Advertisement

Tuesday, May 30, 2017

The Unsolvable Mystery


Pictured is a recent photo of the home where Tara Grinstead lived in 2005.

The Unsolvable Mystery

We're never going to know what happened to Tara Grinstead.

If you're reading this, you're probably one of the thousands of people who are intensely interested in solving the mystery of what happened to her. We're not going to solve that mystery.

Oh, we might have a strong suspicion or a flawless theory of what happened in Ocilla on the week of October 23, 2005, but we'll never know for certain if our suspicions or our theories are true. Someone will always have a competing theory, and probably, our theory will be propped up on speculation and rumor.

There won't be a smoking gun. There won't be photos or videos that spell out exactly what happened. There won't be an eyewitness who saw it all.

Or at least, the only eyewitnesses will never be fully believed because we'll suspect they were somehow involved in her death and its cover-up. And maybe they were.

I'll give you an example of how difficult it is to actually know something in this case. In my last blog entry, I asked the public to help me learn the 2005 address of Ryan Duke and Bo Dukes, the two men accused of crimes in association with Tara's death. According to stories that have emanated from Bo and his girlfriend, Brooke Sheridan, Bo and Ryan were roommates at the time Tara went missing.

People were more than willing to help with my request, as I got more than half a dozen responses from people about the address. Unfortunately, I got four different locations: One in Wilcox County, one in Fitzgerald, and two in Ocilla.

I haven't had one "eyewitness" though. Not one person has said, "I went to their house several times, and it was..." wherever. So unless such a person comes forward, how can I know which is the real address?

Even if Ryan or Bo told me where they lived, I wouldn't necessarily believe them, which is a situation we've run into with the case overall. No eyewitnesses have come forward, and we don't seem to believe Ryan or Bo.

Maybe that's because we're taking their stories, or what we've pieced together of their stories, together, as one integrated whole, when they should be considered separately. Maybe we're taking two conflicting narratives and expecting them to make sense, when their conflicts make the stories wholly incompatible.

More on that in a bit, but for now I want to express why the address is important to me.

If they lived in Wilcox County, it would cast doubt on Bo's apparent assertion that Ryan left their house to go to Tara's home in Ocilla after everyone passed out at their house, and also it would cast doubt on stories I've heard about Ryan being too "messed up" to remember details about what happened to Tara. It's hard to imagine a 21-year-old driving close to 30 miles after partying with his friends, and it's also hard to imagine he would not have sobered up after driving 30 miles and after the harrowing, adrenaline-filled events that would have transpired at that house.

I doubt they lived in Wilcox County though.

If they lived in Ocilla, it would mean Tara's house was within walking distance of their home, although neither possible location was particularly close to Tara's home. If they lived in Fitzgerald, or anywhere outside of Ocilla, it raises questions about how Ryan or anyone else got to Tara's home, although Bo has apparently said that Ryan took Bo's white truck. If someone drove to Tara's house, they had to park somewhere, which opens up a new line of questions.

All of these things may factor in to the possibility that Tara's car was driven somewhere that night, as certain clues or potential clues seem to point toward her car being driven after she came home from a barbecue some time after 11 p.m. October 22. For instance, I can imagine a scenario in which someone who walked to Tara's house might panic after she died and might have taken her car to go get help. Since that person might also have fished through her purse for the keys, and his fingerprints could have been left on both, that might explain why both her keys and purse were stolen and missing.

It's hard to flesh out any theory of what happened to Tara without knowing where Ryan and Bo lived. But even if I learn where they lived even somewhat conclusively, my theories will just be theories. The only people who know what really happened are the killer or killers, and we don't seem to believe them, so we'll never really know.

And I doubt that will satisfy many people out there.

After three months of theorizing and speculating about the case since Ryan Duke's arrest, the online community that has arisen about this case is still flourishing, but instead of eliminating possibilities like an investigator might do, the community seems to take every opportunity to introduce new possibilities. If this was a game of Clue, and the answer was that Colonel Mustard was the killer, I somehow think many in the online community would decide Mayor Mayonnaise hired Judge Juniper to do the deed and framed Colonel Mustard for it.

A pragmatic, realist friend of mine has been wary of this wheel of speculation for a while. He said that people don't want the story to die. He's right. The Tara Grinstead mystery has become, for good or ill, an important aspect of the lives of many people. For some, it is the center of their social lives, and if there was nothing to talk about, no new facet of the case to mull over, they would have to face the scary task of finding something else to do with their time.

I'm guilty of it myself, at least to some degree. And even if I wasn't, I would certainly be guilty of being one of the main people fanning the flames of the fervor surrounding the case. I've introduced a lot of the fodder for these online discussions and offline speculations.

Although I've tried, and sometimes failed, to present information in a rational, responsible way, there's an old saying about the road to Hell and good intentions. This was never more true than with the guy the community has taken to calling "Buddy" and the list of names that apparently came from his suicide note.

In my last blog entry, I wrote about how someone released the list to a private discussion group but that it was immediately leaked to people on the list. I wrote about how I wished the list had not been released publicly, even in a "private" group. I cautioned people that we didn't know the context of the list, and I expressed my concern about dozens of amateur investigators tearing apart the lives of people who were probably not involved in any way with Tara's death.

But I also wrote extensively about Buddy, and while I presented reasons to disbelieve his story, I inadvertantly poured fuel on the fire. I knew I failed to make my points clearly enough when someone commented on Facebook asking me for a link to the list.

I saw people saying the people on the list should just come forward. They said that the fact that they don't come forward is suspicious. It's not. Just because you think coming forward might be the best thing to do, even if it's what you would do, it's perfectly reasonable to be afraid of what the public response would be to speaking publicly about your inclusion on the list.

I think many or most people on the list are confused about their inclusion. They don't understand it, so how can they explain it? How can they defend it?

If someone on the list went on Up and Vanished, denied having anything to do with Tara's disappearance, but gave the very unsatisfactory answer of "I don't know" to question after question about the list, do you think the public would believe them? If you do, you haven't been paying attention.

Most people I've interviewed about the case want me to hide their identity because they know instinctively that going on the record can be a gamble. It's easy to sit back as an uninvolved person wanting answers and expect people to answer the questions you have, but it's another thing entirely when you know that coming forward can have deep repercussions on your life.

Consider Marcus Harper for just a moment. He attempted to explain his innocence on national television, yet he was still hounded by allegations for more than 11 years, enduring everything from public accusations to YouTube videos analyzing what his speech sounded like when played backwards. Coming forward did little to clear his name even though he was innocent.

Meanwhile, I've seen where people who were clearly not involved in Tara's disappearance were interviewed and have been vilified just because one person or another thought they were "sketch af" in their interview. I actually had to defend a friend who I don't think even lived here when Tara went missing because someone thought his wife's Facebook friends were suspicious. Not his Facebook friends. His wife's.

It doesn't take much for someone to seem suspicious to some people these days. Do you really think someone on the list talking publicly would clear his name when there are people who seriously believe that Bo Dukes' past talk about his love of Jim Beam whiskey is a coded reference to someone with the initials JB? That's an actual theory that has been circulating in online circles this week.

This isn't Mission Impossible. This probably isn't some vast conspiracy. It's a small town murder, and even though it is a complicated one, it's probably not as complicated as the rampant speculation and endless rabbit holes are making it seem to be.

After my last blog post, suddenly many people were more convinced than ever that Buddy knew something about what happened to Tara. I saw, and was dismayed, that some people were convinced that every person on the list knew something about what happened to Tara. We don't know that the author of the list knew anything, much less the people on his list! In fact, if I was pressed, I'd guess Buddy probably didn't know anything, but there's no way to be sure.

Even if Buddy did know something, which is possible, I sincerely doubt all or even most of the people on the list knew anything. Many of the people were close friends of Buddy, and most of them were not known to be close friends with Ryan Duke or Bo Dukes. In fact, members of Buddy's circle of friends and members of Bo's circle of friends were involved in a bloody fight against each other in Mystic in 2004, so it seems more likely that they were enemies than friends. I've heard that some people from those groups refuse to speak to each other even today.

I should note that I've never heard that Buddy, Bo, or Ryan were involved in that fight. I only bring it up to point out that it seems highly unlikely that Buddy's friends on the list were involved in some conspiracy with Bo or his friends.

Last week, someone publicly released the list of 16 names for everyone to see on the Up and Vanished discussion board. Dr. Maurice Godwin, who I was told was the original source of the list, also said that the complete list contains 18 names, and he hinted at the name of one of the undisclosed names on the discussion board. I've also heard that some people who thought they were on the list were not on the list, while some who were on the list were never interviewed by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, which I had thought had investigated the people on the list.

All of this just makes me less convinced the list is meaningful.

But people are convinced that people on the list knew something... based on what? Gut instincts? Let your guts try to solve an algebra problem for you, and you'll see why Sherlock Holmes used his deductive skills instead of instinctive hunches.

Just because we don't understand something does not make it suspicious. It just makes it unknown.

We need good reason to be suspicious. We need stories with origins. We need reliable information. We need facts, and in the absence of facts, we need theories that make the puzzle fit together without the need to create a bunch of fantastical new pieces.

If someone out there had the complete story, if they knew every detail about what happened to Tara and knew everyone that was involved and what role they played, they could tell their story on the Up and Vanished discussion board or a similar online forum, and people would be fascinated with it. For a few days. Then they would add in their own theories and speculation, or they would find reasons to argue about it, or they would move on to other theories entirely.

I've already established that we're never really going to know what happened, so the idea that all the speculation is going to solve the case is, unfortunately, a fantasy. I'm not saying that it's completely without merit. The online community and its speculations have helped me personally narrow down my theories greatly, but one day I hope to arrive at a conclusion about this case, while the community as a whole probably never will. Individuals will, but probably not the whole community. There will always be a new or forgotten aspect to explore, a new rabbit hole to run down.

So, we as individuals, me included, need to use some foresight and compassion knowing that we're only really pursuing our own conclusions about the case, not truly solving it. We need to understand that our actions aren't necessary and that they have repercussions.

I've heard it said on several occasions that Tara was the only real victim in this case, but, with all due respect to her, that's simply not true. Family and friends continue to shed tears for her loss. For more than a decade, innocent men like Marcus Harper lived under a specter of suspicion. Now, these people on that list are suffering a taste of that same bitter suspicion, and most or all of them are probably just as innocent.

Although I was disappointed by the effect of my last blog post, at least some good came of it. An old friend of mine who follows the case heavily was gung ho about investigating people on the list, but he told me that after reading my blog, he decided not to pursue his sleuthing. To know that I had that kind of positive effect on someone meant as much or more than all the kind compliments my writing has received these past several months.

I realize that I've become an important voice in this case, and I hope I can do more good than bad with that voice, so hopefully more people will read and will leave the people on that list alone and come to treat the case with a softer touch and a bit more rationality.

To that end, I've going to do something that my pragmatic friend would appreciate: Present a simple solution.

You see, at this point, regarding what actually happened to Tara and the motive, I've narrowed down my theories to two. Basically.

There's a lot of wiggle room in both theories, and they don't really even touch on things like Buddy or the fire on Snapdragon Road or whether a pond or fire at a party were involved.

One of the theories has a lot of missing pieces, so I'm not ready to write about it. In fact, I may never be willing to write about it, even if I can't eliminate it as a possibility. Honestly, I may never get past these two theories, but then both of them could be wrong, and I might have a new theory next week if I learn something new.

What I will say is that the theory I won't write about depends on the idea that Bo Dukes is not telling the truth because the theory I am writing about is the possibility that Bo may be telling the truth or something close to it.

Judging from all I've read, I don't think people have given that idea much credence or considered it very deeply. I think people want Bo to be guilty of more than the GBI alleges. There's a general impression within the community that Bo is a bad guy that cannot be trusted.

He is a convicted felon who stole from the U.S. Army while he was serving, so he's no prince, and he seems to have admitted to burning a woman's body, which is a truly reprehensible act. But that doesn't mean he's lying. Some would say the Devil himself would tell the truth if it suited his purposes, and Bo, for all his faults, is not the Devil.

And there are compelling reasons to at least consider that he might be telling the truth. First, the GBI seems to believe him, at least to some extent. Second, it's possible that the GBI gave him a polygraph test, which, if they did, I doubt he failed it if the GBI was willing to give him a deal and base its case on his testimony.

The GBI must have interviewed everyone who was told by Bo through the years and many people close to both Bo and Ryan. They must have checked phone records and other evidence that might have corroborated his claims or disproved them. Yet the GBI continues to believe him, as I've said, at least to some extent.

Further, Bo's text messages to his friend, Dustin, that were revealed through Up and Vanished are consistent with the story his girlfriend is telling. Assuming that Bo and Dustin didn't set it up for their text messages to be revealed, Bo would not have likely expected his friend to betray him, but the story remained consistent. Although some collusion between Bo and Dustin is possible, and I've heard Bo is very smart and even manipulative, I doubt Bo is the type of Machiavellian criminal mastermind to plot such an elaborate, and not particularly necessary, scheme of text message deception.

And if Bo is making up his story, why include specific details such as that Bo did not see Tara's body until days after she disappeared. Brooke Sheridan, Bo's girlfriend, said on Up and Vanished that Ryan told Bo and their other roommate that he killed Tara, which regardless of whether the roommate confirmed or denied that claim to the GBI, why would you include such a falsifiable detail if the story was made up? It would be easier and more sensible to not mention the roommate being told if it wasn't true instead of introducing a point that could be denied by the roommate and could jeopardize the GBI's trust in Bo.

As I said in the beginning, I think we mesh Bo's story with what Ryan supposedly has said, and it doesn't make sense to us, but Bo's story could make sense on its own. Unfortunately, based on the arrest warrants and the indictments, the GBI seems to be meshing those stories together, too, so that leaves us all doubtful. Something feels wrong.

For instance, the indictments allege that Ryan broke-in to Tara's home to commit theft, but that doesn't make sense to us. Why would someone target Tara's small home when there were other more affluent homes in the immediate area? But Bo seems to have said that he doesn't know what Ryan's motive was. That too sounds doubtful, but it is, to me, less unlikely than the GBI's allegations about Ryan's motive.

Then we've heard stories that Ryan claimed to hit Tara, while Bo seems to have said strangulation was the manner of death. The prosecution, perhaps playing it safe, alleges that Ryan used "a hand," which would pretty much be true no matter what happened. Although it is possible that someone could die from a punch, I personally find strangulation to be more plausible.

To me, the glaring problems we've heard about the GBI's allegations must stem from Ryan, not Bo. In fact, in some ways, what we've heard from Bo is more believable than the GBI's allegations, but the GBI needs its allegations to fit whatever admissions Ryan may have made so they can use them against him in court.

Now look, I'm not defending Bo in any way. As I've said, I think it's possible that his story is full of lies or half-truths, as the other theory that I'm still considering is nothing like what he has said. I think it's highly possible that there's a kernel of truth to Bo's story but also important details left unsaid or large swaths of events entirely omitted. But to my hopefully rational mind there is no reason right now to eliminate Bo's story as a possibility, and like it or not, there are reasons to believe it could be true.

I hope that people out there will give some consideration to a simple solution, even if we find the source of that solution to be personally distasteful. Like you, there's a part of me that wants Bo's story to fall apart because I'm afraid he will walk away from this horrible crime without jail time, but just because we want him to be a liar doesn't mean he is lying.

I heard a story recently where someone had talked to a member of the GBI before the gag order was in place. This someone said that when all is revealed everything is going to be remarkably simple. Well, it's hard to imagine that what actually happened in this case was in any way simple, but it has to be simpler than some of the things people are imagining.

Unfortunately, we'll never really know.

Bo Dukes and Ryan Duke are innocent unless proven guilty in a court of law.



19 comments:

  1. Unfortunately the people who really need to read this piece probably won't. You are so right when you say that for some people this case has become the centre of their social lives. I think some of them don't even want the case to be closed because they have become so obsessed. Everyone is innocent except you and me, Dusty. (And I'm not even sure about me anymore.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not innocent in this instance either, Callie. I've gone too far sometimes, I've encouraged others to go too far, accidentally or otherwise, and I've done things I wish I could take back. I was obsessed with the case, too, though more so before the arrests than since, honestly. Thank you for what you said though. I appreciate it.

      Delete
  2. I can't help but feel scolded after reading this blog entry. You asked people for information in your last blog entry and now you are mocking them for it being wrong? It feels like you are backtracking in this entry compared to previous ones. I understand if that is the case since you live in Ocilla....however, that does not mean the entire public has to do it with you. I do agree that it is very wrong to hunt down people on a list which has been unsubstantiated. I guess in summary, I wish you could have told us your thoughts without making people feel like they were being hit on the hand by a ruler from their teacher.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I didn't mock people for giving me wrong information, if you're talking about the different addresses I was given. I was only using that to illustrate the frustration of trying to know anything for certain in this case. At times, I was scolding though, for people going too far with the people on the list and for taking ridiculous ideas too seriously like the Jim Beam thing. Maybe I was too harsh, but I took the tone I did with purpose even knowing it would cost me readers. I wanted to get the attention of those I thought were going too far, and if it gives them just a bit of pause, it was worth it.

      Delete
  3. The indictment did not mention theft. Research GA felony burglary...it has nothing to do with theft.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The arrest warrants did not mention theft. The indictments later did. The indictment for burglary alleges that Ryan Duke entered Tara's home with the intention to commit theft. I personally don't believe it though.

      Delete
  4. I think it is natural for folks to speculate on a high profile case. They do it from probably a concerned and thoughtful place, no need to brow beat folks for not believing what one party says. Furthermore, law enforcement accepting one side's story does not make it true.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Speculation is OK, but speculating about people publicly and suggesting they are criminals is not. Dozens or hundreds of amateur sleuths tearing apart innocent people's lives is not. There are people out there doing far worse than simply speculating and doing far worse than brow beating. And it's not about accepting what one party says, but it's problematic that perhaps the most complete story we have is given little attention by a public that would rather promote more fantastical stories with less evidence or testimony to support them. Law enforcement accepting one side does not make it true, that is true, but when law enforcement and the Grand Jury seem to think there is enough to the story to pursue a trial, then it ought to be a story we should consider, too.

      Delete
  5. I don't follow the latest on Tara's case enough to keep straight who is who, but just as a general comment I think the claim of entering for theft is on basis of being able to prove it even if it's not what actually happened.

    You mentioned a few posts back a rumor about the killer entered her home at night more than once to watch her sleep. (I didn't look that up again to confirm so that's an IIRC). That actually is much more likely what happened, and she woke and he couldn't keep her quiet. Theft that can at least be pointed at (took her purse etc.) is what they would go with versus some sort of stalking breakin that adds unnecessary weakness to case even if claimed in a confession.

    The hand is again I think one of those practical charges. To claim murder by weapon, be it anything from gun to poison, requires some basis for it. There is none. Whether confession or not, all that is left is death at the hands of the charged.

    But the common claim of strangled by hand is in my opinion difficult enough to consider unlikely. A more likely scenario is an accidental death. If the scenario is as presented, and she woke up, he is likely to have wrapped his arm over her mouth and around her head and might have broken her neck for example, or hit her head with an object to knock her unconscious and killed her.

    But hands wrapped around her neck strangling her, a more literal death by hand, very unlikely.

    rd from justiceforchandra.com

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree that I think parts of the indictments, such as the theft allegation and the use of the word "hand," are because the prosecutors are attempting to keep their case strong. I think they might not really know why Ryan entered the house, if he entered the house, and I think they might not know how Tara died, but they are crafting a story that can be argued using the evidence, regardless of whether it's the actual truth. Thanks for reading.

      Delete
  6. Well if you thought things were bad when you wrote this article, take a peak at the UAV board now. The conspiracy and cover up theories are getting more and more outlandish every day. In the past you've generally supported the LE and leaders in your town and downplayed your belief any type of cover up. You still feel that way? If nothing else this will make an excellent (or two) in your book. Keep up the good work.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you. Until I learn of evidence of a cover-up, I'm not going to believe in one.

      Delete
  7. Thanks for keeping up with this blog Dusty, it's a great supplement to the podcast and media coverage.

    A few thoughts... first, assuming Bo is intelligent, it would not surprise me at all if he re-told a lie to as many people as possible to make his story seem credible and consistent, as eager as he seems to be to tell it.

    Second, as to why he (or they?) would rob Tara's house over others in the neighborhood, I remember a few episodes ago there was a new witness to come forward to say that Tara's car was missing from her home late that night. If Tara had gone somewhere on her own accord after the bbq, it would be pretty obvious to a passerby looking to rob a house that no one was home, making it a much better target than a more affluent one with occupants (highly likely that late at night).

    Furthermore, her dog was in the back yard, which her neighbor said was only the case if she wasn't home (and I highly doubt Ryan would have put the dog there, that's a tough looking dog that would probably bark or run away if he tried after murdering her).

    This all leads me to think that he (or they) maybe tried to rob the house, then she came home not long after to discover them, and Ryan murdered her out of fear of being caught. He (they) left the phone to avoid being tracked, and the rest of the story we all know.

    That leaves a big question: where would she have gone after the bbq?

    Anyway, you all keep up the good work, it's our only hope of ever finding out what really happened.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You make some logical points with sound reasoning. I think a good liar will use as much of the truth as possible to make them seem honest, and it wouldn't surprise me if they used it as often as possible for the same reason. The issue of the car being missing and when/how someone might have broke in is complex. Tara could have gone somewhere with her car or someone could have taken her car after the murder or the witness could be mistaken. I've spent a lot of time thinking about the idea that someone might have already been inside when she came home, as this makes claims that a credit card was used to enter more believable. And it's a good point that if there was clearly no car home, it would make the home a better target, but probably only if someone knew she lived there alone, and if they knew she lived there, then the burglar was to some degree targeting her. But the idea that someone was inside her home already works just as well if she didn't go anywhere after the bbq, as they could have broke in at 11 p.m. and then she arrived at 11:15.

      Delete
  8. While I do agree with you on the fact that, at this point, almost anything can be true (including Bo's story). I don't see how you can still trust/have faith in the GBI to have done/be doing their due diligence. Just as you assert, "why would you include such a falsifiable detail if the story was made up?", when referring to Bo claiming Ryan told him and a roommate, I have to question, why would people claim to have talked to the GBI about these same narratives weeks after the murder occurred? I would think that would be easily refuted as well.

    There may not be some grand scale cover up, but it is well within reason for people, yourself included, to question the actions/investigation of the GBI. Because many of the things that have come up since the beginning lead me to believe that they were either not doing a good job, or purposefully hiding things.

    In regard to the list of names, I think there is a disturbing amount of people that have come forward at this point claiming to have known or heard about the murder. If even one of them ends up providing information, I think it leads to further questioning of what's going on at the GBI. Because if they supposedly vetted the entire list of names, how did they not get a single morsel of information from them over the last 12 years, until now?

    Hopefully this doesn't sound argumentative, more trying to engage the discussion. Anyway, keep up the good work. What you have been doing has undoubtedly helped the case get to where it is now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's hard to say the GBI did a good job when it took this long to solve, but it's also hard to point to one specific area where the GBI failed either. This case could have been solved in 2005, but the GBI didn't get the key information it needed then because it was never shared with them. The great failing I see in this case, as far as law enforcement is concerned, is communication. Local law enforcement obviously did not share all of its tips, such as the tip about Ryan Duke in 2005. With our computer systems today, it would seem like a system could be devised where any information about a case is input into a case file that can only be accessed by the case's investigators, but that information should also be easily searchable. Anyhow, thanks for reading and commenting.

      Delete
  9. Keep up the good work Dusty, great blog post. It is driving my crazy on the UAV board that anyone who posts an opinion against Payne or against the theory the Bo Dukes is lying and is this huge monster gets immediately attacked. You are not allowed to have an option on there that Bo/Brooke may actually be telling the truth, or that the names on the list have nothing to do with the case. I almost came to the defense of a poster, that I thought everyone should be entitled to their own opinion, but knew I would be attacked so what's the point? In my opinion the narrative Bo is telling is probably the closest to the truth than we have heard. However, I don't believe that he doesn't know how or why RD did it. Thanks again!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I gave up on posting there. It's disgusting how heartless some are... to dissect the lives of innocent people all for entertainment purposes is just shameful. Sure, they can say they are acting that way to get justice for Tara, but they are not, at all. I bet Tara would be appalled to see how people she cared about have been drug through the mud and treated so harshly by some of the callous posters there. I think you were spot on when you called them out with this post, and have the utmost respect for your willingness to take some of the blame for feeding the frenzy. Some people there seem to genuinely be seeking the truth, but many don't. Instead, they delight in making up morbid theories they try to justify in irrational ways, caring not one iota about the innocent people and families they hurt in the process. I think those people are pathetic and should probably find some real live friends and get a life. somebodysmom

      Delete
  10. "If they lived in Wilcox County, it would cast doubt on Bo's apparent assertion that Ryan left their house to go to Tara's home in Ocilla after everyone passed out at their house, and also it would cast doubt on stories I've heard about Ryan being too "messed up" to remember details about what happened to Tara. It's hard to imagine a 21-year-old driving close to 30 miles after partying with his friends, and it's also hard to imagine he would not have sobered up after driving 30 miles and after the harrowing, adrenaline-filled events that would have transpired at that house."

    Can't tell you how many times I have said that very same thing on the discussion board at UAV.

    ReplyDelete