IA IA - Elizabeth Collins, 8, & Lyric Cook, 10, Evansdale, 13 July 2012 - #26

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mjskit said:
BBM Apparently they were NOT playing at the park because Misty said she checked there? Confused?
Click to expand...

This is about the 5th time in the past 3 days that I have read something that Misty or Tammy said that DIRECTLY CONFLICTS with something else one of them said.

It is a case of "not both of these statements can be true."

It seriously makes my brain hurt! You'd think they'd be more careful/thoughtful in these statements when 2 of their young family members are missing!
 
Ms Pragmatic said:
If LE were to hold a presser in the near future and announce that they have evidence that this was a sexually-motivated crime, would it change anyone's theory? Personally, I go back and forth on the motivation. Just wondering what everyone else thinks.
Click to expand...

From the beginning, I assumed that this was a random abduction that was sexually motivated, and that the children were murdered before the sun came up on July 14.
 
SapphireSteel said:
I didn't know they did Anderson Cooper AS WELL!!!!

:what:

ETA: damn, no transcript...that explains why I missed it. Unless you have a link to one? Tia.
Click to expand...

Ooooh, yes. You MUST find this interview on YouTube. It is the one with the green paddle boat visible very clearly in the background when Dan/Misty are talking.
 
I know there has been much speculation about some of the family members' insistence that the girls weren't in the lake and how that seemed suspicious. However, I think it actually adds to their credibility (I hope being pro-family isn't against TOS). I would think that the only way insisting it was an abduction would benefit them if they were responsible is if the girls were actually found in the lake - but they weren't. If they were found in the lake, THEN I would be suspicious of the insistence on abduction. In hindsight of course, draining the lake was really a hindrance to the investigation because it focused the attention in the wrong place despite the families pleas that they weren't in there. They wouldn't have been pointing out the fact that their shoes weren't there on the shore if they were trying to steer the investigation away from what really happened. A guilty party would welcome the additional time diverted in the wrong direction. Insisting abduction would mean they were more likely to knock on doors for witnesses. Why encourage that process if you were the one who would have been seen with the girls? I'm not a veteran here but even I am getting tired of all the sideline comments about what can't be said and the snarky judgment being passed onto these people when the TOS are so clear and LE hasn't arrested them or named them POI's. Besides, they are clearly not "organized" enough to pull anything off without a shred of evidence being left behind or someone seeing them and recognizing them. If the father would flip on a drug friend he would flip on the murderer(s) of his children if he knew. I don't want to leave a place that usually has so much good banter going on but the insinuations are getting annoying when they clearly violate TOS.

Sorry, rant over.
 
jenandemmie said:
I know there has been much speculation about some of the family members' insistence that the girls weren't in the lake and how that seemed suspicious. However, I think it actually adds to their credibility (I hope being pro-family isn't against TOS). I would think that the only way insisting it was an abduction would benefit them if they were responsible is if the girls were actually found in the lake - but they weren't. If they were found in the lake, THEN I would be suspicious of the insistence on abduction. In hindsight of course, draining the lake was really a hindrance to the investigation because it focused the attention in the wrong place despite the families pleas that they weren't in there. They wouldn't have been pointing out the fact that their shoes weren't there on the shore if they were trying to steer the investigation away from what really happened. A guilty party would welcome the additional time diverted in the wrong direction. Insisting abduction would mean they were more likely to knock on doors for witnesses. Why encourage that process if you were the one who would have been seen with the girls? I'm not a veteran here but even I am getting tired of all the sideline comments about what can't be said and the snarky judgment being passed onto these people when the TOS are so clear and LE hasn't arrested them or named them POI's. Besides, they are clearly not "organized" enough to pull anything off without a shred of evidence being left behind or someone seeing them and recognizing them. If the father would flip on a drug friend he would flip on the murderer(s) of his children if he knew. I don't want to leave a place that usually has so much good banter going on but the insinuations are getting annoying when they clearly violate TOS.

Sorry, rant over.
Click to expand...

But what if they really, really, really wanted people to believe they were abducted?

Totally hypothetically, in general, and not related to THIS family -- if your kid drowns, you don't get as much attention/sympathy/MONEY as if your kid is abducted.
 
JaimeInLA said:
Ooooh, yes. You MUST find this interview on YouTube. It is the one with the green paddle boat visible very clearly in the background when Dan/Misty are talking.
Click to expand...

I was looking at the lake in googlemaps, zoomed way in, and I noticed that there are several houses on the northwest side of the lake with what appear to be docks reaching into the lake, and spots that look like paddleboats or rowboats or something along those lines. Plus there's a park at the north central part of the lake where there's a big parking lot and what appears to be a boat ramp or swimming dock or something.

I'm not sure what the significance is. Just that it's got a lot of places where you can get to the water to walk around the lake, if you wanted to.
 
JaimeInLA said:
I don't think you are in the minority on this. I believe the girls rode their bikes to the lake.

However, I ALSO believe they were staged. If that makes any sense.

I think the girls rode right to where the bikes were found, but the abductor (whom they knew), said, "just leave them there for now, let's go get ice cream" or something like that. The abductor purposely had those girls leave the bikes at that gate next to the lake so that it looked like they had a) drowned and b) been abducted by a complete stranger. Those would naturally be the first 2 assumptions most people would (and did) make.

Remember what Dan said: "They were led right into a trap."
Click to expand...

Those last words are chilling.
 
I know LE has not named any suspects but has LE said the names of who is clearly NOT a suspect? iirc even Drew and Heather have not been cleared. Yes or no?
 
Has anyone heard about the guy in Waterloo who was recently arrested for attacking women on a bike trail?
 
superbee said:
If the 2 bikes were staged, could it have been as some kind of signal to someone?
Click to expand...

like a StoneHenge? The perps named in a Mayan calendar?
Forecast in the Cabala? ........ nawh I know what you mean.
More like a smoke signal. :fence: Me go 7-Bridges. You go
7-11 and get cigarettes.. :rocker: Me get 50 to life. You get 30 to Life?

:please::banghead:
 
jenandemmie said:
I know there has been much speculation about some of the family members' insistence that the girls weren't in the lake and how that seemed suspicious. However, I think it actually adds to their credibility (I hope being pro-family isn't against TOS). I would think that the only way insisting it was an abduction would benefit them if they were responsible is if the girls were actually found in the lake - but they weren't. If they were found in the lake, THEN I would be suspicious of the insistence on abduction. In hindsight of course, draining the lake was really a hindrance to the investigation because it focused the attention in the wrong place despite the families pleas that they weren't in there. They wouldn't have been pointing out the fact that their shoes weren't there on the shore if they were trying to steer the investigation away from what really happened. A guilty party would welcome the additional time diverted in the wrong direction. Insisting abduction would mean they were more likely to knock on doors for witnesses. Why encourage that process if you were the one who would have been seen with the girls? I'm not a veteran here but even I am getting tired of all the sideline comments about what can't be said and the snarky judgment being passed onto these people when the TOS are so clear and LE hasn't arrested them or named them POI's. Besides, they are clearly not "organized" enough to pull anything off without a shred of evidence being left behind or someone seeing them and recognizing them. If the father would flip on a drug friend he would flip on the murderer(s) of his children if he knew. I don't want to leave a place that usually has so much good banter going on but the insinuations are getting annoying when they clearly violate TOS.

Sorry, rant over.
Click to expand...

I would have to agree. If there had been no drug connections with the mother of Victoria Stafford, she would never have been raked through the coals for months and accused of being responsible for her missing daughter. Because Victoria's mother was not squeaky clean, she was persecuted in social media. Here, we have two murdered children. One of the two missing children has parents that are not squeaky clean and, as a result, we see the exact same thing here that we saw with Victoria Stafford.

When all is said and done, I suspect that we will have the same outcome here that we saw with Victoria ... that is, that the family of the victims are nothing more than victims, and that the abduction was an random, sexually motivated crime of opportunity.
 
jenandemmie said:
I know there has been much speculation about some of the family members' insistence that the girls weren't in the lake and how that seemed suspicious. However, I think it actually adds to their credibility (I hope being pro-family isn't against TOS). I would think that the only way insisting it was an abduction would benefit them if they were responsible is if the girls were actually found in the lake - but they weren't. If they were found in the lake, THEN I would be suspicious of the insistence on abduction. In hindsight of course, draining the lake was really a hindrance to the investigation because it focused the attention in the wrong place despite the families pleas that they weren't in there. They wouldn't have been pointing out the fact that their shoes weren't there on the shore if they were trying to steer the investigation away from what really happened. A guilty party would welcome the additional time diverted in the wrong direction. Insisting abduction would mean they were more likely to knock on doors for witnesses. Why encourage that process if you were the one who would have been seen with the girls? I'm not a veteran here but even I am getting tired of all the sideline comments about what can't be said and the snarky judgment being passed onto these people when the TOS are so clear and LE hasn't arrested them or named them POI's. Besides, they are clearly not "organized" enough to pull anything off without a shred of evidence being left behind or someone seeing them and recognizing them. If the father would flip on a drug friend he would flip on the murderer(s) of his children if he knew. I don't want to leave a place that usually has so much good banter going on but the insinuations are getting annoying when they clearly violate TOS.

Sorry, rant over.
Click to expand...

I think Misty and Heather insisting their girls weren't in the lake and wouldn't ride to the lake, only goes to show how well they know their girls. I don't blame them one bit for trying to get the focus on finding the girls when they KNEW they weren't in the lake since their girls wouldn't go to the lake and wouldn't swim in it, their shoes were missing, which should have been in the shore if they went into the lake.

I am of the opinion that Dan & Misty and Drew & Heather were not involved and are very much victims of a tragic crime.
 
Reverie said:
Those last words are chilling.
Click to expand...

Lyric's father makes a good point. As soon as the children were in the double fenced area, they could easily be trapped on either end.

Lyric's Father: "The area where the bikes were found is fenced on both sides, and it is right where maintenance gate is. It is a spot that looks to me like a trap," Morrissey said. "Somebody could have just come along right then or followed them down. It would have been the worst spot to be in."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_...ives-fear-missing-iowa-cousins-were-abducted/
 
JaimeInLA said:
I think that (insert name of my suspect) was well known to the girls. He/she tossed the purse over the fence as the girls walked ahead towards the car. The girls left the bikes on the trail. .)
Click to expand...

Known to the girls, or an Authority Figure?

That could account for why no muss or fuss, no crying out, no fighting, no abduction scene ..

"Come go with me!". And gone.
 
otto said:
I would have to agree. If there had been no drug connections with the mother of Victoria Stafford, she would never have been raked through the coals for months and accused of being responsible for her missing daughter. Because Victoria's mother was not squeaky clean, she was persecuted in social media. Here, we have two murdered children. One of the two missing children has parents that are not squeaky clean and, as a result, we see the exact same thing here that we saw with Victoria Stafford.

When all is said and done, I suspect that we will have the same outcome here that we saw with Victoria ... that is, that the family of the victims are nothing more than victims, and that the abduction was an random, sexually motivated crime of opportunity.
Click to expand...

As much as I agree that the girls deaths were not in relation to the drug use, I do think that since statistics dictate that family are the most likely perp, they MUST be cleared first. I think clearing the parents should be step 1. Verify alibis and then publicly announce them as the parents are cleared so people can focus on the real perp. Like they did in Jessica Ridgeway's case. I mean up until they announced the parents were cleared of involvement I really thought the mom was involved. But sometimes there are just random abductions.

Not that I think this was a random abduction, I do think the girls knew their killer.
 
otto said:
Even if they were lured there (perhaps by a stranger), it still requires that one or two murderers just happened to be at the correct isolated section of the mostly deserted park at the exact correct time to intercept the girls.
Click to expand...

Who takes their break there in an official vehicle?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 135 more.
Total: 2,832 (members: 136, guests: 2,696)

Online statistics

Members online
136
Guests online
2,696
Total visitors
2,832
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
603,897
Messages
18,165,039
Members
231,883
Latest member
faithfülly
Back
Top