However, the timing of taking the kids across the street coincides with her strict 2 pm schedule when the baby would wake up from his nap.As her daughter was not too far from turning five, she was probably old enough accurately report what she saw or didn't see. She didn't see a visitor. So we can probably assume she was hustled across the street before Joan's "visitor" arrived. Joan didn't even give a heads up to the neighbor. This would seem to indicate Joan expected the arrival of someone she didn't want her daughter to see (or just didn't want her daughter involved with in any way). But it also would tend to indicate this was a short-notice visit as she had made no advance plans with the neighbor. Did she not want to have to explain anything to the neighbor? Did she think it would be so brief a visit visit that she'd be back to get the little girls in a few minutes?
I have no memory of whether phone records were checked at the time, but I do seem to recall that back then only long distance calls could be traced after-the-fact. Local calls weren't billed but were instead part of flat fee billing. So it may be safe to assume the visitor was either local or called Joan from a pay phone to let her know he would be coming by.
We also don't know what the kids were up to, for example, if they'd started bickering over something - a wise mother would distract them by quickly changing their location/play focus, but rushed back so her baby wasn't upset and wailing in his crib. Young kids have no memory about their own behaviour.
I believe this was a genuine homicide/abduction. Experienced police officers, then and now, saw/see an authentic crime scene that ordinary people don't know how to stage. Or even if they studied crime scene photos in grainy tabloids of the day, it is an actual bleeding body that produces certain pools/drips/smears, not a cloth wiping blood around.
JMO
Last edited: