mikeshanty
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2026
- Messages
- 172
- Reaction score
- 1,276
Is it one of these two?If you find it, could you link it? I've been trying to locate it but can only find the most recent one.
Is it one of these two?If you find it, could you link it? I've been trying to locate it but can only find the most recent one.
Possible LE is making moves as media and public are focused on super bowl. JMOWhat? I don’t understand.
I probably missed it, but has it been definitively said that the son-in-law took her home alone? I thought they changed it to "family" which had me confused because originally I thought they did say it was the son-in-law? It keeps changing and I can't keep up on the thread so any clarification would be so appreciated!!! TIA.I have made a post that explains things more clearly. We have been announcing to use initials only. Here is the latest post that hopefully clears things up once and for all.
Let me address this.Considering a million or so people are suspecting or outright accusing him of murdering his mother in law for money, he’s smart to maintain privacy.
Everything he did would be discussed incessantly online, as this thread demonstrates.
It’s not the norm for Websleuths to allow it.
There is nothing normal about this case. The son-in-law may have been the last person to see Nancy alive. The sheriff has not cleared anyone, and he has also stated there are no “prime suspects” at this time.
Because no one has been cleared, discussion is allowed...
She has sensationalized the story, she has not offered a single ounce of empathy or sorrow for someone who was once her former colleague, she has allowed unfounded speculation to run riot. I don't doubt she is "reporting the story" but it is undignified the way she has carried on when most of SG's colleagues are giving her some dignity and space right now.
If a murder case is filed it would be by the local authorities. Kidnapping would be a federal charge and investigated by the FBICan anyone explain why the sheriffs department would be there, but not the FBI?
It would be dumb for them to lie about something that could be so easily verified as false so I wonder why they would.
Couldn't they have just stated they decided to go visit her for lunch?
Is that the earliest one? Because I can see the FBI person there and I thought there was an earlier press conference without the FBI like this one: (click "Watch on Youtube", it might not show up here)It's here:
Sheriff: We were told she was left at her home by the family. At 11:00 in the morning the family got notice from somebody at church that she was not at church. They went to the home found her to be missing. That's that's the timeline. From Saturday night 9:45 we'll say to Sunday morning 11:00.
Question: Have you interviewed the people that reported her missing? The people from the church?
Sheriff: That's the family. Oh, from the church as well. We're doing all kinds of interviews. Yes, I'm sure we have.
We don’t know.just want to be very specific commenting on this following paragraph. Is there any question about the underlined???? I THOUGHT that LE had talked to the churchgoer.
Is this true, or not???? I thought we had learned that LE had talked to the churchgoer????
if Nancy didn't go in-person to church and if LE can't get a name from the family about who notified them, this is a red flag. Also, the cell phone of the family member contacted would show a call came in from somebody at church at the time they reported receiving the call.
God, this is such a very very important question. We really do need the answer to this.Anybody know if LE had talked to the church person who had contacted the family? I have never heard that LE had talked to the church person but could may have missed it.
And I think the dependency on AD&TC was thrown out the window early on ."Church member called family because she was concerned NG wasn't in church" is no longer on the LE timeline. Agree with Masked Woman that we are totally dependent on AG and TC for this critical part of the timeline.
There are numerous ways to play Mahjong.Supposition is that mahjong needs 4 players, so 4th must've been the boy. JMO
I really don't think she left her house alive.Who thinks that this elderly lady is still alive?
Imagine there are several different theories they are testing. Looking for evidence by thoroughly examining her car, her daughter and SIL's house, etc.Maybe they have different theories they are testing, and need to see if evidence supports them? Such as she never went home, and home was staged? MOO
I'm sorry but I am not here to engage in a discourse about MK. I am here to discuss the case.The first sentence is untrue. She has offered empathy and sorrow...I listened to it. Agree to disagree about MK's eporting, but plenty of her former colleagues have reported on this story.
So by saying " yes I'm sure we have " means at that moment he did not know personally and based his answer off of assumption imoIt's here:
Sheriff: We were told she was left at her home by the family. At 11:00 in the morning the family got notice from somebody at church that she was not at church. They went to the home found her to be missing. That's that's the timeline. From Saturday night 9:45 we'll say to Sunday morning 11:00.
Question: Have you interviewed the people that reported her missing? The people from the church?
Sheriff: That's the family. Oh, from the church as well. We're doing all kinds of interviews. Yes, I'm sure we have.
We may be dependent on AG & TC for that, but I certainly hope that LE asked them who called and double-checked that with call records, interview with the person who called, etc. The removal from the timeline probably does reflect a problem with that account, but we don't know for sure."Church member called family because she was concerned NG wasn't in church" is no longer on the LE timeline. Agree with Masked Woman that we are totally dependent on AG and TC for this critical part of the timeline.
Same.I really don't think she left her house alive.