There is simply no evidence to indicate that she did have those concerns in 1992. How do we know that she didn't have concerns that space aliens took them, as Worsham proposed in frustration at the time? If she had them then I would have suspected that she would have brought them to the forefront in order to get LE to look into it. And if she did bring those concerns to LE and they didn't act on them then I would think she would have continued to push those concerns in interviews given to the media to bring them out into the public. These may be concerns of hers now, but they have only recently come up.
And in talking to friends of Suzie's there certainly is no evidence that she was afraid of anything or that she was asking any of them to go home with her and spend the night because she was afraid to go alone. Janis obviously feels that it was an odd thing for Stacy to do and may be looking for ways in her mind to justify why Stacy did go home with Suzie (the 2:00 am comment). But in light of the occasion and the planned trip to Branson the next day, I don't find it odd at all. Friends say that Suzie & Stacy had recently grown close again in the waining days of school; that Janelle was in a relationship with Hensen and wasn't around them much; and that they didn't find it odd that Stacy went home with Suzie at all.
You do bring up a valid point with the idea that LE didn't want witnesses to speak about the case, an idea I have proposed before. There are minor witnesses who will not speak even off the record to this day because LE asked them not to. I believe that Janelle Kirby was asked by SPD not to speak about certain things she observed about the house upon entering and while being there throughout that day. Participation with the media helps to advance the case and LE wanted that but they wanted her to avoid speaking of her observations concerning items of evidence. As two examples: the broken porch globe; the phone messages. The problem is that she was unprepared on what to say the first time she was asked questions about those things. That is why we have conflicting statements made by an 18 yr old witness. SPD should have given her "the spin" they wanted her to use when asked. But she was caught unprepared when asked such questions by the media and ended up on TV with that "deer in the headlight look" that caused many people to cast a suspicion of guilt her way ever since.
As has been said before, we can never prove a negative. We cant prove what someone DIDNT say. Just because it hasnt be recorded, reported or referenced, doesnt mean they didnt say it. We can prove (in a reasonable sense) what someone did say, or is reported to have said. But what these things all mean, is believability, and the only opinion at the end of the day that will matter (presuming this case reaches trial) is the jury, not LE, not investigators and not observers of the case from the beginning. Rather, selected novices who bring their own personal experiences (regardless of judge/counsel instructions; in any human system biases will always exist) and will draw their own conclusion, determine believability are entrusted with the final decision.
I commend folks such as Hurricane with his extensive study of the case and personal investigation, not to mention the duty to come here to give insight and correction to facts and statements made. But, thats most of what this case is, just those kinds of 'facts. Lacking much hard evidence, we have what people said, or reported to have said. The area this becomes most fractious are conclusions of these statements (what they mean) and 'what someone would have done. Correction of facts is always welcome, so too, should the influx of new ideas and the realization there are going to be points we will agree to disagree. Plenty of cases and trials have returned with unanticipated results because of newly uncovered information, or information which was dismissed at the time. Not all facts you like make it to court or ever will, further facts are challenged and cross examined with other facts, which you may not be aware of or have not been made public. The State doesnt hold press conferences with information they have, which discredits their case, thats the job of the defense. With all due respect to ALL the investigators, LE and the gatekeepers of this message board, NONE of you will be on the jury.
To this specific post. This is just an observation, one of the things which struck me about this case was the relatively lack of adult supervision through the night. I graduated h/s close to this era, 1985, the only party I went to that contained alcohol was the one at my house with family and friends. None of my parties lasted until 2 AM. My parents knew all the outside parties I was at, who I was with, where and when I was expected home. Yes, in the pre-cell phone era
Everybody was different then as now, sure. But, Im confident any jury collected might have a few with a little grain of thought of such and personally note such contrast with their own lives as well, which can never be hammered out by any judge/prosecution.
To Janelle I accept the point of instructions from LE to be quiet and her being young and scared during TV interviews, all I can understand. Her actions that morning I dont buy, and its never been explained to my satisfaction. It doesnt pass the reasonable person standard. None of which do I want to hint at anything criminal she did, as I said before, the only 'crime I see her guilty of is 'bad judgment. But it has to do with that reasonable doubt bar thing which may be the focus one day.
