I'm torn on this. I can understand Joan wanting to feel close to her daughter, but keeping all her things in the house - just in case the police decide there may be evidence there? Not sure that's entirely healthy.
A lot has gone on and been said about this case that we ordinary people who are out of the loop haven't heard.
I am sure there are different theories/possibilities/suspects which haven't been proven or ruled out. Some may have been speculated about publicly but there may be others the public haven't heard about, which family are aware of. I can understand the family wanting to keep all possible evidence as safe as possible in case it is useful at some future point.A lot has gone on and been said about this case that we ordinary people who are out of the loop haven't heard.
Jut my speculation:
Claudia's family may feel they have an idea of what's gone on.
Say, that she may have been abducted by someone who was not a stranger and, say, whose DNA may have become attached to property of hers.
But her family don't know if this is actually the case or if it is, which property is important. So they keep it all.
I must admit when I first heard about the missing man in January I assumed his disappearance was a deliberate act (the reporting then was very low-key and gave almost nothing away, which is a hallmark of reporting of suicides in the British media) so my eyebrows were raised whn I saw this story today. What a horrid way to go!
The phrase you cited reminds me of a quote I read a long time ago, such that I no longer remember the name of the Latin American bishop who said it, but he said something to the effect "When I fed the poor they called me a saint. When I asked why they were poor they called me a communist."
Helder Camara, Brazilian archbishop.
Thank you!
Good name for a professional photographer!
Or a photographic equipment smuggler.
Great minds think alike.
There's still no news.
When I think of this one I think of the Tony Parsons case, I don't know why. Scotland, probably. And while we now know that Tony's remains had been concealed on purpose, there still remains the fact that people can be invisible if they crawl into cover, and if anything happens whilst they are under that cover, they may not be found for some considerable while.
A couple of posters on'ere called what happened to Parsons long before his body was found; namely, it's now alleged, a hit-and-run followed by hasty concealment of the remains. Poor bloke.
This sometimes concerns me when I head off out for a long walk with the dog. I start off thinking 'I know, I'lll go to xxx', but when I arrive there it's busy, so I just head off in another direction. If anything happened to me, nobody would have the faintest idea of where to even start looking. They wouldn't even know I'd gone for a walk with the dog (other than that both the dog and I would be missing).
This seems rather telling to me, unless he frequently left such voicemails. Really sad.
Yes, it is odd how they reversed the timings in the article and of course we don't know if it is significant or not. And it doesn't actually help his family to find him which is the most important bit. I just wanted to mention it before people go wild on wondering how he could have got where, when. If he intended to not be found, he may well be somewhere else from where he said he was going.
