But Chloe didn't have a bedroom????
I'm not sure why he thinks it must be someone the family knew because she was in the lounge with her sisters, rather than in a room all by herself? Surely a child is easier to abduct from their bedroom - not in a room with another 2 children who could easily wake up. And the lounge would have been harder to access, seeing as it didn't have an open window. So the "abductor" must have had to have walked through the house ... but then left through the window by jumping onto a car with Chloe, rather than just going out of the window? Or am I missing something here.
I'm very confused with this one. The first reports were all stating that Chloe was taken from "her bedroom". The window of "her bedroom" was left open. A car was parked "beneath her bedroom". As it is now obvious that such a room didn't exist, why was this information allowed to be published as fact, and used by the police in their search for Chloe. Even if it was a mistake the first time, surely one of the family would have immediately corrected it.
This bit also caught my attention. "He said he could not help but think of the Daniel Morcombe case"? Daniel was a teenager, Chloe is a 3 year old girl. Daniel was abducted in broad daylight from a bus stop, Chloe has gone missing from her house. I can't see the connection at all? Unless he thinks the ending is going to be the same, that she will be found deceased? Maybe its just me, but it seems a strange connection to make.
All MOO.