I asked why the police might say they don’t suspect foul play in BT’s disappearance.
We’ve covered trying to get the suspect relaxed so he trips up, but at the same time we’ve polygraphed the guy and told him he flunked (which would freak him out), so they kind of blank each other out as the guy thinks he’s a suspect.
Potential reasons; they suspect he’s done something but can find absolutely nothing yet (many days in). Not even a blip on his cellphone or timeline, but they’re hoping to uncover something.
Anyone got anything else?
IMO in most adult missing persons cases, unless there is evidence right from the onset (i.e., blood drops, bedding is missing, history of DV, etc.) which makes LE immediately suspicious. The investigation will start off with an assumption of "no foul play". But the story RT gave must have given some cause for concern, especially since she wasn't found in the first 24 hours. We know they gave him a poly, so while that may be routine in cases where the spouse is the last person to see the MP. It also gave them the opportunity to see his reaction to the hard questions.
In this case, SAR worked for 10 days trying to find her with no luck. I think now the investigation has likely progressed to a different stage. They are looking at bank records, home and cell phone records, life insurance policies, interviewing family & neighbors, business records, etc.
I've seen cases where LE will stick to the no foul play comment up until a body is found. Every department, region and state is different.
I think this stage of a case drives WSers a little nutty. We start re-hashing the re-hash and arguing about inconsequential details.
I've written a long winded post about pretty much nothing, lol
