Ace85FL
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2013
- Messages
- 52
- Reaction score
- 0
Partly absolutely. Without going into more at the moment. I'm throwing out the possibility that they weren't related to the first paragraph at all.
Hasn't anyone had a conversation with a person when your trying to figure out how something could have potentially happened. Not suggesting that it made sense, or was in their character, but simply attempting to figure out how a scenario could possibly have played out.
I see what you mean, Solus.
Officials seek leads on missing area woman
Paragraph 1: (The Family Friend)
Jennifer Renz Ramsaran, the 36-year-old stay-at-home mom missing for a week under suspicious circumstances, had begun discussing the possibility of separating from her husband and had made new online gaming friends through her iPhone account, a family friend said Tuesday.
Paragraph 2: (The Anonymous Source)
It sounded like she was developing an emotional attachment to somebody, said a source who spoke to The Daily Star on the condition of anonymity. If there was somebody showing her an awful lot of attention, I could see her being misled.
With the positioning of the paragraphs... it could be read that the family friend, was the same one that made the anonymous statement that referred to Jennifer having possibly met someone.
However, the positioning of it near the statement made by the family friend could be perceived by the reader that it's a continuing statement from the family friend, however they're suddenly referred to as an anonymous source, when in the previous statement it was a family friend.
Separating the two statements... as two separate individuals... the anonymous source could be referring to someone locally. In context, it's definitely not the same person as the family friend.
It sounded like she was developing an emotional attachment to somebody, said a source who spoke to The Daily Star on the condition of anonymity. If there was somebody showing her an awful lot of attention, I could see her being misled.
Laying aside the notion that the second paragraph is a continuation of the first paragraph (because it's clearly two different people speaking)... it's a rumor, but it's not a definitive statement like rumors tend to be.
I could see it as one giving a possibility for the reason her disappearance. It was a little over a week after Jennifer's disappearance when it was given as a statement (the article is from December 19th).
One could then read it as one maintaining their anonymity, without naming names or getting involved.
It could be based on observation, and one suggesting a possibility based on what they observed, or what they may have heard from another person (i.e. a local rumor).
But it's given from a stance of open-mindedness, which diverts from the norm when it comes to rumors, which usually tend to be unspecified yet definitive sounding statements.
The source seems to give Jennifer the benefit of the doubt... hence the speculative statements that suggest a speculative possibility but not a definite.
It sounded like (Note: speculative possibility, no definite) she was developing an emotional attachment to somebody, said a source who spoke to The Daily Star on the condition of anonymity. If (Note: speculative possibility, no definite) there was somebody showing her an awful lot of attention, I could see (Note: speculative possibility, no definite) her being misled.
IMO
I would say that it's a POSSIBLE lead from something that's been there pretty much the whole time, but that we've been reading wrong.
It could indicate the potentiality of another potential POI.
It could indicate a possible local rumor that could in turn indicate a possible motive.
It could be something that someone speaking under the condition of anonymity put out there, to possibly lead LE off on a rabbit trail.
We don't know... but at least it should be followed to see if it leads anywhere.