This case really got me shook. I had to step away for awhile because I couldn't delete my own rage-posts fast enough :/ The frenzy over AWP and the ensuing pain to the family became just way too much; out of respect for the Rodni family I tuned out for awhile. But I'll weigh in (again) on why I think (MOO) Roadside Nick's sighting is bogus and why I am still firmly in the camp of "tragic accident until I see evidence to the contrary."
AWP claimed in their interview that they confirmed the roadside call took place (I'd like to know how). They also claimed that it was confirmed to be KRs car, and also that Roadside Nick's company furnished dash cam video of the RA call to LE. They have not seen the video; they only "confirmed" it took place. My question is this:
If LE received footage that was relevant to KR's disappearance (I.e., her whole *advertiser censored** car!), why then did they never update their published timeline once any “footage” reached them? Remember, there was a furious ACTIVE search for KR at the time that Roadside Nick would have sounded the alarm and his company would have submitted that footage to LE. If that footage was of KRs car, why on earth would LE not have asked the public once again for tips from folks who may have seen the car at Prosser on that Saturday?
This can mean:
A) LE never received any footage because it was never actually submitted (my #1 theory here);
B) LE received but just sloppily never reviewed the footage (really?);
C) LE reviewed the footage but determined it was not KR’s car and was irrelevant to the case (my #2 theory here);
D) LE received and reviewed bombshell footage of KRs car, but decided not to tell the public that new information had come to light that changed the timeline, and that KR's car was in fact seen the day after KR's disappearance. This would also mean that KR's car was somehow hidden in the reservoir after this fact with no other folks seeing it, despite the presence of searchers etc. in the area (this is just preposterous, IMO, as someone who knows that area--there are campers and swimmers, etc. Not possible.).
In case of D, the car's EDR (car equivalent of a black box, discussed ad nauseam on these threads) will provide data about when it went into the reservoir IF the engine was running when it happened; it will also provide data about the occupancy of the seat(s), speed, gear, etc. The MAIT report will include this information, and will hopefully be available to the public under a FOIA request.
Also, why did AWP edit their original released video wherein it was said that Roadside Nick's gf confirmed that is was definitely that Saturday when Nick called to tell her about the weird RA call, because it was her grandfather's birthday, so she remembered the day? AWP published that in their initial release of the video, and then edited that out. Why?
I really believe that footage just doesn’t exist, or, if it does, it is completely irrelevant to this case. While some folks have attempted to paint the NCSO as incompetent fools, I've observed them sticking to facts, looking after the victims in the case (KR and her family), playing this case close to the vest, and absolutely following procedure. Missing locating a car in a reservoir is hardly evidence that this LE agency is somehow not doing their job properly; cars are notoriously hard to find in water (just ask AWP, they're in the very business of finding cars in water that LE all over the country, in multiple cases, have previously missed; this is not unique to NCSO, and IMO should not be used to impugn and impeach their professionalism). And yet at every turn, certain folks have used this as an opportunity to disparage LE. Did they fail to dive after the FBI extracted the car? Yeah, that's a drag. But my guess is that the mountain of evidence they have (that we do not) is already pointing toward a solo accident, so they didn't feel the need to press a criminal angle.
The FBI processed the car. LE *already have* autopsy results (and probably already have tox screen results as well). They *already know* if there's evidence of SA. They *know* exactly where she was found in the car, and whether her position in the car was consistent with where drivers are found after driving into lakes. They *know* whether she was tied in to the car. They know so much more than we do. They *may* be able to say that so far there isn't evidence of a crime having been committed beyond that of (possibly) impaired driving.
It's not the mission of LE to create a crime where none happened; it's their job to look at all the evidence and determine whether a crime occurred, and if so, to gather evidence, find the perpetrator, and help get them prosecuted. I have every reason to believe they are doing their jobs (with a hiccup here or there) and that the truth will come to light, one way or the other. I fully expect them to rule this a tragic accident, based solely on how LE have behaved since the evidence began pouring in after KR was found.
All amateur speculation and MOO.
Edited for a typo.
www.brennancenter.org
