I did earlier tell you that I could not get an independent verification of that, and that another source reported it as a brother. Later I told you that it appears to have been Gaddy's brother, not Mae's brother.
They may agree on an action, but for completely different reasons. No way for us to know, and the reverse could be true. It is also true that people are known to change their point of view, which makes the entire situation fluid.
It would be a major step forward for those here with a fixed picture to admit that perhaps there is more to this than any of us know.
'tis the nature of the forum, and is a human weakness to be imprecise in expression, to jump to conclusions, and sometime, to be snippy about it.
I think you'll agree that our exchanges have been civil, and that the thrust of them has been to illuminate the questions and issues, the gaps in the reports, if you will.
And I've been forthright in letting readers know my bias (as if it isn't clear!), while speculating that even if the first story is true, and even if Mae is starved/dehydrated to death, the law will find no inexcusable wrong.