As far as the kiss by Amy goes; Granted, Dr. H was not there. But Amy was there. Others were there with her that night. Dont you think LE has spoken to them as well? Dont you think they have verified Amys story?
We really can't assume anything more than that AM made this statement both to LE & other parties. Her testimony is not self-serving; but rather borders on self-incrimination. (How exactly did she seem to know that MH was not going to just return to her seat shortly?) Did LE obtain corroborative statements from other witnesses? Did they definitely verify AM's account beyond doubt? We
only know that AM made this statement regarding her interaction with MH before MH left their party in the arena.
Why is it that people on this forum are so quick to doubt something when a person who was there makes a statement like this?
The story is so full of holes.
We are told that "Dan's" name was withheld because "why should he let this incident ruin his life?" Actually, if the facts were accurately portrayed in the media, he doesn't seem to be guilty of anything beyond lacking gentlemanly manners and common sense. His proper course of action would have been to call DH and ask for permission before driving MH's car back to Harrisonburg that night. True, he might not want MH to get into trouble with her parents, but that would be better in the long run than possibly functioning as what psychologists call an "enabler."
Why were we given contradictory and conflicting statements about the whereabouts of MH's car during the relevant time period? If one of your friend's vanished, wouldn't you consider the location of their car to be a key fact?
Then, we have been half-told that MH attended JMU for the previous two years? If her life did indeed center around Harrisonburg for the previous two years, then likely her associations there might be an important detail. But yet the insinuation seems to be that JMU's reputation is on the line ... Does it make any sense? Frankly, all colleges seem to be confronting an escalation in reported rapes & violent crime. Since MH was in C'ville anyway and not even a current student, why would JMU be so threatened?
Why not accept it and move on?
Because we are not a bunch of dumb cows.
While I agree that MH's three companions are not likely involved in any abduction or violence against MH, we as citizens have the right to ask questions about their statements. The possibility that MH was murdered makes this case a legitimate matter of public inquiry.
If we were only discussing a normal family and/or friends squabble, we could accept the pleas that large and seemingly relevant parts of this incident should be kept private; but if all family members & other associates were allowed to silence the public regarding a murder victim, how many murders would ever be solved?
It seems like people continue to question or doubt the friends and their stories. Why is that?
Because parts of the story seem so flaky.
LE has cleared them and the family has stated over and over they are not involved.
A reporter said that LE said that the "friends" (whoever that means) were cleared, but he didn't specify of what they were supposedly cleared.
Do people think that from reading a few words on a forum that they know more than the VSP and FBI?
Since we don't know the posters personally, who can say?
Do people who have never met these folks that are involved think that they know them better than investigators who are interacting with them regularly or the family that have known them for years?
Sometimes professional investigators totally mess up. And, the family could be too upset to analyze the situation with any detachment.
The fact is that Amy has told her story to LE and to the Harringtons. Dr. Harrington has been allowed to repeat it to media outlets.
DH has freedom of speech. No authorities control his statements. Whether he was advised to avoid certain topics or details, we don't know.
If it was something that LE had a problem with they would not let him keep making that or any statement again and again.
LE cannot interfere with free speech. They can offer advice, but we have no information about this possibility.
What purpose does it serve to constantly discount everything that is said? To question is one thing and a good thing at that, but to many people here, if they dont hear what they want to hear, they ignore the facts as they are known to make them fit into their own scenarios.
We have had different life experiences, and therefore we form different opinions. In my own opinion, something politically incorrect is at the root of this case; for example, college crime?
