Bartholemeus
Former Member
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2013
- Messages
- 1,498
- Reaction score
- 21
OK. Conspiracy theory #1. Frankie is correct, the car never stopped. It slowed down to check her out, and then parked somewhere a little further on, preparing for a blitz attack. Likewise, the story of the men in the car who spot SS before her disappearance also is not real. Both aren't true, which shifts the weight now heavily towards blitz attacks for all 4 girls. The police made both of these things up for the CIA documentary to make the CSK believe they are looking for a taxi driver (or the like) scenario where the girls willingly got in the car. They also make up the story about MM to make the CSK believe they're looking for the wrong guy. At the end of the CIA doco, the policeman says he wants three things to occur: 1. Driver of the car that drove past / near SS (behind the one with the guys in it) to come forward 2. MM to come forward 3. Owner of the car stopped talking to CG to come forward. In actual fact, all 3 of these things are red-herrings and don't exist. After all, if MM is a red-herring, why not the other stuff?
Thoughts?
There are 3 options with CG
1. There was a car. CG got in. (pick up theory)
2. There was a car, saw CG and possibly had quick conversation, parked up further ahead and waylaid her (blitz theory)
3. The CSK didn't drive past and was always laying in wait for a victim (similar to Karra victim) (blitz theory)
Red Herrings
There's a school of though MM is a red herring based on the camera work. A few posters here heavily analysed it and Sutton determined an approximate time interval the Conti's CCTV system would switch views. It was then determined that police likely had a front view of MM.
Let's consider what Macro want to achieve by the CIA doco;
1. Maximum exposure
2. A specific, focused and well tailored campaign. They wouldn't have gone for a generic blanket approach. They would have chosen a few things they want to focus on
3. A call to action from the public
If we assume that's what they set out to do then let's match it to the doco;
1. The decided releasing some new information would get widespread public interest. The MM video certainly achieved their goal
2. Who knows but there's a school of thought that they were parading a POI to see if anyone would ring in and provide info
3. They asked for the drivers of those two cars to come forward
Now let's consider the other two apparently "new" bits of info;
Neither really lead the public to believe the focus was on someone else. I can't really see a purpose for saying cars were witnessed when they weren't. I also can't see a reason to fabrictae the part about MAP. Of course this is the part where they could have been implying to the CSK they had someone else in their sights, but this doesn't really match what it appears they were trying to get out of the campaign.
Also consider Stanbury was reasonably new at this stage. He would have started from a top down approach and would have made a genuine public appeal for new info before he resorted to a trickey campaign directed towards the CSK.
I can't see any reason to make that stuff up but on the other hand, it does bother me why it took Macro 12 years to release the car info. You'd think if they had that info they would have released it earlier?