Since the Tiki bar and the parking lot are two different locations, the report that 4 people helped her into a vehicle is not inconsistent.
I guess I'm very thick headed at the moment. I'm truly not trying to be difficult, I just can't reconcile this (obviously)
TK carrying vs. 4 people assisting her out of the bar is not the same, is it? In mode (carrying vs. assisting) or in quantity (TK vs. 4 people)
Especially because if one assumes there were 4 NOT including him (based on what people have said above and how I'd read the newest request for info) why did they say it was TK who carried her out to begin with? And how does absolutely no one seem to know who the 4 are?
And if one reads it as TK was one of the 4, then how do 3 get overlooked by witnesses who had said TK was who carried her out.
Plus earlier when it said TK was the last to see her and that it was on the road. On the road is very different than in a car (at least to me).
Either they blatantly omitted saying that TK was last seen putting her in a vehicle and driving off with her earlier (which makes no sense to me) or else that seems like an entirely different scenario.
That's quite a crucial detail to not let people know of. Since that means the first several weeks of this that did NOT mention leaving in a car, it also DID NOT mention anything description wise about a car, which would be huge (IMO).
And if TK (per police, which had to have come from witnesses, doesn't it?) was the last to see her on the road, why did the witnesses (or whomever had given police the information that led them to state that TK was last to see her on the road) not also say 4 helped her into a silver SUV?
The only way I see that all
mostly reconciling is if:
Initially they knew (based on witness statements):
*TK was seen carrying her out of the bar
*TK last saw her on the road
*TK was also the last to see her
Then they learned (from somewhere)
*4 guys were see helping her into the silver SUV (which was some time after TK last saw her on the road, meaning the SUV may or may not have been his based on him having returned, but also that he wouldn't have been the last to see her)
But the that also means:
*Something doesn't line up with how she GOT to the car anymore - b/c it either went from one person (TK) carrying her to 4 (but likely 5 since otherwise how does TK fit into it?) assisting her out.
*How does that not compromise witness statements?
*How does that not contradict TK last seeing her on the road, with now apparently it being seeing her drive away.
Heck, have we even been told TK drives (or has access to) a silver SUV? I truly don't recall at this point.
Yet if he does, why would they not have said that weeks ago so people would have remembered if they had seen THAT somewhere and if so where? Weeks into it there's both less interest in the case and less clear recollection of details, IMO.
What about the guys? Where did they go to after that?
They don't live in a huge area. Yet there were 4 guys who apparently were AT the Tiki Bar hanging out for the concert but no one seems to know who they are? Otherwise why would LE not go to them instead of asking for them to come forward?
If witnesses were observant enough to remember her departure and who was involved enough to name TK and to recall her being carried initially, how could the same people apparently not be able to describe the 4 enough for LE to release more details to help get them ID'd? And if it came from video, then wouldn't there still be more description?
I don't know...
Like I said, not trying to be difficult at all - and I may just be very dense - I just can't make this all fit.
Unless this is where investigators who haven't handled anything remotely like this being a detriment is rearing its head...