robthomaseyes
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2007
- Messages
- 707
- Reaction score
- 0
If I were staging someone like this, for personal fame or financial gain, I'd have a. sent a ransom note and/or b. made sure I'd have inserted my name into the case much earlier than Cameron Gamble. And I'd have also made sure my personal and business website were updated before staging something like this as well. Doing so in the middle of the investigation would be sloppy on many levels.
However, this comment from the Record Searchlight/Ventura County Star article offers a thought provoking theory:In spite of what Mr. Gamble says, perhaps she is free because a ransom was paid. The donor did not want their name known. It's not a reach that they also didn't want the public to know that a ransom was paid. This would explain her release.
He was very public about offering a ransom reward; getting a website going, having CG get on youtube and on the news about the fact that a ransom was being offered, etc., but then, suddenly he gets shy about it?
IMO it doesn't really make sense. And how would CG's "brilliant new plan that all of America should now adopt" work, if nobody knows a ransom was paid, and therefore, he couldn't prove 1) that one was and 2) that it was the reason SP was freed?