to help find Jacob and not to help DR clear his name, JMO.
The problem with DR's story over the years is that we don't really know for sure what it is. The interview with Trish Van Pilsum that is often referenced or quoted to suggest DR's possible involvement was what amounted to snippets of a much longer conversation. I find that impossible to accurately judge because we have no idea what was taken out of context or what was said and not reported that might give us a different view.
Joy Baker's blog and the video interviews from a couple years ago with DR are the most complete version of his words. We can all listen, read, process, and decide on his credibility as we discuss. But I think its unfair to say DR never said anything earlier about going outside to look because we only know what was reported. He very well may not have said so originally. But without access to the full interview, we cannot truly know what he did not say.
Yes, we all are here because we want to see this crime solved. It is not about absolving DR. But there is no reported evidence tying him to this crime other than proximity (and I agree that the police should release more information in this case, and they should not have the affidavits supporting the warrant to search the Rassier farm sealed). We have not seen anything else reported to suggest one bit that he has acted inappropriately towards other children. There is no whiff of other scandal. In my opinion, that is just as persuasive in forming the argument that he was not involved as the proximity of his home to the abduction site is to forming the argument that he was involved.
The larger concern to me, and why I have taken a great interest in what DR is saying to Joy Baker or anyone else, is that the police seem quite focused on DR -- or more specifically that the abductor was local and on foot. If LE is wrong about that point, and necessarily about DR, then by focusing too narrowly on that theory, they will never see and pull on the thread that will unravel this case.
So, any time DR, Kevin, or anyone else involved in this case talks publicly, I will look closely at what they say and make my own judgments about their credibility. And I have no idea who Joy Baker is or what her motivations are, but I'm happy someone is devoting the time and energy to trying to get more information on the record.
