I wanted to mention that my most recent post may have implied a bit of paranoia. Like "they are out to get you," and that sort of thing. That wasn't my intention. But they are out to get someone (they being law enforcement officials), and the point was that if you do end up in court for any reason, what you say will be used against you. Obviously, if you don't end up in court, it won't.
Don't underestimate the chances that that someone will be you, though. The police stopped looking for other suspects after taking Kirstin Lobato into custody, even though there was a far more likely scenario at work with Dianne Parker. As I wrote on my last post, the glaring discrepencies between the facts of the crime and Kirstin's statement were ignored in favor of what did fit their supposition.
Speaking of supposition, I am going to go into one now. It is just an interpretation, something I've been thinking about recently, nothing more. There is no forensic evidence to back me up (so in that respect I'm just like the prosecution that pointed the finger at Kirstin Lobato). But I think that Dianne Parker's potential connection was worth looking into by the police. Although they did look at her as a suspect, she was forgotten after they had Kirstin in custody.
Dianne Parker was raped by the victim, Duran Bailey, days before he was killed. Earlier on the day of the rape, Duran had slapped her in the presence of a Hispanic construction worker, which Parker referred to as a Mexican. Whether that was his nationality or not, who knows? The investigation never went in that direction - and not because they had excluded the possibility, but because they had found a new suspect in Kirstin Lobato, and began concentrating all investigations on proving she had done it.
Anyhow, the day Parker was slapped by Duran Bailey, this unnamed Hispanic took him outside and told Bailey to leave Parker alone. Later that night, Bailey raped Dianne Parker, and she reported it to the police. After the police came to talk to her about the rape and before Bailey's murder, it was likely that a number of people knew what was going on. One Hispanic male heard a conversation with the police, and a Hispanic female witnessed Parker screaming and trying to escape Bailey the night of the rape - but did nothing.
Now, there a few things that I am going to mention about Hispanic culture. I am Hispanic myself, and so when I generalize it is not to stereotype in any way, but to report my observations. I've had plenty of interaction with Hispanic culture, in Florida and California, and during my marriage. So, let's just be clear here. I know what it is I'm talking about.
So, first, Hispanics living in close proximity to one another talk a lot amongst themselves (and it appears there were a number of Hispanics living around Dianne Parker), and more freely than they do to others, especially when they are from the same country. So, given the evidence and testimony provided by the court transcripts I have read, and knowing what I know of Hispanic culture, I would stake my reputation on the following two statements: (1) Almost every adult Hispanic living in the area of the same national origin (probably Mexico...it is Nevada, after all) knew about what happened to Dianne Parker soon after the rape and (2) she wouldn't have had to say a word to them for this information to spread like wildfire.
The other thing I have to say is about Hispanic men in particular. It involves machismo, which is being macho. Because there are some subtle differences that are rooted in Hispanic culture, and to make this easier, I will be referring to Hispanic macho as "machismo" and Western macho as simply "macho" even though linguistically they don't make much of a difference. But whereas your typical macho is more allied with Darwinian natural selection...proving oneself the most manly man for women to select from...machismo is more proactive and slightly territorial. It has more to do with the domination of women than it does the superiority of their manhood (or rather, their superiority over other men). So while largely the same as a typical macho behavior pattern, it is tilted differently nevertheless.
A fairly famous example would be Antonio Banderas. If you've ever seen one of his movies, you may have noticed an aura of "male superiority" in his demeanor in pretty much every scene with a woman he has ever done. In part, this is because he is typecast to culture so often (and machismo is a big part of many Hispanic cultures), but he acts that way so naturally that it is hard for me to believe it is not natural to him - and I have no reason to believe it isn't. Now, he does have charm, and so his machismo comes off as being more chivalrous and less apparently domineering, but you can still see the slightly condescending air and cool I-could-take-you-whenever-I-chose-to-do-so confidence that is representative of the superiority complex so often portrayed by machismo.
Macho and machismo do share many traits: an exaggeration of traditional masculine roles for the purpose of affecting women mentally or emotionally, a need to prove one's superiority, and perhaps most important of all in this case, reputation. I said before that machismo is a little more territorial than your standard macho demeanor. Their motivation does not need to be sexual in nature, but rather a drive to prove male domination over all women in one's territory. And in this role, males tend to see themselves as protectors of a woman's interests, no matter what kind of macho you're talking about. Of course, it is what they see as being in a woman's interests, and has nothing to do with whether she herself sees it that way, but that's kind of beside the point.
So, it is not very hard for me to imagine that a Hispanic male who had just warned Bailey to leave Dianne Parker alone would take the news quite badly when he found out later Bailey had raped her. While it would be ridiculous to say all Hispanic men possess a strong attitude like machismo, it remains likely that he could perceive it as a direct assault on his manhood, his ability to protect, and given the widespread communication in a localized Hispanic community, his reputation. Because, just as I believe the local Hispanic community knew about the rape, I am also certain they knew about the slap, and the Hispanic man's reaction afterwards. Also, Dianne Parker stated that she wanted to protect the identities of Hispanic men in the area because she thought they would have illegal immigration issues. If this was true, then we're not talking about people with Americanized culture, but rather people who have been born and raised in an area where machismo is more common and acceptable.
For a Hispanic male with a strong sense of machismo, such a violation of a woman is completely unacceptable. And when I say unacceptable, I mean that in a very, very severe way. Possibly murderous. And even if the man who spoke to Bailey about slapping Parker had nothing to do with Bailey's death, there is a very strong liklihood that someone else in the area felt that it was their duty as a male show Bailey what being a man is all about, especially since they all seemed protective of her...which is something I would not be surprised to see with as many Hispanics in the area as there were.
My supposition is that Duran Bailey was killed as a response to his rape of Dianne Parker. I don't think she did it herself, and I am inclined to think she didn't even ask for it to happen. But Bailey didn't kill and mutilate himself, and the people close to that area would have had motives that Kirstin Lobato did not, as well as a lot more opportunity. Either way, the police should have investigated further.