I just listened to the interview again, and it makes my heart hurt. I'm 98.3% positive that baby Joshua's family had nothing to do with his disappearance. If any of them are reading this, again, I apologize for the judgments I made initially.
I jotted down a couple of issues/thoughts that came to mind when I was listening, I can't wait to read other people's take on the issues...
*drinking-I am now wondering just how drunk JD and the family "friend" were. Did LE note how drunk JD was in a report, or was he not drunk at all and only drinking earlier as he said. A 24 oz beer is not really that much alcohol, I can drink 2 beers (12 oz) and about 2 hours later be perfectly fine to drive again.
*using the bathroom outside-This may sound weird, but in the cold freezing weather, wouldn't that be hard or painful for a man to do? Why would you use the bathroom outside, when there is a working bathroom inside that you've probably used on numerous occasions?
*delay in forensics-is NBPD guilty as charged? Did they really not talk to the family "friend" until the next day, when he was the ONLY person not accounted for at the scene when the crime was reported? Also, did they really wait a few days to take the truck and have it examined? I mean, a lay person would probably miss cleaning certain spots or fibers, but to give a person a chance to hide or clean evidence is irresponsible.
*language-people are making SUCH a big deal about the way the family speaks "the baby" or speaking in past tense. If you notice though, at least SB says "the grandfather" "the godmother" etc. Who knows why she says it. We know nothing about her education level, whether English was her first language, etc. I understand their reasoning for speaking in the past tense. It's not something people do on purpose, and it is interesting, but I'm not sure it really matters in this case. Like the aunt says, she is speaking in the past tense because baby Joshua is not here NOW (in the present).
*bucket and tarp is a nonissue (?)-it had blood on it, and as JD explained, it was animal blood. Only time will tell if that's true, but it's a very plausible explanation, and it's a story that is easily confirmed or denied.
*no scent-this just reconfirms what we already knew. Baby Joshua's scent was not found outside of that yard. By any of the 3 or 4 different sets of dogs who looked for him.
*crying at certain points-I can't ignore how emotional SB was, and at one point JD as well. I was crying listening to SB, and I don't think anyone could fake that. People try to fake it, and it comes off as whining or you can catch that it's not authentic (think Susan Smith)
*LE hush mode with the parents-I'm starting to question in my mind if LE has screwed up at some point. Why not keep the parents informed, their child is missing. Even if you suspect the parents, you are probably keeping them under some type of surveillance or phone tapping, so tell them what's going on and see where it goes. If the parents are innocent, and the NBPD is treating them as the parents allege, then it's shameful.
*the FAMILY FRIEND-I don't like the term "hinky meter" lol but this family friend has my hinky meter going HAYWIRE! Police did conduct searches near his home though, so I'm not going to say that they ruled out the family friend completely.
*Nancy Grace was edited?-this is kind of off topic, but I really thought the show was 100% live, just with a 7 minute delay. I think this means that the transcripts from Nancy Grace should be considered "rumor" as well.
*her story hasn't changed-she's telling the same story basically. All the time. There are minor variations in wording/timing/etc, but that's expected. If the story were verbatim each time, then that'd be kind of weird.
*honesty about the beer-JD was honest about it, and he could have denied it. The family friend, nor the police, are going to come out and contradict his story at this point. I think he's being honest and speaking candidly about a lot of things when he doesn't have to be.
*DWI-I can't find out if this family "friend" had a DWI or not, but if the kid comes from money, then it wouldn't surprise me that it was swept under the rug or sent for diversion of some sort.
*drugs-someone earlier posted that SB answered this question fast. She actually did not. She simply said NO and that was all. How can a person pick more from that than what was there? She was asked is there an issue with drugs in the home, she said no. Then she was asked if she or Joshua takes drugs, she said no. So what?
*there's no way this family is outsmarting all of those agencies. NO WAY.-I am not speaking badly of the family, but they don't seem intelligent enough on their own to be outsmarting the FBI, the Texas Rangers, and the NBPD. The Texas Rangers are an elite LE agency...elite. Now, the family "friend" on the other hand, could be outsmarting those agencies with the help of his affluent family or lawyers. That's just my opinion.
*she wasn't off partying all the time-that tells us a little about her parenting, even though she's a relatively young mother. So barring an accident, I can't really see why she'd want the baby gone. No one can deny, in all of his pics, he looks like a really happy baby. Well taken care of, like the aunt said, and healthy. He doesn't look abused, scared, or malnourished. Motive plays a big part in these cases...so if a plausible one, and not one based on rumors is presented, my mind might change...
*to ask the question about J (the aunt) using the past tense was so insensitive, I love the Bring them Home show, but could they not stand to be a little more compassionate?
*she reminds me SO MUCH of my sister in law. She sounds exactly like her, even pronounces words the same way.
That's all for now; I've typed a book I'm sure. Still going to keep positive thoughts and prayers for baby Joshua. Everything above is JMO
