IA IA - Elizabeth Collins, 8, & Lyric Cook, 10, Evansdale, 13 July 2012 - #24

[passionflower]

Ok someone with initials AA says he knew Lyric and her cousin..................

 

[passionflower]

also a guy mentions meth........interesting comments for sure

 

[Marilynilpa]

You haven't met my niece.

:banghead:

SS, I'm sorry, but I am finding your flippant comments about sexual abuse of underaged girls very disturbing. JMO

 

[Marilynilpa]

Gary Ridgway murdered prostitutes who willingly jumped into his car.

Completely different to spiriting away two little girls in the middle of the day, in the middle of town.

:cow:

SS, I get the feeling you are deliberately misconstruing my post.

Of course I realize that what Ridgway did was totally different.

I was replying to your post about JJB in which you said, "He doesn't look like he could plan his way to a booze up in a brewery." I was simply giving you an example of someone who, IMO, did not appear overly bright and yet was capable of planning and executing a series of murders over a period of years.

I'm not comparing crimes.

 

[Marilynilpa]

I agree Marilyn.. just thought it was odd out of all the sex abuse cases posted there.. this one he comments on..... honestly first thing that came to mind.. wasn't Lyric and Elizabeth.. but one of their cousins who was being "groomed" by an older guy... do you guys remember that???

There were rumors to that effect regarding one of Aunt Tammy's daughters IIRC.

 

[chelsea6]

You haven't met my niece.

:banghead:

I think she is talking about sexual ASSAULT, as in just because she may be promiscuous, that doesn't mean she is a willing victim, consenting to an assault. No underage girl deserves it when men think... "The way she was behaving and dressing, she asked for it."

 

[danzn16]

I watched the movie Winters Bone and it made me think of these girls. The lifestyles of the adults around them may very well have played into their deaths.

 

[peeples]

There were rumors to that effect regarding one of Aunt Tammy's daughters IIRC.

Thank marilyn, didn't know it was rumor.. I won't bring it up again!

 

[Dr. Know?]

I am wrong about previous arrests. I was spelling his name Browser ha ha.

I can't tell what the actual charges are but they have been recent. Two are for cellular & wireless. The other one has Jt Vict?

https://www.iowacourts.state.ia.us/ESAWebApp/TrialSimpFrame

Someone at CVM said he theft in the 2nd degree charge and was on probation for 60 months.

 

[tlcya]

Drew just posted again. There is also a post by another Collins.

He called him a Tough Guy in his comment, and that was all that was said by drew.....

If this guy had any connection to the girls murders, i would think the comment by drew would be a little different, more harsh???? imo......

Drew states they do not know if this guy has anything to do with the girls case, also states the police have not alerted them to any connections......

Artzy

BBM

You might want to check out Drew's second comment - it's a little more detailed.

I did, he simply states that they have no idea if this guy is has anything to do with the girls case......he states the police have NOT alerted them to any connection, and that they said they would alert them should that be the case.....

Artzy

Yep. He's not too fond of a man who sexually assaults women....especially if he believes one murdered his daughter and niece. He's feeling the rage we have felt case after case here......yet more so, imo.

Right, that was his second comment which you didn't mention in your post - you said all Drew commented was "tough guy". I just wanted to set the record straight by pointing out to you that there was a second comment which I thought you might have missed.

maybe sealed juvie???

These comments from Drew and other comments only serves to validate previous comments by Drew to the press that FOR WHATEVER REASON (perhaps info gleaned via LE OR FBI) that he feels whoever took the girls did so because they were a predator and that the crimes comitted were motivated by a sexual component.

Doesn't proove anything by any means. IMO it only suggests what has already been dbated MAY be true. That Drew feels a sexual predator may be responible for the tragic loss of his daughter and neice.

Nothing more.

Nothing less.

MOO

:cow:

 

[otto]

I watched the movie Winters Bone and it made me think of these girls. The lifestyles of the adults around them may very well have played into their deaths.

Is that the one in the cornfield?

 

[jenandemmie]

It could have been staged to make it look like they drowned. Bikes on path, purse by lake... LE suspected drowning first remember?

Hello all. Longtime lurker, blue-moon poster here. Not an expert by any means but I will earn my BA in Criminal Justice this Spring. My studies have primarily focused on sex crimes, sexual predators, the psychology of sexual violence, forensic investigation/entomology and victimology. I hope to someday work with the FBI or local state police in finding missing persons and those responsible for the ones not found alive.

I totally agree with the idea that staging the bikes and purse in this way would make it appear as if they had drowned, because that is exactly what everyone first thought. This bought the offender(s) a lot of time by keeping resources focused in what I think is a "red herring" area, an area in the opposite direction from where they were eventually found.

I've also given the location and position of the bodies a lot of thought. First, I'm going to work off of the assumption that they were alive and walking upon entering the area where they were found. I am tempted to discard the idea that they were carried in because they obviously still had their shoes with them if the shoes assisted in identification. Flip flops would fall off too easily en route if she was being carried (don't know which one was supposed to be wearing flip flops), unless they were wrapped in something; however, we have no indication that the bodies were in any way covered, or wrapped. 5 months is long enough for complete skeletalization but not long enough to fully erode the most common coverings of plastic, fabric, or carpet. So, for this reason, I'm thinking they were walked into the area on foot.

Now as to the position of the bodies, from the aerial photos we do know they weren't exactly right next to each other, but instead were more than 20-50ft apart at least (guesstimates based on google maps distance legend, please correct if someone knows exact distance). (Graphic content warning #1): While it is true that vertebrate scavengers can sometimes move bodies, that's usually much larger carnivorous animals like very large mountain lions, but even then most still wouldn't. But smaller animals like coyotes are more likely to tear away and snatch a single limb than move an entire body. So I am thinking they were initially separated on purpose, not separated by scavengers. So, what does this say to you in terms of the number of offenders? (Graphic content warning #2): To me it says there were two, one for each offender to have all for himself. If one person had both girls, he (or she, whatever) would have had to keep them close to him to remain in control, by threat of weapon or by threat of hurting the other girl. Further, what motive would he have for dealing with them separately, many yards apart? To take two girls, the psychopathy is likely such that a single predator would treat them as a pair to remain together. He would have no reason to dispose (sorry for the term) of one and then move to a second location to dispose of the other (even if very close by). My thought is that they were separated because (Graphic content warning #3) they were being assaulted separately so as to afford some semblance of privacy for each offender. If this is the case and there are two offenders, then I think we can eliminate a husband/wife or bf/gf scenario because that type of relationship is usually the type where one partner (usually male) is dominating the female and controls her to participate. In this instance the opposite gender pair acts the same as a single predator because the submissive is only acting as an assistant to the main offender. So the distance between the bodies, IMO, instead points to offenders of the same general status and gender, with one not overtly controlled by the other.

As for motive, the distance between the bodies supports my theory that sexual assault was the primary motivation for the abduction. Had the girls simply been executed for drug debt or snitches' payback, why separate them to execute them? Turn them around and shoot them at the same time and get out of there, leaving as little evidence behind as possible.

As for age of the offenders (if in fact there was a pair), then I'm venturing an educated guess that they are younger males (>16 but <25), perhaps a local pair of brothers or best friends, with hunting or fishing experience and a lack of supervision or strict schedules during the summer months. I think older males would have concealed the bikes rather than leave them and risk leaving prints or DNA. Younger males wouldn't have a place all their own to commit the assaults/murders nor to conceal the bodies or the bikes.

Again, just my opinion.

 

[tlcya]

Hello all. Longtime lurker, blue-moon poster here. Not an expert by any means but I will earn my BA in Criminal Justice this Spring. My studies have primarily focused on sex crimes, sexual predators, the psychology of sexual violence, forensic investigation/entomology and victimology. I hope to someday work with the FBI or local state police in finding missing persons and those responsible for the ones not found alive.

I totally agree with the idea that staging the bikes and purse in this way would make it appear as if they had drowned, because that is exactly what everyone first thought. This bought the offender(s) a lot of time by keeping resources focused in what I think is a "red herring" area, an area in the opposite direction from where they were eventually found.

I've also given the location and position of the bodies a lot of thought. First, I'm going to work off of the assumption that they were alive and walking upon entering the area where they were found. I am tempted to discard the idea that they were carried in because they obviously still had their shoes with them if the shoes assisted in identification. Flip flops would fall off too easily en route if she was being carried (don't know which one was supposed to be wearing flip flops), unless they were wrapped in something; however, we have no indication that the bodies were in any way covered, or wrapped. 5 months is long enough for complete skeletalization but not long enough to fully erode the most common coverings of plastic, fabric, or carpet. So, for this reason, I'm thinking they were walked into the area on foot.

Now as to the position of the bodies, from the aerial photos we do know they weren't exactly right next to each other, but instead were more than 20-50ft apart at least (guesstimates based on google maps distance legend, please correct if someone knows exact distance). (Graphic content warning #1): While it is true that vertebrate scavengers can sometimes move bodies, that's usually much larger carnivorous animals like very large mountain lions, but even then most still wouldn't. But smaller animals like coyotes are more likely to tear away and snatch a single limb than move an entire body. So I am thinking they were initially separated on purpose, not separated by scavengers. So, what does this say to you in terms of the number of offenders? (Graphic content warning #2): To me it says there were two, one for each offender to have all for himself. If one person had both girls, he (or she, whatever) would have had to keep them close to him to remain in control, by threat of weapon or by threat of hurting the other girl. Further, what motive would he have for dealing with them separately, many yards apart? To take two girls, the psychopathy is likely such that a single predator would treat them as a pair to remain together. He would have no reason to dispose (sorry for the term) of one and then move to a second location to dispose of the other (even if very close by). My thought is that they were separated because (Graphic content warning #3) they were being assaulted separately so as to afford some semblance of privacy for each offender. If this is the case and there are two offenders, then I think we can eliminate a husband/wife or bf/gf scenario because that type of relationship is usually the type where one partner (usually male) is dominating the female and controls her to participate. In this instance the opposite gender pair acts the same as a single predator because the submissive is only acting as an assistant to the main offender. So the distance between the bodies, IMO, instead points to offenders of the same general status and gender, with one not overtly controlled by the other.

As for motive, the distance between the bodies supports my theory that sexual assault was the primary motivation for the abduction. Had the girls simply been executed for drug debt or snitches' payback, why separate them to execute them? Turn them around and shoot them at the same time and get out of there, leaving as little evidence behind as possible.

As for age of the offenders (if in fact there was a pair), then I'm venturing an educated guess that they are younger males (>16 but <25), perhaps a local pair of brothers or best friends, with hunting or fishing experience and a lack of supervision or strict schedules during the summer months. I think older males would have concealed the bikes rather than leave them and risk leaving prints or DNA. Younger males wouldn't have a place all their own to commit the assaults/murders nor to conceal the bodies or the bikes.

Again, just my opinion.

:welcome: !

I sincerely hope you will consider posting your thoughts on this case, and others, more often.

Great post.

Thank you.

 

[SapphireSteel]

Hello all. Longtime lurker, blue-moon poster here. Not an expert by any means but I will earn my BA in Criminal Justice this Spring. My studies have primarily focused on sex crimes, sexual predators, the psychology of sexual violence, forensic investigation/entomology and victimology. I hope to someday work with the FBI or local state police in finding missing persons and those responsible for the ones not found alive.

I totally agree with the idea that staging the bikes and purse in this way would make it appear as if they had drowned, because that is exactly what everyone first thought. This bought the offender(s) a lot of time by keeping resources focused in what I think is a "red herring" area, an area in the opposite direction from where they were eventually found.

I've also given the location and position of the bodies a lot of thought. First, I'm going to work off of the assumption that they were alive and walking upon entering the area where they were found. I am tempted to discard the idea that they were carried in because they obviously still had their shoes with them if the shoes assisted in identification. Flip flops would fall off too easily en route if she was being carried (don't know which one was supposed to be wearing flip flops), unless they were wrapped in something; however, we have no indication that the bodies were in any way covered, or wrapped. 5 months is long enough for complete skeletalization but not long enough to fully erode the most common coverings of plastic, fabric, or carpet. So, for this reason, I'm thinking they were walked into the area on foot.

Now as to the position of the bodies, from the aerial photos we do know they weren't exactly right next to each other, but instead were more than 20-50ft apart at least (guesstimates based on google maps distance legend, please correct if someone knows exact distance). (Graphic content warning #1): While it is true that vertebrate scavengers can sometimes move bodies, that's usually much larger carnivorous animals like very large mountain lions, but even then most still wouldn't. But smaller animals like coyotes are more likely to tear away and snatch a single limb than move an entire body. So I am thinking they were initially separated on purpose, not separated by scavengers. So, what does this say to you in terms of the number of offenders? (Graphic content warning #2): To me it says there were two, one for each offender to have all for himself. If one person had both girls, he (or she, whatever) would have had to keep them close to him to remain in control, by threat of weapon or by threat of hurting the other girl. Further, what motive would he have for dealing with them separately, many yards apart? To take two girls, the psychopathy is likely such that a single predator would treat them as a pair to remain together. He would have no reason to dispose (sorry for the term) of one and then move to a second location to dispose of the other (even if very close by). My thought is that they were separated because (Graphic content warning #3) they were being assaulted separately so as to afford some semblance of privacy for each offender. If this is the case and there are two offenders, then I think we can eliminate a husband/wife or bf/gf scenario because that type of relationship is usually the type where one partner (usually male) is dominating the female and controls her to participate. In this instance the opposite gender pair acts the same as a single predator because the submissive is only acting as an assistant to the main offender. So the distance between the bodies, IMO, instead points to offenders of the same general status and gender, with one not overtly controlled by the other.

As for motive, the distance between the bodies supports my theory that sexual assault was the primary motivation for the abduction. Had the girls simply been executed for drug debt or snitches' payback, why separate them to execute them? Turn them around and shoot them at the same time and get out of there, leaving as little evidence behind as possible.

As for age of the offenders (if in fact there was a pair), then I'm venturing an educated guess that they are younger males (>16 but <25), perhaps a local pair of brothers or best friends, with hunting or fishing experience and a lack of supervision or strict schedules during the summer months. I think older males would have concealed the bikes rather than leave them and risk leaving prints or DNA. Younger males wouldn't have a place all their own to commit the assaults/murders nor to conceal the bodies or the bikes.

Again, just my opinion.

Thank you so much for this thoughtful post.

However, I do not personally believe this was a sexually motivated crime, indeed the fact that two girls were taken tends to indicate away from sexual offending as a motive.

 

[Marilynilpa]

In that case I would expect it to be a second or first degree assault charge.

Some of these things aren't straightforward.

She may have even lied about her age. Girls do.

:cow:

Since we don't even know the age of the child/girl involved, I think it would be best to assume she was not a willing participant in any way. JMO

 

[Marilynilpa]

These comments from Drew and other comments only serves to validate previous comments by Drew to the press that FOR WHATEVER REASON (perhaps info gleaned via LE OR FBI) that he feels whoever took the girls did so because they were a predator and that the crimes comitted were motivated by a sexual component.

Doesn't proove anything by any means. IMO it only suggests what has already been dbated MAY be true. That Drew feels a sexual predator may be responible for the tragic loss of his daughter and neice.

Nothing more.

Nothing less.

MOO

:cow:

I certainly agree with you.

 

[otto]

Hello all. Longtime lurker, blue-moon poster here. Not an expert by any means but I will earn my BA in Criminal Justice this Spring. My studies have primarily focused on sex crimes, sexual predators, the psychology of sexual violence, forensic investigation/entomology and victimology. I hope to someday work with the FBI or local state police in finding missing persons and those responsible for the ones not found alive.

I totally agree with the idea that staging the bikes and purse in this way would make it appear as if they had drowned, because that is exactly what everyone first thought. This bought the offender(s) a lot of time by keeping resources focused in what I think is a "red herring" area, an area in the opposite direction from where they were eventually found.

I've also given the location and position of the bodies a lot of thought. First, I'm going to work off of the assumption that they were alive and walking upon entering the area where they were found. I am tempted to discard the idea that they were carried in because they obviously still had their shoes with them if the shoes assisted in identification. Flip flops would fall off too easily en route if she was being carried (don't know which one was supposed to be wearing flip flops), unless they were wrapped in something; however, we have no indication that the bodies were in any way covered, or wrapped. 5 months is long enough for complete skeletalization but not long enough to fully erode the most common coverings of plastic, fabric, or carpet. So, for this reason, I'm thinking they were walked into the area on foot.

Now as to the position of the bodies, from the aerial photos we do know they weren't exactly right next to each other, but instead were more than 20-50ft apart at least (guesstimates based on google maps distance legend, please correct if someone knows exact distance). (Graphic content warning #1): While it is true that vertebrate scavengers can sometimes move bodies, that's usually much larger carnivorous animals like very large mountain lions, but even then most still wouldn't. But smaller animals like coyotes are more likely to tear away and snatch a single limb than move an entire body. So I am thinking they were initially separated on purpose, not separated by scavengers. So, what does this say to you in terms of the number of offenders? (Graphic content warning #2): To me it says there were two, one for each offender to have all for himself. If one person had both girls, he (or she, whatever) would have had to keep them close to him to remain in control, by threat of weapon or by threat of hurting the other girl. Further, what motive would he have for dealing with them separately, many yards apart? To take two girls, the psychopathy is likely such that a single predator would treat them as a pair to remain together. He would have no reason to dispose (sorry for the term) of one and then move to a second location to dispose of the other (even if very close by). My thought is that they were separated because (Graphic content warning #3) they were being assaulted separately so as to afford some semblance of privacy for each offender. If this is the case and there are two offenders, then I think we can eliminate a husband/wife or bf/gf scenario because that type of relationship is usually the type where one partner (usually male) is dominating the female and controls her to participate. In this instance the opposite gender pair acts the same as a single predator because the submissive is only acting as an assistant to the main offender. So the distance between the bodies, IMO, instead points to offenders of the same general status and gender, with one not overtly controlled by the other.

As for motive, the distance between the bodies supports my theory that sexual assault was the primary motivation for the abduction. Had the girls simply been executed for drug debt or snitches' payback, why separate them to execute them? Turn them around and shoot them at the same time and get out of there, leaving as little evidence behind as possible.

As for age of the offenders (if in fact there was a pair), then I'm venturing an educated guess that they are younger males (>16 but <25), perhaps a local pair of brothers or best friends, with hunting or fishing experience and a lack of supervision or strict schedules during the summer months. I think older males would have concealed the bikes rather than leave them and risk leaving prints or DNA. Younger males wouldn't have a place all their own to commit the assaults/murders nor to conceal the bodies or the bikes.

Again, just my opinion.

BBM

I think that one perp is still possible. I think it's possible that they were separated by 20-50 feet so he could control them. As long as the one thought the other was okay, she would have been more compliant. 20-50 feet is enough, and clearly if they couldn't get away for 20 miles, they wouldn't have been able to get far at 7 Bridges Park. How long can two remain silent? How long until they do it again?

You might be right about younger. Austin Sigg thought everything through, and he is younger.

 

[Marilynilpa]

Thank marilyn, didn't know it was rumor.. I won't bring it up again!

No problem. BTW, I sent you a PM.

 

[SapphireSteel]

Since we don't even know the age of the child/girl involved, I think it would be best to assume she was not a willing participant in any way. JMO

Well, either way, this guy is not relevant to our girls so I'm not quite sure why we keep going back to him.

 

[otto]

Well, either way, this guy is not relevant to our girls so I'm not quite sure why we keep going back to him.

It's most likely that the person that did this did something like this before. It may have been a sexual assault, an attempted abduction, or maybe an animal killing. It's well worth looking at related criminal activities.