- Joined
- Dec 16, 2009
- Messages
- 222
- Reaction score
- 1,991
There are numerous ways to play Mahjong.Supposition is that mahjong needs 4 players, so 4th must've been the boy. JMO
I even play it solitaire fyi
There are numerous ways to play Mahjong.Supposition is that mahjong needs 4 players, so 4th must've been the boy. JMO
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
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.
IMO this very much sounds like a situation where it would have been better to say "I'm don't have that information" than "I'm sure we have" but I also don't envy his position having to speak extemporaneously in a stressful situation, so I understand some poor choices of words and mistakes.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 imo
She hasnt surfaced. They have received ransom notes. There would be no point in murdering her or holding her without getting money in return. The ransom notes are real. What if she suddenly turned up before the money was paid? She hasnt. The ransom notes are a direct result and authored by the kidnapper or his collaborators. jmo
Maybe because that call never took place? He avoided saying yes or no for a reason. IMOso strange to me. Yes, why would he not have memory of such a critical and absolutely necessary piece of information
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...
A poster in here just posted a New York Times article that stated a churchgoer did call the family when they noticed Nancy wasn't in her pew. NYT is fairly legit.
I would believe them any day over DM.
From the New York Times Feb. 8, 2026 Updated 3:52 p.m. ET: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.
According to this info, she was expected to be seen sitting in the pew at church.Hi there, I checked the NYT article you mentioned. It was last updated today at 3:52 pm ET. Here is a gift link so you can read the article yourself.
Here's the relevant part about the church member:
This notification was removed from the official timeline. Don't know why. I have asked several times, so assume unknown to public.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.
I do have one theory but it's out there and I myself think it's not what happened. But it could be a potential explanation:Like others, i realised quickly that the Sheriff was a little scattergun in his phrasing and probably wasn't meaning some of the things he was saying as literally as a) the media and b) the public would read them. But even if you toss the detail about a bit, the comment about the alert and the church can't really be interpreted in any way other than "the family received an alert from someone connected to the church which set this whole thing off in the morning".
Either Sheriff made it up entirely (improbable), he didn't get the detail quite right (hard to see how the relevant substance of the comment would change in a significant or meaningful way with a little tweak to detail), the known details of the church service or event she was planning to attend that day are simply wrong, or that's what they believed at the time but investigation revealed something which made them snip that right out of timelines and avoid further discussion for some reason.
I can't believe anyone would just make that story up knowing very well that these things would be checked by LE. There's something to it though, and I really want to know what it is.
Nope. You understood.KOLD is the local CBS affiliate in Tucson, AZ. They are owned by Gray Media, based in Atlanta, GA. Am I misunderstanding your question?