There has been nothing in MSM or from LE about indiscretions on BB's part.
From what I understand, the warrant wasn't specific in regards to which parties were having relationships outside of the marriage, but it seems to me that people have focused solely on MB as the guilty party. IMO, they were both having extramarital relationships. .
The SW said evidence of external relationship(s). That structure can mean one or more than one. It's a way of phrasing that doesn't put LE in a corner. So it could very well be singular, we don't know.What we do know is that MB definitely had an intimate relationship according to LE. Nothing whatsoever regarding BB. So why just make that up with no basis?
Respectfully disagree. When LE adds the "s" onto relationship, it means more than one. It could mean both parties. It does not denote singular but it could mean one side of the marriage was having multiple relationships outside of the marriage OR that both sides of the marriage were both having relationships with others. Additionally, I have not seen evidence that MB was having **intimate** relations with anyone outside of the marriage. An intimate LinkedIn **conversation** does not necessarily mean there was a physically intimate relationship.
Unless one knows both parties well enough, everything is just speculation about relationships outside of their marriage. Moo
Incorrect. The "(s)" structure is known as an "optional plural." It denotes "one or more." And no one ever said she had a physically intimate relationship. LE did say she had intimate communications with someone, and that is a "relationship", though not necessarily a physical one. And it is the only external relationship that has been communicated to us.
TxMommy back on page 33 of Thread 19 from two weeks ago basically said the same thing I took issue with today. Quote:
"Can I ask why so many posters seem to have such a hard time with the notion of BB having an affair but have pretty much accepted that MB was having multiple affairs? Is there something in the search warrant that specifies which one of them was having affairs and which one wasn't? Because it is my understanding that BOTH of them engaged in extracurricular activities, so-to-speak."
With no evidence whatsoever of BB having an external relationship, it is just rumor. That is something we are not supposed to bring here.
TasteOfHoney, let me offer another example to better illustrate the "optional plural" and its intent to refer to "one or more":
In the AT&T SW, on p.3 and in section 2, you'll find the phrase "This information is believed to be imperative in locating a suspect(s)..."
This is coming from the same source (MPD) as the other SW which used the term "relationship(s)." The MPD clearly wants to express that they're looking for one or more suspects. They don't know how many suspects are involved. So they want to give themselves some wiggle room that there might be just one suspect, or there might be more than one. So better to phrase it as they did, instead of saying, "locating a suspect."
Same thing with the prior "relationship(s)". They were aware of one, and they mentioned it specifically - the conversations with CW that began in January and continued up until MB's death and turned flirty and familiar and intimate in nature. But at that early point in the investigation, they didn't know what else they were going to uncover. So rather than paint themselves into a corner and mislead someone into thinking there had been a singular external relationship to the marriage, they put the optional plural in there.
Did MB have more than one external relationship? We have nothing to indicate that she did. But we can discuss the one that we do know of, although it would be unfair to speculate that it was physical as there is no evidence to support that. Do I judge or shame Missy for the relationship with CW? Absolutely not. And what is considered "flirty, familiar, intimate" has a wide latitude of subjectivity, so it might not be nearly as intimate to us as it might have been to LE who read it.
But bottom line, we have documentation of some kind of relationship on MB's behalf, and the speculation isn't to judge her but to figure out if the murder was somehow connected. That's fair to do. What isn't fair, IMHO, is to accuse her husband of indiscretions that have no basis whatsoever that we know of, other than local rumor mill. And there is nothing more untrustworthy than a local rumor mill. MHO.