To be honest, I really don’t want to continue this line of inquiry. I don’t feel it’s important to argue over what police did or didn’t do. It’s not my intention nor advancing Marion’s case. Like I said, I believe police should be relied upon, they do the best they can, and this case is complex.
This began because I vocalised my frustration at all the evidence we’ve lost because Marion was initially dismissed as a willing runaway. Now that case is being reviewed as potentially more sinister, evidence is long gone. This still holds true and I’ve provided sources along the way.
It was not a contentious statement, yet I was corrected by a couple of people who believe my frustration was unwarranted (perhaps even insulting?) because it’s been 'established' that police did everything they were supposed to do in the beginning, resulting in police being confident Marion had been found.
I’d argue that despite what police did or did not do in the early stages, I’m still allowed to feel frustrated at the lost evidence.
Also, many on this thread don’t agree it’s been ‘estabished’ Marion was satisfactorily found. I feel the need to exercise caution, not because this particular issue is vital, but because the rules of the page require sources when things are claimed as ‘established’ and fact. Still, not a single link has been provided. It’s unfair to get agitated at people for believing the information that is in MSM and podcast while providing no sources to the contrary.
So, I repeat my original position: I am frustrated at all the evidence we’ve lost because Marion was initially dismissed as a willing runaway. Now that case is being reviewed as potentially more sinister, evidence is long gone. It sucks. I'm out.
