If we go back to the beginning, and we choose to believe that BR went to SPD after 3 phone calls to the Snyder's, we are left with the 72 hour statement that BR claims.
So, the question is why did someone tell him that, if you believe his actual visit to be true? It has been suggested that he was known to SPD and perhaps brushed aside. I dont know why and if he was known to SPD-I cant see any reason why he would be so if he wasnt simply brushed aside because they knew him and were getting rid of him, what happened that changed their mind? Because 14 hours later we had a report filed.
I think there was an incident that in retrospect might have been tied to her disappearance. That is the direction I am headed in right now. I think that TS's statements about the alley and the driveway are worth picking apart, especially given our prior direction where we were speculating that TS might have been in the car/suv/truck/vehicle. (Her evolving description of what Cassie was driven home in.) Or following it. Or something. Remember that conversation?
I keep coming back to BR seemed to be the most persistent. At first I fell into the trap that he was
overplaying the concerned adult but then gradually wondered why he was the only one. The 3 phone calls are verifiable, not by us but by LE. But WE only have that information from TS. Wasn't it after BR told TS that he went to the PD that she contacted them as well? Hmmm.
By not being an actual parent or guardian, if I were the desk officer, I may have said well we would need a statement from a parent or guardian, otherwise there's a 72 hour wait, but let me get the information down so we have it. I don't think they brushed him off as some bicycle riding dope. I want to think that the officer did his due diligence. Finally, finally they went out there to get the parent's info (JC). I am left juggling who's uncorroborated story (thus far) do I believe. That BR called TS 3 times even though "they know" he saw HS drop her off?. WHY. Why should I believe that.
Just by way of speculation, If I were TS and HS told me he dropped Cassie and BR saw her get out of the truck, I may be asking myself why that was important - then a call comes from BR, then I re-ask HS, then he adds that he also got a text about the smokes after she dropped her stuff off. Maybe there is a text, but nothing says who sent it.
If I were an officer at that desk and these things happened I would just go into my own thought processes - can I ping her phone? ( lol I do not have an opinion on that except yes) Look up TS and BR addresses, priors, etc. No I would not have dropped it. I would already know who JC, BR, TS and HS are and might even have some phone info.
So to my 2ng bold, having this information, a simple call coming in about a pick up truck idling and some activity the caller can't make out my raise my hackles. Or a caller reports a girl walking the road and could be in trouble - anything along those lines that might click. An 'incident'. I still think that the only statements we have to go on are from TS and those should absolutely be picked apart.
No one can absolutely describe what Cassie was wearing yet she was seen by TS, HS and BR. Was she? or was she only seen by one person? Was there in fact, a derby? Was she, in fact unusually quiet on the ride back? Was it fear? Was that home her "safe haven" or is that a concept designed just to deflect any suspicion?
Not to accuse but to question and know more clearly, yes I think everything should be questioned. Respectfully, please.
:cow: