IA IA - Elizabeth Collins, 8, & Lyric Cook, 10, Evansdale, 13 July 2012 - #18

[otto]

I promise that I'm not meaning to be picky. I just thought I'd say that I believe it was actually located in the strip mall behind that building.

View attachment 26296

Thank you. I was going with the map location and couldn't get a better image. Is that towards the West end? Could the grandmother see the post office from the house, or, when she said the "old post office", could she have meant that particular parking lot?

 

[otto]

And the investigations were done so well that the girls are STILL MISSING 8 WEEKS LATER. :moo:

Sometimes it takes months for bodies to surface and years to convict.

 

[otto]

Link showing the girls were not taken for profit, tia.
IF they were sold by a kidnapper there would be profit yes?

If the girls were taken for financial gain, why hasn't there been a demand from the kidnappers?

Who would pay anything for two young girls when their pictures are all over the news ... better to take the reward money.

 

[CHERIE.T]

If the girls were taken for financial gain, why hasn't there been a demand from the kidnappers?

Who would pay anything for two young girls when their pictures are all over the news ... better to take the reward money.

There would be no demand from kidnappers if the 8 and 10 year
olds were kidnapped then
SOLD to someone else.

 

[Jax49]

I only count five ( ... added the underlines to make it easier to count):

1. sexual gratification,
2. killing that results in sexual gratification,
3. empty womb syndrome,
4. ransom,
5. profit

The first two are sexual gratification, there was no abduction by the mother, there is no financial profit. That only leaves sexual gratification, with the difference being whether the children are alive afterward ... in this particular case.

Regarding profit, the families have no money so there is no profit in taking their children. Elizabeth's mother, who has a heart condition, was working at a convenience store while her elderly mother cared for the chidlren. That is not a family where kidnapping a child results in financial gain or profit.

The sixth is:

Miscellaneous:
Children abducted for a wide variety of reasons related to criminal activity. Common examples include crimes such as stealing a vehicle with a child in it, taking a child hostage to facilitate escape, abducting a child in retaliation for a personal or criminal dispute or to prevent testimony in court, etc.



BBM

 

[otto]

There would be no demand from kidnappers if the 8 and 10 year
olds were kidnapped then
SOLD to someone else.

If I had a choice of paying good money for two children that were on the international FBI missing person's website, or contacting authorities to collect the reward ... it's a no-brainer. No one that buys children wants that kind of trouble.

 

[Marilynilpa]

The sixth is:

Miscellaneous:
Children abducted for a wide variety of reasons related to criminal activity. Common examples include crimes such as stealing a vehicle with a child in it, taking a child hostage to facilitate escape, abducting a child in retaliation for a personal or criminal dispute or to prevent testimony in court, etc.
BBM

Were Lyric and/or Elizabeth going to be testifying in court? I'm trying to figure out the significance of the section you bolded. Thanks.

 

[otto]

The sixth is:

Miscellaneous:
Children abducted for a wide variety of reasons related to criminal activity. Common examples include crimes such as stealing a vehicle with a child in it, taking a child hostage to facilitate escape, abducting a child in retaliation for a personal or criminal dispute or to prevent testimony in court, etc.

BBM

If these children were taken to prevent testimony in court, then it's not working. Everyone knows that the children were taken, so if testimony is severely altered, then everyone knows what happened.

Let's suppose that the children were kidnapped to force altered court testimony; perjury, then there would be two possible outcomes for the children: safely returned, or murdered. If they are safely returned, they will identify their kidnappers ... perps lose. If they are not safely returned, there is no reason to alter testimony ... perps lose.

Therefore, I think we can rule out that the children were kidnapped in relation to criminal activity such as forcing a defendant to commit perjury.

 

[Jax49]

Were Lyric and/or Elizabeth going to be testifying in court? I'm trying to figure out the significance of the section you bolded. Thanks.

If they were to testify I'm not aware of it. If they had vanished before Dan

withdrew his plea it might make sense.


Just found it interesting that it was listed as a specific possible motivation for

abductions and there are several players who have extensive experience in the court system.

 

[CHERIE.T]

If I had a choice of paying good money for two children that were on the international FBI missing person's website, or contacting authorities to collect the reward ... it's a no-brainer. No one that buys children wants that kind of trouble.

You're not understanding what I'm saying. And it's just not that difficult to comprehend.

The girls WERE NOT on a FBI list before they were abducted or kidnapped.:banghead:


Imagine the abduction or kidnapping was planned...the girls were lured to the lake for a specific reason.
The kidnappers -abductors grabbed the girls and immediately sold them to prospective buyers.
The kidnappers -abductors have their money.
The people who bought the girls have what they paid for
2 little girls .

The people who bought the girls and the little girls themselves are long gone within hours of the kidnapping -abduction.
Explanation of
Theory only
Mooooooo

 

[otto]

If they were to testify I'm not aware of it. If they had vanished before Dan

withdrew his plea it might make sense.


Just found it interesting that it was listed as a specific possible motivation for

abductions and there are several players who have extensive experience in the court system.

Abducting a child to force perjury seems like something the mafia might do - but still, there's no good outcome.

 

[SapphireSteel]

Oops I realised I cut a bit out then forgot to correct it.

Yes miscellaneous...like something to do with some as yet unknown criminal element, perhaps drug involvement, or revenge, or silence.

Perhaps the girls saw something that day. Perhaps they were just literally in the wrong place at the wrong time and had to be silenced.

As far as profit goes - the public throws money at these causes. Madeleine McCanns parents are believed to have made millions. There was a staged abduction in England specifically for the donations. The girl was recovered quickly and her mother arrested...NOT that I think that is what's happened here.

Unfortunately I believe the girls were murdered shortly after they were abducted. I hope I am wrong.

lease:

 

[hambirg]

You know what bothers me about Abben's comment?
He said there was no reason to suspect foul play.......
that was IMO his first mistake.
Little 8 and 10 year old girls don't just go missing!
Did Abben's attitude impede the investigation?
Was precious search time lost?
:moo:

I'm still catching up, but I don't see anything wrong with this statement, that there was no reason to suspect foul play. As it stands now, as far as we know, there is still no evidence of foul play. There was no bloodshed, no witnesses that saw an abduction. So as far as we know the girls could have crawled in a root cellar and been trapped, walked to the river and been swept away, fallen down a well, etc. I don't think any of those are likely at this point. . .but we just don't know.

I also think just because Abben said there was no reason to suspect foul play doesn't mean that LE wasn't considering it. They were interrogating the parents, checking out RSO's, etc. I'm sure they were looking at possibilities. BUT at that point there was no evidence of foul play. . .and they had to rule some things out. . like the girls drown, or were simply trapped somewhere.

I don't think for a hawt second that LE dropped the ball here. I feel pretty secure that they were considering all angles while they were ruling out something accidental. If there was no evidence of foul play than that's what they had to work with. It doesn't mean that they weren't considering it simultaneously.

MOO

 

[nikb]

And after she lived with the Collins family (for just over a year, as I recall), Grandma Cook has had custody of her.

If there are any msm links that say that Lyric had a disrupted childhood, I'm not aware of them.

I agree, I think the family (extended family included) have done a great job keeping life as constant as possible for her from what I've read. It had to be a little bit difficult for her going from house to house, adjusting to slightly different "rules," and knowing that her Mom and Dad weren't right there with her, but it seems to me like she's had a relatively normal childhood. IMO she didn't know anything different and she wasn't being abused or anything that we know of.

 

[nikb]

I only count five ( ... added the underlines to make it easier to count):

1. sexual gratification,
2. killing that results in sexual gratification,
3. empty womb syndrome,
4. ransom,
5. profit

The first two are sexual gratification, there was no abduction by the mother, there is no financial profit. That only leaves sexual gratification, with the difference being whether the children are alive afterward ... in this particular case.

Regarding profit, the families have no money so there is no profit in taking their children. Elizabeth's mother, who has a heart condition, was working at a convenience store while her elderly mother cared for the chidlren. That is not a family where kidnapping a child results in financial gain or profit.

There is however that reward. The families may not directly have a lot of money, but if it was for financial gain, wouldn't the reward have worked to get the girls home by now? (I don't know, I'm honestly asking.)

 

[CHERIE.T]

I'm still catching up, but I don't see anything wrong with this statement, that there was no reason to suspect foul play. As it stands now, as far as we know, there is still no evidence of foul play. There was no bloodshed, no witnesses that saw an abduction. So as far as we know the girls could have crawled in a root cellar and been trapped, walked to the river and been swept away, fallen down a well, etc. I don't think any of those are likely at this point. . .but we just don't know.

I also think just because Abben said there was no reason to suspect foul play doesn't mean that LE wasn't considering it. They were interrogating the parents, checking out RSO's, etc. I'm sure they were looking at possibilities. BUT at that point there was no evidence of foul play. . .and they had to rule some things out. . like the girls drown, or were simply trapped somewhere.

I don't think for a hawt second that LE dropped the ball here. I feel pretty secure that they were considering all angles while they were ruling out something accidental. If there was no evidence of foul play than that's what they had to work with. It doesn't mean that they weren't considering it simultaneously.

MOO

I'm sure you and others here are right.

Gawd
knows these cops are almost perfect, doing a great job.

Even though the girls are still missing
8 flipping weeks later.
hoh:

 

[otto]

You're not understanding what I'm saying. And it's just not that difficult to comprehend.

The girls WERE NOT on a FBI list before they were abducted or kidnapped.:banghead:


Imagine the abduction or kidnapping was planned...the girls were lured to the lake for a specific reason.
The kidnappers -abductors grabbed the girls and immediately sold them to prospective buyers.
The kidnappers -abductors have their money.
The people who bought the girls have what they paid for
2 little girls .

The people who bought the girls and the little girls themselves are long gone within hours of the kidnapping -abduction.
Explanation of
Theory only
Mooooooo

So the children were abducted by kidnappers who got paid to hand them over to prospective buyers ... and then what? Put them in the closet? After that, the story was international ... no profit, but a reward. With several kidnappers and buyers involved, surely one of them would have their eye on the reward money.

 

[hambirg]

The timeline you suggest of last sighting at 12:15, and abduction 5 minutes later, requires that they were abducted at the parking lot. If they were abducted at 12:20, then the bikes the were staged. Why would anyone go to the trouble of abducting two young girls, and staging their bikes, only to murder them within an hour ... and then make their bodies completely vanish? That's an awful lot of trouble to go to without a reason.

Criminals stage crime scenes all the time. . .to throw off where the crime actually happened, or to hide evidence from people in their lives. One couldn't have the girls' bikes in their garage or work van. So a perp may have a need to get rid of the bikes in an area that wouldn't give away any details as to what route they headed with the girls.

Where the girls were actually abducted or where they were taken, may give clues to who the perp actually is. Unfortunately, in this case, if the bikes were staged, it seems to have worked.

 

[Confusion]

I agree, I think the family (extended family included) have done a great job keeping life as constant as possible for her from what I've read. It had to be a little bit difficult for her going from house to house, adjusting to slightly different "rules," and knowing that her Mom and Dad weren't right there with her, but it seems to me like she's had a relatively normal childhood. IMO she didn't know anything different and she wasn't being abused or anything that we know of.

I really doubt that Lyric remembers much about living with anyone other than WC. She was born the end of 2001 and started living with HC in 2003 (hope I have the right year, maybe 2004?). She was between 1 and 2 years old at the time, and was only there for 18 months. Going by that, I believe she's been living with her grandmother for close to 7 of her 10 years.

 

[Considering]

Thank you. I was going with the map location and couldn't get a better image. Is that towards the West end? Could the grandmother see the post office from the house, or, when she said the "old post office", could she have meant that particular parking lot?

It's not quite dead center but it's close. It's slightly toward the east. Grandma couldn't see the front of the post office itself, but she could see the parking lot of that strip mall. The google man and I went for a walk and the Collins' house on Brovan can be clearly seen to the right of strip mall.