wow... what a great question interviewer asked!!!Drew and Heather have not met the hunters who found the bodies.
Let me ask this so I may be sure...Drew suspects(but does not know for sure) that an RSO is responsible?
forgives the person who murdered her child but not her sister..
hmm...Heather seemed to agree when the interviewer said "I assume the bodies had been there for quite some time". I think I got that quote close to correct.
I'm operating under the assumption that the family was told a bit more about the discovery of the bodies than the general public was told, of course. As is sometimes the case
That is sad, isn't it. Wonder if deep down she blames her sister for all of this. I just don't get it how she can forgive the killer but not her own sister - when her sister is hurting just as much![]()
That is sad, isn't it. Wonder if deep down she blames her sister for all of this. I just don't get it how she can forgive the killer but not her own sister - when her sister is hurting just as much![]()
Wow...this is something.
This is the most confirmation we've had so far that it was not a random abduction.
If the girls were found clothed, sexual assault is even more unlikely.
Me too.
Forensic linguistics indicate that (based on the snippets posted here) Drew and Heather have an excellent idea who is involved, but clearly cannot say so.
My next logical question would be...were the parents told that the girls were found without clothing on? Their clothes may have been in the area of the bodies, but just maybe not on the girls. It is interesting that he would suspect a sex offender. (As opposed to retaliation Against Dan theory)
Are all RSO's DNA in Iowa entered into a database? Just curious...