I think the reason SM didn't answer the polygraph question is because it was no one's business and it might have violated her rights too in that all interviews stay confidential.
Which is what bothers me about her "3 boyfriends." I really don't think it's right for the PIs to reveal that to the public
at this time. If I were one of the three, I'd be a tad unhappy about that.
About the bike and if there is one:
I bought my son a bike several years
ago as he wanted it to ride to work.
(About 1/2 mile away). I didn't spend a lot because there was a good chance it wouldn't get used much. As it turned out it didn't. I have no clue what the make and model was, only that I bought it at Target, it was black and a
3 speed (I think).
I'm sorry if the family gets upset reading here. Maybe they shouldn't or they should put me on ignore. I'm trying to stay fair and weigh both sides. I'm trying hard not to be blunt but I'm not going to sugarcoat things either. I have no connection with the family or Hunt CO SO. (And yes, I googled SM a long time ago.) I have no connection to Texas. I am former LE, female and have worked in the good ol boy network for a good part of my working life, so I'm not particularly partial to male dominated departments or to bullying, bumbling Sheriffs. And without compromising my integrity I learned how to work with them and around them.
The most important thing in my mind,
right now, is finding MC. It's going to take cooperation from BOTH sides. And sometimes being nice to people who don't deserve it is necessary.
Sent from my SM-J727T using Tapatalk
Thanks Razz, I appreciate your sense of fair-mindedness. I appreciate too learning more about your own background, and how it has helped shape your attitudes. Thank you for that.
What I hear from you is that each side should fight fair, but you feel the P.I. is the one more in the wrong. You admit that BC and the sheriff could be handling things better, but you're most perturbed at the P.I. He's the one who needs to be reined in. Is that a fair assessment?
( Please keep in mind here that my posts are always meant as discussion of points that others have raised. Absolutely no snark or sarcasm intended. )
If I'm correct, I just want to say, as one who doesn't like for anyone to ever fight, that I very much understand the P.I.'s position.
Though I can't pretend to know any of their interactions, I do know that the P.I. was not hired until October. The sheriff was there first! He had many months to show the family his efforts in directing the investigation.
The very fact they hired a P.I. speaks volumes in my opinion. What I'm hearing in the P.I.'s statement is an attempt to set the record straight. I hear self-defense mode. He wasn't the one who misled everyone in the first place.
Also, in your post I feel as if you are leaning toward making allowance for the sheriff regarding the bike. You use your own example of not knowing the make and model of your son's bike.
You said: "I have no clue what the make and model was, only that I bought it at Target,
it was black and a 3 speed (I think).
Do you realize though you told us more about your son's bike than we've learned about MC's?
If MC truly did own a bike, why couldn't we, at least, have been told a color?!
You or I could be easily forgiven for not having information about a bike we own.
But this is a missing person investigation! I cannot give the sheriff a pass on this.
He should not have said MC had a bike, rode that bike to his suicide, and yet to this date, has not provided any further information about it.
Remember what I said about the smell test? This is yet another thing, another big thing that does not pass that test.
All of these things say:
"If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck."
I know my definition of a duck...
JMO