He, AG Mike is trying to be evasive, or he just bumbled his words all up, talking about one involved that knew houses and maybe some of the victims?!He also stated, "“Someone was involved who knew that area, and probably knew those homes and at least some of the people who were victimized. But beyond that I really can’t say.”
I'm seeing that at least one of them knew everyone, and had been in all the homes, and is likely living there in the community (possibly both from the area and the other may have been acquainted with them). I don't see the children as overlooked b/c of the fact that I think that at least one of the assailants knew the family intimately and had been in all of the homes. They'd know about the children. I think the children may possibly be thought to be in danger, b/c of other family members who may be thought to be in danger, that the children would be around, thereby placing them in danger. Also could be that some family member(s) are suspects and they don't want the children in the mix of what could be an inner family feud.
I have doubts anyone involved would know the houses and only some of the victims. If I just met somebody, even if they know a couple members of my family, they are not going to get a tour of my house! Too many stinking thieves nowadays. So I feel like this "one" person was more than casually acquainted with family members.