When someone goes missing, commentators speculating on who might have caused the person to go missing does not hinder search and rescue efforts.
Blogs publishing the information, including the statements from the family, are helping promote the missing person's plight, with often family not caring whether the coverage is positive or negative, as long as it "gets out there."
When the husband of Leanne Bearden spoke to the press, it is presupposed that people will have an opinion on his words. It is part of human communication: do we believe someone or not?
In Statement Analysis, the presupposition is innocence. This is not a judicial or moral stance, it is a principle of Statement Analysis for the purpose of discerning guilt.
We presume innocence and seek to put ourselves into the subject's own shoes, giving voice to what we might say under the circumstances, particularly, where they may be doubt. For example, if people thought you had something to do with your wife's disappearance, what would you say?
I would say that I didn't.
This is the "Expected" in Statement Analysis.
We find this in cases where someone is, for example, accused of murder and the subject will say anything and everything but "I didn't do it..." ranging from the sensitive responding to a question with a question, "How could you think this of me?" to the future/condition tense (usually coupled with minimization) such as "I would never harm my wife..." and so on.
"I didn't cause my wife's disappearance" is plain, simple, and easy to say.
"I caused my wife's disappearance inadvertently because we argued..." which is very different than saying "I caused my wife's disappearance inadvertently because she argued with me..." which uses the distancing word, "with" between people The former uses the word "we", which shows unity and cooperation.
If my wife was missing and I had hope I would say that I would not give up searching until I found her.
OJ Simpson said he would search for the real killer for the rest of his life, leaving no hope of success.
John Ramsey said that they would search for the rest of his life, leaving no hope of success.
If I did not have hope, I might say something else.
These types of comments are not expected and in Statement Analysis, we are confronted by the "Unexpected"; such as Justin DiPietro not calling out for his missing daughter, Ayla. This is not expected if we assume innocence.
This is what Statement Analysis does.
People who comment on a newspaper article, or on a blog do not stop police from searching. They do not harm nor impede the investigation. Statements to the contrary are concerning.
When someone calls in a fake tip, as do hundreds or perhaps even thousands of people who claim to have "psychic" powers, it can impede search efforts because they send police on tangents. Doing so, not in good faith, can lead to criminal charges, as we now see in the Heather Elvis case. If someone posts fake documents, for example, or finding of evidence and not turning it over to the police.
In short, "buzz" is good.
People talking about the missing person, regardless of what they say, is good.
What is expected is that the spouse of a missing person, for instance, will seek out all publicity possible, for his wife's name and face to be firmly implanted in the public mind.
Publicity for the missing person is good. False information is not.
Discussion and speculation keep the interest high. We are a nation which thrives on the "who done it?" mentality, as evidenced by the myriad of "CSI" like television shows, which leads to people contacting police departments as "experts" advising police based on tv.
With the public, just a bit of patience and understanding can go a long way.