kebdal23
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2018
- Messages
- 134
- Reaction score
- 1,646
The answer is in the Dryden interview. (BTW, I highly recommend watching it to everyone who hasn't seen it yet. The Sheriff answers a bunch of questions from the host and from people following on Facebook.) About 42 minutes into the interview is when he answers a question about her being abducted vs missing/endangered.
Facebook Question: Why haven't you said she is abducted? Just missing and endangered.
Sheriff Fitzgerald: Because we don't know that answer. I guess you can say, ya know, we said she's missing and endangered. That goes back to the question - do I think she's involved? I don't think she's involved, but that's a gut feeling on my part. I don't have any evidence I'm withholding so that I can be right here. Again, I'm not looking to be right I'm looking to bring a ten year old, I mean, thirteen year old girl home. So, I think that's just if I say she's abducted or missing and endangered it's the same thing. It's a play on words. And I just can't use the word abducted because we don't know that for fact yet. And that's why we listed her as missing and endangered in the system. So if she turns up in California, or wherever, she gets held by any law enforcement agency has contact with her because she's in the system as missing and endangered.
Here is the interview:
WATCH: Sheriff Fitzgerald Discusses Jayme Closs Investigation on DrydenWire Live! | Recent News | DrydenWire
I don't like this at all. It's like playing games with words, I feel he is very uncomfortable with this question and he must have a reason why. If if they don't know for a fact that she wasn't abducted, they don't know if she WAS abducted? They say there's no digital footprint to indicate an online or older boyfriend, right? So, in my mind then, she was abducted. There is something they are withholding here because his logic doesn't make sense to me!