IA IA - Elizabeth Collins, 8, & Lyric Cook, 10, Evansdale, 13 July 2012 - #25

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bootsctr said:
My apologies, I'm still a few pages behind, but wanted to comment regarding the subpoenaed video.

I believe LE subpoening the video was LE's way of telling the family, perhaps Misty and Dan in particular, talk to us. Stop talking to the media. This case is very serious. We don't think you are cooperating fully with us. Talk to us not the media. We are trying to keep some things out of public knowledge so we will know when we have the guilty person. I don't necessarily think anything of importance was on the video. It just showed that LE was serious with the family when they subpoened it. FWIW. JMO. :moo:
Click to expand...

You may well be right, because I haven't seen anything on the video that wasn't also reported by MSM, i.e., the night in the hotel when LE came in and questioned them, their conversation with an attorney. JMO

The only thing that struck me as a little odd was that Wylma said nothing in the interview. But maybe she just didn't have anything to say.
 
Marilynilpa said:
You may well be right, because I haven't seen anything on the video that wasn't also reported by MSM, i.e., the night in the hotel when LE came in and questioned them, their conversation with an attorney. JMO

The only thing that struck me as a little odd was that Wylma said nothing in the interview. But maybe she just didn't have anything to say.
Click to expand...

I thought it was very odd that Wylma did not say anything. Of course, Misty and Dan and maybe other family members had already talked to a lawyer at that point. I think Misty was being very careful in what she said. I think she got the point across that she did not have anything to do with the girls' disappearance and she publicly asked LE to look further north. I know not specific at all, but where were the girls found? North. Just saying.

Wylma was not saying anything because if the video was subpeoned I'm assuming she thought anything she said could be used against her. Not saying the family had their rights read to them or anything like that, but a lawyer could have certainly warned them anything they said publicly could be scrutinized and they could be questioned as to why they said what they did say. I mean look we're looking closely at what the family said... LE must be looking even 10x harder.

Since we can't sleuth family members, I think we can speculate that the girls disappearace could have been part of a nationwide FBI investigation. Just because the woman that was arrested was not the woman that tried to grab the little boy on the bicycle doesn't mean other children she groomed many years ago could not be in any part of the U.S. trying to grab other children for the same evil purpose.


Cedar Rapids father says pair tried to abduct his son
http://www.kwwl.com/story/19168951/cedar-rapids-father-says-pair-tried-to-abduct-his-son
Click to expand...
 
skeet said:
I think that if the killer where smart, he would fess up now, think I read that they are trying to enact the death penalty in this state.

http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.town...38-0019bb2963f4/5002c04654cd0.preview-699.jpg
Click to expand...

SBM

First of all, it is very unlikely that any bill restoring the death penalty will ever be passed. That is basically a few politicians grabbing the opportunity to grandstand. Iowa dropped the death penalty in 1965 and, strictly in my own opinion, I think public opinion remains in agreement with that.

Second of all, it doesn't matter when the perp is caught or if there is a confession. The death penalty was not in effect at the time of the crime, so it would not come into play in any potential sentencing.
 
Marilynilpa said:
I agree with you about looking at who benefits, and how they benefit. And about there being an epicenter somewhere.

While the most obvious (to most) conclusion is that a pedophile took the girls for his own twisted reasons, there are other possibilities that deserve consideration. IMO
Click to expand...

It is the most obvious explanation, but we have always had factors here which has made it the most unlikely scenario in my opinion.

For a start, two girls were taken. Highly irregular...in fact so irregular I cannot personally remember it EVER happening before, in this quiet unseen and sudden way, in broad daylight in the middle of town.

Secondly the "gender" speech by the sherrif tends to also argue away from a sexual abduction by a random perp, as does the "people responsible" speech.

:cow:
 
SapphireSteel said:
It is the most obvious explanation, but we have always had factors here which has made it the most unlikely scenario in my opinion.

For a start, two girls were taken. Highly irregular...in fact so irregular I cannot personally remember it EVER happening before, in this quiet unseen and sudden way, in broad daylight in the middle of town.

Secondly the "gender" speech by the sherrif tends to also argue away from a sexual abduction by a random perp, as does the "people responsible" speech.

:cow:
Click to expand...

Could the kidnapping/killing be a cover up for an ongoing abuse situation?
 
Sere-nity said:
Could the kidnapping/killing be a cover up for an ongoing abuse situation?
Click to expand...

I think it's unlikely - yes it could have, but cover up is not the main motive.

I really feel that the girls were collateral damage - sacrificed for someone else's benefit.

The usual motives for murder are - sex, revenge, or profit.

Disregard sex, and you're left with revenge or profit.

Who had cause for revenge against both families?

Or, most likely to me, who profited from this crime? :furious:
 
SapphireSteel said:
It is the most obvious explanation, but we have always had factors here which has made it the most unlikely scenario in my opinion.

For a start, two girls were taken. Highly irregular...in fact so irregular I cannot personally remember it EVER happening before, in this quiet unseen and sudden way, in broad daylight in the middle of town.

Secondly the "gender" speech by the sherrif tends to also argue away from a sexual abduction by a random perp, as does the "people responsible" speech.

:cow:
Click to expand...

Jumping off your great post SS! Hope you don't mind. I also think the use of terminology such as "bodies" versus "remains" is speaking to someone specific. Trying to play on what little conscience this person may have. The missing poster wording seem very personal to me... as directed in someone the family believe they know and that knew the girls. :moo:
 
Bootsctr said:
Jumping off your great post SS! Hope you don't mind. I also think the use of terminology such as "bodies" versus "remains" is speaking to someone specific. Trying to play on what little conscience this person may have. The missing poster wording seem very personal to me... as directed in someone the family believe they know and that knew the girls. :moo:
Click to expand...

I agree.

I feel that LE are speaking directly to someone, when they speak.

Add that in to the lack of a "be on the lookout, we have a predator" warnings tells me that there are most definitely suspects (plural), they are local and known.

Which reminds me that someone (allegedly) was accused by LE, way back in July.

:cow:
 
I believe this was not a random crime; the perp is someone familiar with Evansdale and with the 7 Bridges area; and, the perp is probably someone known to one or both of the girls.

I don't think LE is totally clueless, and believe they have their eyes on a suspect(s) but are waiting for evidence to be processed. The perp may be in jail on other charges, giving LE time to work their case without fear that the perp will get away.

I do feel the girls made it to the lake that day, and the bikes were left there at the time of the abduction as opposed to being staged. I do not know what route they took to get there.

I believe the girls were taken directly to 7 Bridges after being abducted, and were killed on the same day they were abducted.

I have no definite theory on the motive for this horrible crime, but I am not convinced the primary motive was sexual. I think there are other valid motives that should also be considered as well.

I don't know if both girls were targeted, or just one of them.

I don't believe the perp will turn out to be a local RSO.

I think that when the perp is named, we won't hear the usual "I never would have suspected him" or "she would never do something like that" or "they were good people." I think we'll hear "there was always something off about him" or "she made me suspicious" or "they've always acted a little strange."

All JMO, MOO, IMHO, etc.

ETA: And I still don't know what to make of TG's sighting of two bikes on the trail. But I do not suspect him of anything connected to Lyric and Lizzie.
 
Does anyone know what appointment Wylma and Aunt Tammy had that afternoon? I'm wondering if it was in any way relevant. Like was it a custody attorney or realtor or anything that could have triggered anger in someone?
 
Marilynilpa said:
You may well be right, because I haven't seen anything on the video that wasn't also reported by MSM, i.e., the night in the hotel when LE came in and questioned them, their conversation with an attorney. JMO

The only thing that struck me as a little odd was that Wylma said nothing in the interview. But maybe she just didn't have anything to say.
Click to expand...

I wonder if they subpoena'd the video for an internal investigation into whether one of their own people had stepped over the line interrogating Misty and Dan, rather than anything to do directly with the kidnapping investigation.
 
carbuff said:
I wonder if they subpoena'd the video for an internal investigation into whether one of their own people had stepped over the line interrogating Misty and Dan, rather than anything to do directly with the kidnapping investigation.
Click to expand...

I think they subpoenad the footage because something was said that directly opposes something someone else said.

Maybe Misty or Wylma inadvertently shot down someone's alibi.

:cow:
 
SapphireSteel said:
I think they subpoenad the footage because something was said that directly opposes something someone else said.

Maybe Misty or Wylma inadvertently shot down someone's alibi.

:cow:
Click to expand...

Ooooh, good thought.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 125 more.
Total: 380 (members: 126, guests: 254)

Online statistics

Members online
126
Guests online
254
Total visitors
380
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
609,504
Messages
18,255,033
Members
234,671
Latest member
Sageer4
Back
Top