But that's just it. No new searches. Kicking the media off her yard and calling the police on them. No "heartfelt" pleading in front of the camera. No temporary reconciliation with AJ's first step-father, the one who raised her and STILL HAS JOINT CUSTODY, at least for the purposes of finding her, and instead undermining and blocking him. Photographing the ODU game instead of doing something, ANYTHING else to find AJ.
This is not the behavior of a desperate parent. In fact, this is the kind of effort I'd give to find our dog, not my daughter (literally meaning me and mine).
Something else that struck me, and this is REALLY far fetched. What if this whole thing is an act, something concocted to get WH back in jail and out of JH's house and life? Follow the logic here---AJ goes "missing." WH springs in to action, doing all he can, following up on leads, intimidating witnesses, B&E, etc, just being the predictable WH the family all knows him to be. They know he's been using, they know he's got a gun(s) and ammo, and they know that once the police get involved he's in some serious trouble. This might explain any of WH's legitimate concern for AJ, expressed in all his interviews. His "inconsistencies," his apprehension at answering questions, his double-talk, is a somewhat weak attempt to prevent self-incrimination, and all the things he does admit to he feels he should get a pass on because it's all about finding AJ.
The rub here with my WILD theory is that JH never expected it to blow up like it has. She can act like there's nothing wrong because in reality, she KNOWS AJ is ok. Meanwhile, everyone who is in on it continues to throw WH under the bus, knowing full well the public is going to buy it because of his past. Evidence is planted, but it's planted for WH's benefit. The "army" of AJ's friends who continue to hang out at the house are the same army of people who helped to find this evidence....
NPD still hasn't released that WH is a POI. He hasn't been charged with kidnapping. And while the statement "NPD has not ruled out foul play," they've also maintained that there's no evidence of foul play. Why? Because, to date, there really is NO evidence of foul play.
I know it's crazy, like something out of a mystery novel, but it's plausible. In my mind it is a way to explain quite a bit of the "weirdness" of this case. It's been on my mind over the past couple days, felt like I could finally organize it a bit to type it. Would really like to know how far off base people think it is?