jumpstreet
Member
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2008
- Messages
- 703
- Reaction score
- 0
It was posted (thanks RC) that LE's exact statement which seems to be slightly at odds with this woman's statement was that there had been no confirmed sightings of NC since she was reported disappeared.
Any guesses as to what it would have taken for a reported sighting to become a confirmed sighting? Seems that even if the woman was totally wrong in a statement about the color or brand of clothing, to have spotted someone matching NC's description, at that specific time and place, would seem fairly credible. For some reason, as I read the eyewitness's affidavit, she comes across as fairly convinced to me that she saw NC. I imagine she'll be pretty convincing on the witness stand as well (in either a custody hearing, or a (hypothetical) criminal trial).
Here's a related question: Given the in-laws have stated that NC would never run without her phone, and her keys... and given the phone and keys were found in the house... wouldn't that alone be enough for LE to not consider any NC sightings as credible? [ Maybe the passing out of flyers, etc was just for the "optics" (make it appear as due diligence is being done). All the questions were rhetorical of course though... as the in-laws had already sealed the fact that she surely couldn't have gone running (without keys and phone). Even now, today, the statements from LE encouraging anyone with information to come forward... these requests are really just to manage the perception that all angles are being fully explored, right? After all, why would the in-laws lie? ]
Any guesses as to what it would have taken for a reported sighting to become a confirmed sighting? Seems that even if the woman was totally wrong in a statement about the color or brand of clothing, to have spotted someone matching NC's description, at that specific time and place, would seem fairly credible. For some reason, as I read the eyewitness's affidavit, she comes across as fairly convinced to me that she saw NC. I imagine she'll be pretty convincing on the witness stand as well (in either a custody hearing, or a (hypothetical) criminal trial).
Here's a related question: Given the in-laws have stated that NC would never run without her phone, and her keys... and given the phone and keys were found in the house... wouldn't that alone be enough for LE to not consider any NC sightings as credible? [ Maybe the passing out of flyers, etc was just for the "optics" (make it appear as due diligence is being done). All the questions were rhetorical of course though... as the in-laws had already sealed the fact that she surely couldn't have gone running (without keys and phone). Even now, today, the statements from LE encouraging anyone with information to come forward... these requests are really just to manage the perception that all angles are being fully explored, right? After all, why would the in-laws lie? ]