Substituting "family" for "we" in both places that's the way I read it.
I'll do some research on this later but I concur with this exactly. We didn't get this idea from FR, we got it from everything we've read and heard in the media on the subject. It is the police blinders that have led some to another conclusion.
The police have not in the past and will not in the future tell us or the media everything they are or are not doing.
The point is, it doesn't make a damn bit of difference either way whether Ed initiated, the SLCPD approved, or Ed initiated without their fore knowledge. The end result is the same and it is that very result that is important.
We know from the O'Reilly/Klaas interviews that Klaas/Boylan were not allowed to proceed - during the period when Ed was hospitalized. We also know from Boylan herself, in spite of the Klaas conjecture and inuendo, that police sometimes have very valid reasons for not producing sketches. She repeatedly complemented the SLCPD/FBI for their handling of this very issue.
Why is it that the when and why of how she came to be there, is more important than what she had to say? Why should we put more weight on words from a month ago of Mark Klaas who had access to ZERO evidence in the case than we should the words of Boylan who has been able to interview the key witness in the case? In my opinion your focus is misplaced.