GUILTY CA - Erin Corwin, 19, pregnant, Twentynine Palms, 28 June 2014 - #8

[truthbeknown]

So just to refresh our memories--mb didn't call 911. It was the water guy who heard about her being missing and then called 911 when HE saw the car. That's what we hear on scanner. Does anyone know HOW MB actually got involved and gave his statement to the police? Did he just happen to see them all there and he then drove over to see them and gave his statement? We have not heard anything about the water guy again. Just mb. Not sleuthing mb just looking at different things that we have not yet talked into the ground. . Wish there was 1 new tidbit.

Could MB and the water guy be the same person? Just a thought

 

[moonbeams]

could mb and the water guy be the same person? Just a thought

whoa!

 

[Fascinated1]

whoa!

No-all news articles have them as two different people. MB lives close by and one of the cbs articles says he saw the sheriff activity by the blue car so that partially answers my question I guess. Good thought though!

 

[Nora Charles]

I believed him. I don't think he saw this becoming a national or world wide case when he called 911. I don't think he was looking for his 15 minutes or inserting himself into a BIG deal. He had no way of knowing that at the time. I would notice a lot of things about what I saw if it was unusual in my area. This was unusual.
I am agreeing with you in case this looks like I'm on a rant!

BBM

I think this is important to remember. This was a local missing person case in a small town, and he had no reason to believe it would explode to the point that he would be interviewed all over national MSM. In my opinion, it gives more weight to MB being legit. Not sure about how accurate he was, after my little embarrassing experiment in remembering details. lol

 

[truthbeknown]

No-all news articles have them as two different people. MB lives close by and one of the cbs articles says he saw the sheriff activity by the blue car so that partially answers my question I guess. Good thought though!

In this video it looks like he may work for the water company

http://www.kesq.com/news/search-warrants-served-in-effort-to-find-erin-corwin/26990830

 

[cluciano63]

CL had means, motive and opportunity...huge motive, Imo. If LE is focusing on him, so I am. But cases without a body take longer, as a rule, to make an arrest, unless they find forensics showing she is dead, as in Heather E's case. Part of the evidence in a "no body" case is the length of time the victim has been missing without any contact, phone use, banking or social security hits.

 

[77DarkHorse7]

I can see it either way. She walked around her car to the passenger door of the other car and then locked her door - maybe with a remote - that is one way to interpret what he said.

Another way is that she walked around the car, locked her door or did something to the door/car on the passenger side before getting into the other car - possibly she did not have a remote, realized she didn't lock the door and did it from the passenger side.

Please forgive me if everyone's already thought of this, but I can see how the witnesses statement could be taken a few different ways. For example: if I were switching from my car into my husband's I might get out, walk around my car to grab something out of the other side, lock the door, or whatever, then continue on to his car and get into the passenger side. Since that's the side I'm getting in I could see someone calling it "her" passenger side even though it's his car. I am also assuming that the witness didn't know who owned which car. Unless he knows them the witness would only know who was driving which one and who got out of/into which one, right? For all he knew the man could've been picking the woman up in HER car but he was driving (this makes less sense, but still a possibility - I've been picked up in my own car before if someone was doing me a favor driving it from a repair shop, for example).

There are certainly clearer ways it could have been worded. In other words for anyone who finds the red car witness credible, I'm thinking any interpretation that also matches the set of described footprints could be 'right,' but there are different ways to read it. I'm assuming that LE has clarified this and has a much better idea than we do from what the witness said to MSM.

It's not just what someone says, it's how they say it. His intonation and the fact that he added details which you wouldn't use to describe the other scenario to me clearly shows that she was at her passenger door. But it doesn't matter what his interview sounded like to you or me, what matters is what he says now, HE's the eyewitness, not me, not anyone who thinks the media is the only filter for quality information. When he says she went to her passenger side, possibly to get a purse or something, I'd say that's pretty definitive for what he originally meant, bottom line.

As for him being the water guy, I don't know where that came from, but why would someone wait two extra days, until they were working, to report an abandoned car?

 

[Nora Charles]

Totally agree but it's interesting to note the quote in post 595 above ( sorry I don't know how to get both posts in quotes). He had to show them the car had moved. The police had to have found the car at that point because the water guy called 911. The police had to have known about the prints leading from the blue car to tire tracks then. They released later that the tracks were consistent with a jeep not a smaller sedan. I'm assuming they probably would have looked at the passengers side as well to see what was there. If a single set of footprints leading from drivers door to jeep is what was on search warrant-does that mean they didn't find anything on passengers side? Interesting to think about because if we take Mbs story as 100% truth then the blue car would have had to be moved after the red car was there to fit what we know from the search warrant, I think (because of the footprints and tire tracks being a jeep and not a sedan). Also-jeep must have been parked in opposite direction or person got in back seat if footprints stopped at tire tracks. OR the person who left the blue car was driving the jeep. Does any of that make sense?

BBM

Maybe I'm missing something but here's the way I understand it. If a car drives up and stops, the front tire has already made a tire track going past where a person would enter any door. Then after entering the car, when the car drives forward the second tire drives in the path of the first tire, so there's another tire track. Once the car leaves, there remains footprints which stop at tire tracks.

Does that make sense? Or am I totally missing what you're saying?

 

[goldenbear]

Does someone have cl court date. I looked in several places and it did not come up.

 

[Fascinated1]

BBM

Maybe I'm missing something but here's the way I understand it. If a car drives up and stops, the front tire has already made a tire track going past where a person would enter any door. Then after entering the car, when the car drives forward the second tire drives in the path of the first tire, so there's another tire track. Once the car leaves, there remains footprints which stop at tire tracks.

Does that make sense? Or am I totally missing what you're saying?

If they walked around the front of the car to get in. If they walk behind then prints might be visible. Either way I would think there would be something on the passenger side away from tire tracks to indicate she got in the car on that side ( eg sideways footprints or a partial as she steps into the jeep). Plus I think let should have been able to see footprints veering off around the car-rather than stopping. Of course I'm taking their wording literally. Post helped me to think that mb could have seen red car AND someone cld have moved car later based on evidence we know of. Also makes me wonder if le might have missed looking for red car tire tracks closer to road.

 

[Nora Charles]

If they walked around the front of the car to get in. If they walk behind then prints might be visible. Either way I would think there would be something on the passenger side away from tire tracks to indicate she got in the car on that side ( eg sideways footprints or a partial as she steps into the jeep). Plus I think let should have been able to see footprints veering off around the car-rather than stopping. Of course I'm taking their wording literally. Post helped me to think that mb could have seen red car AND someone cld have moved car later based on evidence we know of. Also makes me wonder if le might have missed looking for red car tire tracks closer to road.

BBM

OK, that got my attention. We've had many off-road vehicles, of varying heights, over the years. Even though I'm 5'7" and very agile, some of those vehicles have still required a little fancy footwork to get into. I wouldn't walk a straight line to the seat unless I was just reaching in to get something...don't think I would even do that for a normal, lower vehicle. Yeah, I'm sure I wouldn't. Dang it, Fascinated, now you have me all interested in footprints! lol

Soooooo...I took a break in this post and did a little experiment with my daughter (5'2") and her boyfriend (6') and her car (Kia Spectra) and my car (Toyota 4 Runner). Without telling them why, I asked them to go outside and take turns getting into her car. They both turned their feet sideways to get into the car. (Yeah, they already think I'm crazy so they just do what I ask! lol) On my 4 Runner her boyfriend did the same thing. HOWEVER, my daughter walked STRAIGHT into the 4 Runner, and never turned at all, because she put her foot onto the running board before getting into the car because she's too short to get into the car straight from the ground! (I remember doing this when we had some raised vehicles, and still do it with my son's Jeep Wrangler because it's outrageously lifted for rock climbing.) We used to have a Jeep Cherokee and it was about the same size as our 4 Runner, and it had a running board. Guess how tall Erin is? Same as my daughter...5'2"! Maybe she DID walk straight into the Jeep!

I don't know if any of this matters in the least since, but there ya go! lol

 

[Voice4theSilent]

It's not just what someone says, it's how they say it. His intonation and the fact that he added details which you wouldn't use to describe the other scenario to me clearly shows that she was at her passenger door. But it doesn't matter what his interview sounded like to you or me, what matters is what he says now, HE's the eyewitness, not me, not anyone who thinks the media is the only filter for quality information. When he says she went to her passenger side, possibly to get a purse or something, I'd say that's pretty definitive for what he originally meant, bottom line.

As for him being the water guy, I don't know where that came from, but why would someone wait two extra days, until they were working, to report an abandoned car?

I went back and listened to all of MB's interviews and re-read the articles of his statements. Every single time he is asked what he saw he states that she got out of the blue car and got into the red car. (I think Jane Valez-Mitchell asked him that question at least 1,000 times, if not more :freakedout: )

I believe he is saying the same in the following statement, especially if you listen to him actually speak the words in the interview.

"I seen a girl get out of the car, you know she had a little ball cap on, looks like some glasses, a little pony tail. I seen her get out of the car. She actually got to the passenger side (maybe did something, maybe locked her door or something and) ah what was a red car looks like a little Kia or Honda Accent, it was red, 4 door, umm, it was a short guy driving, didn't have much hair, but it was a short guy driving. Like I said, I seen her willingly get into the car...."

MOO...Sounds to me like he threw the above bold part of the statement into the middle of the sentence about her going to the passenger side of the red car. (That is pretty much his manner of speaking throughout the above statement and throughout most of his interviews.) If you take the bold part of the statement out he states "she got to the passenger side of what was a red car." "Locking a car door" to me is using a remote and pushing a button, especially in a newer car. If he said anything about a purse I would definitely feel differently. Could I be wrong? Of course! Does it matter if it was his or her passenger side? At this point, probably not. I don't know. :dunno: My interpretation of what is in MSM is above and is MOO. If you called him and he told you she went to her passenger side then you are right and I am wrong; I am definitely not going to call the guy at home and ask him to clarify it for me though.

 

[Voice4theSilent]

BBM

OK, that got my attention. We've had many off-road vehicles, of varying heights, over the years. Even though I'm 5'7" and very agile, some of those vehicles have still required a little fancy footwork to get into. I wouldn't walk a straight line to the seat unless I was just reaching in to get something...don't think I would even do that for a normal, lower vehicle. Yeah, I'm sure I wouldn't. Dang it, Fascinated, now you have me all interested in footprints! lol

Soooooo...I took a break in this post and did a little experiment with my daughter (5'2") and her boyfriend (6') and her car (Kia Spectra) and my car (Toyota 4 Runner). Without telling them why, I asked them to go outside and take turns getting into her car. They both turned their feet sideways to get into the car. (Yeah, they already think I'm crazy so they just do what I ask! lol) On my 4 Runner her boyfriend did the same thing. HOWEVER, my daughter walked STRAIGHT into the 4 Runner, and never turned at all, because she put her foot onto the running board before getting into the car because she's too short to get into the car straight from the ground! (I remember doing this when we had some raised vehicles, and still do it with my son's Jeep Wrangler because it's outrageously lifted for rock climbing.) We used to have a Jeep Cherokee and it was about the same size as our 4 Runner, and it had a running board. Guess how tall Erin is? Same as my daughter...5'2"! Maybe she DID walk straight into the Jeep!

I don't know if any of this matters in the least since, but there ya go! lol

I love your experiments, Nora! And GREAT point. I hadn't thought about that in relation to the tracks leading from the Toyota to the jeep or the red car.

 

[katydid23]

I wonder if MB is a friend of CL's? :waitasec: Because his red car scenario lets CL off the hook. jmo

 

[Voice4theSilent]

I wonder if MB is a friend of CL's? :waitasec: Because his red car scenario lets CL off the hook. jmo

If so, I am sure LE knows he is. I don't think so because he told Jane Valez-Mitchell that the guy in the red car could very well be CL when he was shown his photo.

"And I cannot believe that -- if you take that cowboy hat off, that very well could be the man that was in that red vehicle that day.

That very well could be. I can`t say it is. I just can tell you, 6, 7 percent, that that very well could be the short man with no hair. It`s --

I can`t believe this. "

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1407/22/ijvm.01.html

 

[katydid23]

If so, I am sure LE knows he is. I don't think so because he told Jane Valez-Mitchell that the guy in the red car could very well be CL when he was shown his photo.

"And I cannot believe that -- if you take that cowboy hat off, that very well could be the man that was in that red vehicle that day.

That very well could be. I can`t say it is. I just can tell you, 6, 7 percent, that that very well could be the short man with no hair. It`s --

I can`t believe this. "

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1407/22/ijvm.01.html

I am half kidding. But still wondering...perfect way to have a friend muddy up the works and cause confusion.

And of course he wouldn't admit it on tv if they were friends. I know it's a longshot...lol

 

[Fascinated1]

I love your experiments, Nora! And GREAT point. I hadn't thought about that in relation to the tracks leading from the Toyota to the jeep or the red car.

Agree-great experiment and thank you!! Heres what woke me up at 3 am--if MBs story is true about the car being moved sometime later, there would only be 1 set of footprints (assuming cl moved the car). Erin would not have been there when car was moved. . It also means -at least for me- that the jeep was there twice. Once in the morning to pick her up-and once later without her. Red car pulled up to where the car was originally sitting around 10 and I don't think MB saw Erin then. Any footprints or tire tracks that might have helped with the red car scenario may not have been noticed by LE if car was moved. They are focusing on the single set of prints leading from the blue car to the jeep. Only 1 person was there.

If LE arrived on scene and talked to water dept employee and then spent several hours processing the scene, the TIME and METHOD by which MB contacted LE might become important to determine if LE knew about 1)the car being moved and 2) the red car while scene was being processed.

Ugh. That makes it even more strange that there has not been a public request for info related to the red car UNLESS NL or someone else already told the police she was there.....also-it's always bothered me that the driver never left the red car. I can't figure that out. If car was abandoned why wouldn't both people get out? Only scenarios I can think of are that 1) the passenger recognized the car but the driver didn't (which shoots down my earlier theory that jc was the driver) or 2) no one recognized the car and this is unrelated to this case at all.....someone stopped to see of car was abandoned with no connection to ERIN--but if they looked in the car they could have info relevant to the case...so again I'd think they would want to locate this person.

So to all of you out there with a lot more experience than I have--does the absence of any public request for info about the red car mean LE already knows who those two were??


2 more things-not fully thought out yet. WHAT IF WHAT MB SAW HAPPENED SUNDAY NOT SATURDAY.? I thought I remembered that originally he said Sunday-or was confused by days. Is that why CL needs an alibi for Sunday according to NL? Does seem weird to not notice car until Monday if it was parked right off base so maybe it was MOVED THERE on Sunday and that's not where they met. Maybe not worth thinking about though--but I don't have time right now to go back and see how definite and consistent mb was in date. Off to work. .

 

[Dmacky]

I wonder if MB is a friend of CL's? :waitasec: Because his red car scenario lets CL off the hook. jmo

Hi Katydid :wave:
No disrespect, but I don't see it like that all. In my opinion, I'm thinking the "red car" may turn out to be the smoking gun in this whole case! I'm sure LE has quietly sought out every car rental place and dealership (test driving) in San Bernardino County.
Plus, if your driving someone that you indeed to "do away with" you certainly don't want to be seen driving your own car.

The two things that CL did NOT think about was

1. Someone driving down this desolate road at the very same time, and actually
seeing a girl get out of EC's car and get in to a red car, being driven by a man.

2. Erin exchanging text's with her friend in Tn. saying where she was going that Sat.
morning and who she was going with, and even why they were going.

 

[Dmacky]

I also think the arrest of CL on July 4th for the potato gun was a red herring. LE knew he was moving to Alaska soon, and wanted to get his fingerprints and DNA.

 

[77DarkHorse7]

I went back and listened to all of MB's interviews and re-read the articles of his statements. Every single time he is asked what he saw he states that she got out of the blue car and got into the red car. (I think Jane Valez-Mitchell asked him that question at least 1,000 times, if not more :freakedout: )

I believe he is saying the same in the following statement, especially if you listen to him actually speak the words in the interview.

"I seen a girl get out of the car, you know she had a little ball cap on, looks like some glasses, a little pony tail. I seen her get out of the car. She actually got to the passenger side (maybe did something, maybe locked her door or something and) ah what was a red car looks like a little Kia or Honda Accent, it was red, 4 door, umm, it was a short guy driving, didn't have much hair, but it was a short guy driving. Like I said, I seen her willingly get into the car...."

MOO...Sounds to me like he threw the above bold part of the statement into the middle of the sentence about her going to the passenger side of the red car. (That is pretty much his manner of speaking throughout the above statement and throughout most of his interviews.) If you take the bold part of the statement out he states "she got to the passenger side of what was a red car." "Locking a car door" to me is using a remote and pushing a button, especially in a newer car. If he said anything about a purse I would definitely feel differently. Could I be wrong? Of course! Does it matter if it was his or her passenger side? At this point, probably not. I don't know. :dunno: My interpretation of what is in MSM is above and is MOO. If you called him and he told you she went to her passenger side then you are right and I am wrong; I am definitely not going to call the guy at home and ask him to clarify it for me though.

You can't really justify your viewpoint even if based on just MSM though. You're right, car remotes are everywhere; which is why everyone knows you cannot lock a singular door with them. You lock the Entire Car. She's not likely to wait until she gets to the other car to lock hers. MB is not going to recall a simple remote locking as a significant enough detail to mention. It wouldn't be ambiguous to him if it was a remote locking, the car honks, lights flash, locks click, etc. "Maybe locked her door" Door , no "s"; singular, as in what you can only do while physically present at the object itself. And he didn't say 'locked her car'. Simple enough, right?