Can you name these differences?
*We have two individuals (TT, DA) who have remained at the center of this case, whose statements
do not agree (and have even
changed), yet both have (allegedly) passed
multiple polygraphs
(Just that much right there I have problems with)
*We have a Private Investigator who volunteered his services, then proceeded to stir the pot, muddy the water. It is he who claimed that SM and VB changed their statements. Did that actually happen? Or was he casting doubt on their statements?
There have been cases where the PI was hired, took the money and ran, or was actually hindered from interviewing people. But to volunteer services and then seemingly confuse the case (as if it needed confusion...)?
Of course BUT up to that point there is nothing that would imply that anyone from this crowd was irresponsible enough to get heavily drunk or drugged in presence of little kids. To the very least TT, ST and Rachel were well aware that little boy is, was, will or may end up in their care on that day.
That depends on who was supposed to have him, IMO. We have no reason to believe that TT or Rachel intended to get high or drunk, as they had scheduled plans for the day (work and shopping). ST and DA, however are another story. We have no indication they had to be anywhere. ST claimed to be picking up her son, but we don't really know that that was the plan, or that actually happened. SM was presumably off-duty, to be able to be at Minot for any length of time.
We have no indication that little ST was definitely to be left in the care of DA, ST, or SM --the three adults who could have been doing
anything at Minot that day, IMO.
UNLESS of course there are things, hints, informations that are not available to the public and are making some scenarios appear much more likely.
Which is quite possible.
Could be triggered by something that led to girls disappearance, could be triggered by the disappearance itself.
I'm reluctant to think that adults would be frightened off by a murderer of children and remain silent, especially since these three particular adults were all parents themselves. If these adults witnessed something, that
should send them to the police (anonymously if they don't wish to be questioned about
their activities), not hightailing it out of town-- unless they distrust LE. The only reason for them to leave like that (IMO), is if somehow they were complicit in what happened...
Yeah, if they did and led to death of one of all of the girls then it's easy to see the one's responsible acting fast to avoid consequences... but how could that happen?
I don't see how Renee would dare to drink alcohol or try any sort of drug willingly as she was going to see her parents in the matter of hours and had that party in the evening.
I don't see older girls doing anything like that or even showing up anywhere close to something like that while having Julie with them.
I don't even see how Rachel would dare to drink while she had to drive girls back to Gordon Ave.
And if we're talking something completely unforeseen for the girls, like accidentally drinking juice that had lots of vodka in it or injesting bunch of something... I can't even picture any scenario like that. UNLESS someone tricked them into drinking spiked beverages or forced them to take drugs, but that wouldn't count as accidental.
And it doesn't add up for me.
It could be as simple as the girls sampling something (just a sip or snort). We don't know what substances were actually present and in use (assuming they were). Renee has been portrayed as daring, adventurous. She wouldn't have been going for an all-out, day-long high. Julie wanted to be like the "big kids". Her older brother was no stranger to drugs and alcohol. We honestly don't know whether she'd ever been offered or tried something "mild" before. She may've decided to try something, before anyone could stop her.
Rather than Rachel being killed in jealousy by her husband, and the other two killed for witnessing it, I propose that perhaps the other two succumbed to something, and Rachel raised a fuss. She may've gotten into a fight with one of the adults ("you let her/them do that"?!), threatened to call someone, or started to. At any rate, the others couldn't let that happen. So either in a struggle or fight, Rachel was killed. Depending on what was being consumed, reflexes, judgement, memory could've all been impaired. Just a thought.
Currently I think that it's either none of the usual suspects responsibility or that some big clues are missing from the picture.
And that's a possibility.