I think she called herself the "babysitter" also as a reason to have Shannon away from her parents. I could call her something much worse than a babysitter but I don't want to get a T/O. This woman is an oportunist. I'd like to know how much she had to do with the parents before Shannon was born or did all of her contact start then?
I agree here. I get the sense that this woman who had no known children of her own, had a preoccupation with others' children. But, since she has been convicted of child abuse and is the main suspect in the disappearance of her step-son, it seems fair to say her preoccupation with children was not a positive one. So far I don't get that she is a thrill killer or specifically wanted to grab kids to kill them. However, I can see many possibilities: 1. Controlling and likes to interfere in others' lives. 2. Jealous of people with children. 3. A person filled with rage who likes to take that rage out on those who cannot defend themselves, like little kids. 4. A bitter person who is angry about her past conviction, her current position and somehow tries to ruin others' lives to make herself feel better.
SB sent the letter to the governor, knowing she could one day publish proof that she had been "concerned". She then refused to speak to the media much, except for giving them the letter to the governor she wrote, stating that LE told her not to talk or the baby could be harmed. They refuted that saying they have told no one not to talk to the media. (She also may have fed her niece things to say on line in order to further frame the couple).
I think this woman either tried to get the child removed, out of some sick sense of pleasure it might give her to hurt them and when that did not work, kidnapped the child in an attempt to frame them. Or, she planned to kidnap the child all along and the letter was an attempt to frame the couple. If the latter, what was the purpose for kidnapping the child? Possibly a Munchausen type of personality who wanted to stir up problems for others and insert herself as the "hero" of the story, who tried to prevent the current tragedy. Maybe she wanted a kid to vent her frustrations on with an alibi. I hope it's not the latter but her use of the past tense when describing Shannon (I loved that child), bothers me.
I agree with those who think she may have inserted herself into the family, offering to babysit, asking to take the baby, etc., and took advantage of these people who apparently have cognitive issues and limited intellectual capacity. Again, why? Perhaps because she likes the sense of control and power it gives her. Perhaps due to an obsession with children, who she can control. If SB took this baby, I think we are dealing with a complex and very twisted person.
And, I do think it was SB. Early on, before the sleuthers ferreted out the connection with SB and Paul Baker, some said: "My gut tells me the parents did not do anything". I thought about that. There was no evidence pointing away from them at the time and no reason to (otherwise) feel sorry for the parents, no psychological reason I could see that could influence posters' gut feelings. Thus, those posts struck me. I felt they may be right but I wasn't sure why.
Knowing what we do now about the parents' seeming earnestness about caring for their child, being better parents, their possible gullibility due to intellectual disabilities, and the pure evil of someone in their midst who has already abused children, I think, more than ever, that those early posters were right.
Could it be that SB just coincidentally got linked to case of foul play because she was worried about possible abuse in the home of little Shannon? No way. Abusers don't suddenly start caring about kids, IMO.
