AZ AZ - Adrienne Salinas, 19, Tempe , 15 June 2013 - #4

[margarita25]

I think we need more pictures of Pooley, just to make sure he's keeping the case active.

 

[Tonto]

But is it really pushing the timeline, Tonto? If he left at 5:07 and turned down Hardy to see if she was there, there doesn't have to be any time limit does there? From that point on he wasn't seen. He had all night long to get his story straight.

Yes, but remember - her phone went dead a minute after the 5:07 call. He would have had to leave, pick her up, disable her, and disable the phone in a span of one minute.

If I'm reading into your theory correctly, that is.

 

[margarita25]

Adrienne, lots of people looking for you, sweetie. Trying to bring you home.

 

[MissDemeanor]

Yes, but remember - her phone went dead a minute after the 5:07 call. He would have had to leave, pick her up, disable her, and disable the phone in a span of one minute.

If I'm reading into your theory correctly, that is.

How do they know that 5:07 call went to her voicemail?

 

[cluciano63]

How do we know he had no alibi after 5:08 or so?

 

[MissDemeanor]

How do we know he had no alibi after 5:08 or so?

Daddy would have already told us.

 

[Tonto]

How do they know that 5:07 call went to her voicemail?

While they haven't confirmed that it went to voicemail, they have confirmed that it went dead. Either way, that leaves a minute.

Again, if I am understanding you correctly. I've been thinking hard tonight, so my ears are smoking and my logic is perhaps a bit slow to form.

 

[margarita25]

Daddy would have already told us.

What's Daddy's alibi?

 

[MissDemeanor]

While they haven't confirmed that it went to voicemail, they have confirmed that it went dead. Either way, that leaves a minute.

Again, if I am understanding you correctly. I've been thinking hard tonight, so my ears are smoking and my logic is perhaps a bit blurred.

But it has been confirmed that he said he tried to call her at 5:07 hasn't it?

And wasn't the father quoted as saying the call went to voicemail?

All I'm saying is how do we know that. How do we know he didn't reach her and she said I"m almost there and he said I'll come get you. Then her phone went dead. Battery or whatever.

 

[cluciano63]

No one asked him if his son had another call, if his shift ended, or anything. They only talked about the calls. But of course, LE must know. I really hope they are having data retrieval done on the GPS, if possible, to see where else he drove after leaving the store. Or checking videos all over town, which would take months...or longer.

 

[cluciano63]

Yes, it was said he called her at 5:07 and she did not answer. Assuming this is confirmed.

 

[MissDemeanor]

No one asked him if his son had another call, if his shift ended, or anything. They only talked about the calls. But of course, LE must know. I really hope they are having data retrieval done on the GPS, if possible, to see where else he drove after leaving the store. Or checking videos all over town, which would take months...or longer.

The father was quoted initially as saying that his son went to the AM/PM and waited a while for her and then he "went home".

 

[cluciano63]

I am guessing they (the drivers) are always at home when not on calls. Especially at that hour.

 

[MissDemeanor]

I must be making it too simple. LOL

Occam's razor!

It really does seem so simple to me. He was right there at the store. She was one minute away. He left.......saw her......

 

[MissDemeanor]

I'm sure they have to sleep sometime. I would think their shifts would be over around 5 or so.

 

[Tonto]

But it has been confirmed that he said he tried to call her at 5:07 hasn't it?

And wasn't the father quoted as saying the call went to voicemail?

All I'm saying is how do we know that. How do we know he didn't reach her and she said I"m almost there and he said I'll come get you. Then her phone went dead. Battery or whatever.

Right. The 5:07 call is not what bothers me in your scenario. It could have either gone straight to voice mail or she could have picked up and chatted with him. No biggie either way.

However, her phone went dead a minute or so later. If it went dead on its own - battery or whatever - that would have had to have been a monumentally unfortunate coincidence considering what she was soon to be in store for. I just don't believe in those kinds of coincidences. Well, it's not that I don't believe in them, I just don't think they are statistically probable.

In other words, under these circumstances and within this context, her phone was more than probably turned off by whomever took her.

 

[MissDemeanor]

haha Tonto! See, it's much easier for me to believe that then it is he went behind O'Reilly's and caught her and stuffed her in the trunk and then went over to the AM/PM and sat there just so he would be caught on the video.

 

[cluciano63]

Sometimes the easiest answer is right. But then random predators often just wait for an opportunity too, i.e. Mickey. In this case, I am not thinking of the driver as a "random" since she arranged to meet him.

I can't help but think that a video exists, or existed, but that it was not found in time, either taped over, or unviewed by a business owner.

 

[MissDemeanor]

Well, I'm pretty much out of theories now. This seems like the most likely scenario to me. But of course I don't really know what happened.

I can only imagine.

JMO

 

[Tonto]

haha Tonto! See, it's much easier for me to believe that then it is he went behind O'Reilly's and caught her and stuffed her in the trunk and then went over to the AM/PM and sat there just so he would be caught on the video.

You're free to think that your scenario is more likely, but we've spent the past 2 threads painstakingly examining why the theory you are mocking is more than reasonable and perhaps even probable.

If, that is, he was not on video the whole time at the AMPM, and that was her on the videotape.