I just reread this and not much is different except the part where her sister in law (Gracie) said that she even checked with the area Quality Inns where she (Emily) sometimes stayed.
I wonder who this man was and how would he know that she (Emily) sometimes stayed at a Quality Inn?
If she does have any of those conditions, mentioning them on WS would be considered victim-shaming, even though it would be a hard, pertinent fact that might help locate her, and even though she is technically not a victim (according to the police) but a missing person. Others have made this point but I'll go ahead and be the broken record: having Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, or a common mental illness that affects one's memory and mental state is not something to be ashamed of. It would explain much, especially in this case, but we are not allowed to discuss these crucial facts on WS due to the, in my opinion, silly, so-called "victim-shaming" policy. End of broken record.
I saw that too and yes perhaps it turned out to be wrong, but have never seen anything debunking it. Considering the state of mainstream media, even if it is a substantiated fact, they will likely ignore and minimize it because it might be considered "victim-shaming." The media is insane in the way they filter facts, witness statements, and reasonable speculation in cases like this. Literally anything that might have a 1 percent chance of eventually making the missing person (not necessarily victim) look bad is filtered out of the discussion. It's gotten to the point where the Emily Wade disappearance cannot be discussed in a productive way here on WS, mainly bec/ several key points are verboten, based on TOC.
Delete
He could be:
Here is a link. Not a man. Her sister-in-law made this on Facebook comment where she is the admin of Bring Emily Home page.
Yes, but if the sister in law repeated it to the reporter from Heavy.....it's just strange and why would she say that?!
Oops, sorry, it was Daily Mail online.
Yes, this one is still in the "original source not yet found" bec/ it's either a man on FB who gave orig info to the sister, or the sister knew it already and thanked a FB poster for saying something that many others apparently already knew. The reporting is convoluted for sure, but to attempt to answer your question, maybe the sister said it to the Heavy folks bec/ she (she sister) either knew it to be true, or believed it to be so. When searching for a loved one, it's pretty common to want to follow all leads, however odd or weird they seem on their face.
Well, I agree but it should be LE checking out these leads and not the family. Don't you think? Sorry, but I think that sounds like something that should be investigated.
Media is all over the place with conflicting info and short-cutting who said what...IMO. Anyway, I see that it's possible that someone mentioned this to the sister-in-law and she agreed to check it out. Then that's the story DM went with.
I agree LE should check it out. That's the sane way of doing it. But we're just bystanders here, reporting to each other what we find and it did appear that the sis said something about checking it out. That might mean she intended to call her LE source and report it. Who knows. Again, I agree with you LE should be doing the checking, but we do have the right to discuss what we hear from media sources, family interviews, etc. Thanks Razz.
