christine2448
Retired WS Staff
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2005
- Messages
- 10,389
- Reaction score
- 384
It doesn't add anything to the statement or story for me either.We have her coming back from the residence alone consistent with the friend and friends family, Scott said. We cannot put her to the main street here or to the street in front of her house. This wasnt somebody who said she saw someone who looks like (Lindsey) or might have been; she was very confident it was Lindsey because she knew her and was on her way to work.
I know a lot of us have agonized over the above quote and I got to staring at it myself this morning. It's an odd statement for LE to make, and it leads me to wonder if it is a misprint or misquote altogether. It's wasted words. The statement that the person knew it was Lindsey is one thing, but why mention they were on their way to work. That adds nothing to the validity of the statement, why say it?
Sorry, I just can't understand.
I'm finding all of this very interesting. I just wish some of it struck a stronger cord so there would be an "aha" moment.
The astro charts for the perp said he may be a laborer, working with the land and one who is physically fit...but vain. This is a big logging area and most, but not all loggers are muscular in stature.
As to layoffs in the area...we have had tons of them all over. Any other time and that might be a strong clue, at this time however, it describes over a third of the population, if not more.
Do you see anything about how the perp may dispose of the body, if that is what has come to play?
I ask because there was a sighting of Lindsey in Capital Forest (10-15 min drive from McCleary) on Saturday, June 27 that was unconfirmed. Then late in the afternoon on July 3rd, there was a fire started in Capital forest that is believed to be an arson. It was started in an area that was recently replanted after having been logged. http://www.q13fox.com/news/kcpq-070309-capitolforestfire,0,2450231.story May be nothing but a coincidence, I'll let you decide.
We have her coming back from the residence alone consistent with the friend and friends family, Scott said. We cannot put her to the main street here or to the street in front of her house. This wasnt somebody who said she saw someone who looks like (Lindsey) or might have been; she was very confident it was Lindsey because she knew her and was on her way to work.
I know a lot of us have agonized over the above quote and I got to staring at it myself this morning. It's an odd statement for LE to make, and it leads me to wonder if it is a misprint or misquote altogether. It's wasted words. The statement that the person knew it was Lindsey is one thing, but why mention they were on their way to work. That adds nothing to the validity of the statement, why say it?
Sorry, I just can't understand.
But where did the unconfirmed sighting come from?
We have her coming back from the residence alone consistent with the friend and friends family, Scott said. We cannot put her to the main street here or to the street in front of her house. This wasnt somebody who said she saw someone who looks like (Lindsey) or might have been; she was very confident it was Lindsey because she knew her and was on her way to work.
I know a lot of us have agonized over the above quote and I got to staring at it myself this morning. It's an odd statement for LE to make, and it leads me to wonder if it is a misprint or misquote altogether. It's wasted words. The statement that the person knew it was Lindsey is one thing, but why mention they were on their way to work. That adds nothing to the validity of the statement, why say it?
Sorry, I just can't understand.
We have her coming back from the residence alone consistent with the friend and friends family, Scott said. We cannot put her to the main street here or to the street in front of her house. This wasnt somebody who said she saw someone who looks like (Lindsey) or might have been; she was very confident it was Lindsey because she knew her and was on her way to work.
I know a lot of us have agonized over the above quote and I got to staring at it myself this morning. It's an odd statement for LE to make, and it leads me to wonder if it is a misprint or misquote altogether. It's wasted words. The statement that the person knew it was Lindsey is one thing, but why mention they were on their way to work. That adds nothing to the validity of the statement, why say it?
Sorry, I just can't understand.
Talking here about the person who first saw Lindsay walking back home on Maple, now also confirmed as the same person who had sent Josh home 1/2 hr earlier from behind the Shell gas station on the other side of 3rd st.
You are probably right. It was a confirmation she knew the time because of her work schedule.I thought it was to confirm the time she saw Lindsey. She knows it was Lindsey and she knows it was at 9:15 because she was on her way to work.
Wasn't me who posted about an unconfirmed sighting, but I'll go look around and see if I can find anything.
First I've heard of it, actually
You are probably right. It was a confirmation she knew the time because of her work schedule.
I hope LE checked her vehicle. She admits she was on her way out of town and is the last person to see Lindsey.
Supposedly this woman was a "friend" of Lindsey's family. This would mean the rest of her family probably did know Lindsey. Could she be covering for one of them?Sorry for the snip. OK, so if not the witness, could the suspect be a member of the witness' family, or a customer, employee or someone who delivers items to that Shell station and overheard that Lindsey was going to be on her own at that point?