This is the just what I was discussing once before. The total lunacy and complete lack of common sense (on the part of the police) in their metamorphosis of a "theory".
The original logic given for focusing on a 14-year-old gifted student who had never been in trouble prior to this, was that the father was an obvious "no", there was no disturbance, and no sign of an intruder in the Crowe home (that phrase is so overused... like a drone... by police everywhere that it actually makes me cringe. It is almost as if you can picture them at the academy, as if in boot camp, being forced to repeat over and over again "No sign of an intruder. No evidence of forced entry."... *shudder*)
So they focus on an easy target... a child. They lie to him about evidence that does not even remotely exist. Of course they can legally do this with adults... but a child will accept what a policeman says without question. That is why it is the LAW that a PARENT be informed of the questioning and be allowed to be present. An adult guardian also can choose to hire an attorney for the child, something the child CANNOT do by law. No one under the age of 18 in most states, 17 in some states, can enter into a legal contract. That is why you do not question a child without a parent's informed consent. It is not only the law... it is a matter of law enforcement ethics.
By the time they got finished manipulating Michael Crowe, they had a total of at least THREE awkward teenage boys fumbling around in this house while the rest of the family slept right through it. They had Joshua Treadway sitting patiently at the dining room table, (in full view of any family member who might wake up to use the bathroom) waiting for Aaron Hauser to "finish off" Stephanie, after her violent struggle with her own brother, so he could then walk another five miles back home.
But there was "no sign of anyone being in that house other than the Crowe family." :bang:
One small... skinny... uninhibited by drug use... seen at every other house on the block that night... prior convicted criminal... absolutely could NOT have managed to breach the Crowe home and stab Stephanie.
BUT... three inexperienced... clumsy by design... two of them exhausted from walking five miles in record time... teenage boys... could have EASILY converged upon the Crowe home and "group murdered" a twelve-year-old girl?? And then waltzed right back out disturbing no one?? A girl, nearly as large as they were... who would have recognized all three of them... and would have almost certainly yelled out their names in an effort to make them stop. Whereas the same 12-year-old child, confronted by a near thirty-year-old man she had never seen in her life, would most likely have been paralyzed by fear, and never got the chance to make a sound.
The original logic given for focusing on a 14-year-old gifted student who had never been in trouble prior to this, was that the father was an obvious "no", there was no disturbance, and no sign of an intruder in the Crowe home (that phrase is so overused... like a drone... by police everywhere that it actually makes me cringe. It is almost as if you can picture them at the academy, as if in boot camp, being forced to repeat over and over again "No sign of an intruder. No evidence of forced entry."... *shudder*)
So they focus on an easy target... a child. They lie to him about evidence that does not even remotely exist. Of course they can legally do this with adults... but a child will accept what a policeman says without question. That is why it is the LAW that a PARENT be informed of the questioning and be allowed to be present. An adult guardian also can choose to hire an attorney for the child, something the child CANNOT do by law. No one under the age of 18 in most states, 17 in some states, can enter into a legal contract. That is why you do not question a child without a parent's informed consent. It is not only the law... it is a matter of law enforcement ethics.
By the time they got finished manipulating Michael Crowe, they had a total of at least THREE awkward teenage boys fumbling around in this house while the rest of the family slept right through it. They had Joshua Treadway sitting patiently at the dining room table, (in full view of any family member who might wake up to use the bathroom) waiting for Aaron Hauser to "finish off" Stephanie, after her violent struggle with her own brother, so he could then walk another five miles back home.
But there was "no sign of anyone being in that house other than the Crowe family." :bang:
One small... skinny... uninhibited by drug use... seen at every other house on the block that night... prior convicted criminal... absolutely could NOT have managed to breach the Crowe home and stab Stephanie.
BUT... three inexperienced... clumsy by design... two of them exhausted from walking five miles in record time... teenage boys... could have EASILY converged upon the Crowe home and "group murdered" a twelve-year-old girl?? And then waltzed right back out disturbing no one?? A girl, nearly as large as they were... who would have recognized all three of them... and would have almost certainly yelled out their names in an effort to make them stop. Whereas the same 12-year-old child, confronted by a near thirty-year-old man she had never seen in her life, would most likely have been paralyzed by fear, and never got the chance to make a sound.
