We know that other parents have been questioned. We know some families have been questioned multiple times. We also know that families have been asked to turn over copies of photographs taken that day. It seems that LE has worked hard to keep everyone quiet because that's the way to uncover inconsistencies in the perp's story. If there are other adults who have inconsistencies in their stories, cellphone pings, alibis etc, then I'm sure LE would be (and are) following up on that.
On what grounds would LE have gotten a subpoena to check the cell phone records of every adult present in the school that morning? I'm not a lawyer but it would seem to me that it would require more than just being present in the school that day.
And how much effort did LE put into checking out stories? Look at the amount of effort that seems to be going into checking one particular woman's story; I just don't think that they have enough manpower to do any real checking of the stories of anyone at the school who presents well and has no other apparent connection to Kyron.
I believe at this point, everyone else known to have been at the school that day has come up clean. Could they have overlooked something? Maybe, but I doubt they have utterly abandoned any possibilities that are anything less than water tight. They may not be talking about it, but I'm confident they are checking into anything like that. The way other information has been leaking to the media makes me believe that, at least right now, there is only one plausible direction for the investigation to go, and that's pointing right at Terri. Media are bloodhounds when it comes to sniffing out stuff like that. If they caught wind of some else with a wobbly story, we'd know about it.
My concern is that LE generally starts at the innermost circle of connections to the child and works outward. As an organisational principle, it's pretty good. An investigation has to have some sort of overall pattern or else it just flies off in too many directions to be effective.
But the drawback to that method is if someone in that inner circle is factually innocent and cannot establish a good alibi. Then there is a chance of investigative tunnel vision.
That can happen at startlingly high levels. That is essentially what happened with the FBI in the Steven Hatfill case.
Dr Hatfill was instructed by his employer to write a paper in 1999 about ways in which micro-powdered anthrax spores could be used against the US population. Being an intelligent man who was also a hard worker, he wrote a paper that was extremely good and included quite a bit of really detailed information, like how many grams of anthrax spores could be placed in an ordinary first rate postal envelope without being easily detected (just less than 2.4g, as it happens).
The FBI didn't stop to consider for many years that anyone who had access to that paper would also then have the same knowledge.
Dr Hatfill obviously had the knowledge; he also had access. An examination of the records of his lab revealed <<gasp>> holes and gaps in the paperwork trail. The FBI didn't discover for many years that every single lab in the place had very similar holes and gaps.
Some fellow scientists, when asked about Dr Hatfill, expressed reservations about his character. One person went on a public campaign that was a thinly disguised accusation of Dr Hatfill.
And it just went on and on. Dr Hatfill was unable to establish his own innocence because it is impossible to prove a negative.
Now the FBI has accused a different man, Bruce Ivins. Unfortunately, he has committed suicide. While that may be a tacit admission of guilt, I know I am not alone in wondering if he was really the perpetrator or not. There are certainly big, obvious holes in the case against Ivins.
There is a good probability that LE in this case is pointed at the correct party (TMH). But there's good precedent for healthy scepticism as well.
