> When people say they 'don't have social media' it usually is a good idea to check what their definition of 'social media' is. If they have a web presence that they regularly update it doesn't really matter what the label is, it can likely be used to infer a whole bunch of stuff.
They didn't deny having social media. She implied that she did have social media accounts. They said the social media accounts were non-public, aka friends-only.
Hence my point: If their social media presence was friends-only, then it would imply that it's someone in the friends circle who had access to enough information.
I'm not using a smartphone. I have no illusions about my contact list being public because the other side is using smartphones. So you can infer my contact list from other sources. Similar mechanisms apply to other tech.
Anyway, we'll see what comes out. I'm aware of a blackmail case where the perp was very close to the family so I'm sympathetic to your argument, and investigators typically only expand the net when the closest contacts can be ruled out.
They didn't deny having social media. She implied that she did have social media accounts. They said the social media accounts were non-public, aka friends-only.
Hence my point: If their social media presence was friends-only, then it would imply that it's someone in the friends circle who had access to enough information.