Posted on 04/29/2005 10:09:47 AM PDT by LouAvul
DULUTH, Ga. (AP) - Investigators have taken several computers from the home of a missing bride-to-be to examine e-mails for clues to her disappearance, police said Friday.
Jennifer Wilbanks, 32, was reported missing Tuesday night by her fiance, John Mason, who said she did not come home after her nightly jog in this Atlanta suburb. He said she left with only her radio and the clothes she had on.
Police found Wilbanks' keys, cash, credit cards and identification in the home she shared with Mason.
Chief Randy Belcher said investigators took three computers from the home and were reviewing e-mails.
Officers who searched Wilbanks' neighborhood were also testing several sweat shirts for any connection to the case, though the police chief seemed doubtful. "We've picked up pieces of clothing all over," he said. Authorities said they considered the case a criminal investigation, but police gave mixed signals about whether they believe Wilbanks may have gotten cold feet.
Maj. Don Woodruff said authorities did not believe Wilbanks was a runaway bride. But under questioning from reporters, Belcher later said: "It's a very real possibility she did get cold feet. I mean, how many husbands have gone out for a pack of cigarettes and not come back?"
Belcher said Mason had told authorities he would decide Friday whether to take a polygraph test.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
yah, me too, I can't get past those bulging eyes. What's up with that?
Correct.. as per my post #64..
Of course the police want to interpret the test. The private polygrapher doesn't know what the police know. Therefore, they wouldn't know what questions to ask.
"Innocent until proven guilty" applies to courts of law. If I were on a jury that would be paramount in my mind. However, anyone can have their opinion without your permission.
um, sorry, but Dahmer and Gacy looked like nuts.
"Does anyone have a photo?"
http://www.foxnews.com/images/161975/5_25_042905_mason_john.jpg
Sorry but IMO this is not the facial expression of a person distraught "after" the disappearance of a loved one.
"he should be included in the 'usual suspects' list!"
Absolutely... if the police weren't looking at him as a suspect, they wouldn't be doing their jobs.
Studies have proved that our little voice in our minds turns out to be correct more often than not.
yeah!!!! more invasion of the press during an anguishing family moment for EVERYONE with access to the internet to see!!!
/sarcasm off
Yes, of course. But the problem is that assumes that the Poly will clear you. I will reiterate, that 10% false positives are par for the course.
I don't like those odds. Because if you fail, it won't matter that you're innocent.
I agree about the lie detectors, as there are good reasons for why they are inadmissable.
yep.
Bob Crane killed someone? When? Who?
He is being supported by his family. Being jilted and having to cancel the wedding would look real bad.
Bob Crane killed someone? When? Who?
See post #73 for your answer.
It places suspicion directly on them.
Look at the Jonbenet Ramsey case. Parents lawyered up immediately, and the case has never been solved. They may not be guilty in that case, but the police were never able to move beyond looking at them because there was always a lawyer in the way.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
