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

[JaimeInLA]

BBM

I thought it was the day after he went to court. Maybe I need to reread things to refresh my memory. MOO

You are correct:

"Ms Cook said Mr Morrissey had been expected to accept a plea agreement July 12, the day before the girls vanished, but decided not to do so because he was not ready to go jail."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-Elizabeth-Collins-abducted-drug-dealers.html

So, to be clear, he was facing 225 years in jail (5 counts that each carry a 45 year sentence), and had pled that down to 5-10 years. That is a pretty good deal! And instead of taking that deal, he instead decided that he would roll the dice and go to trial instead, and face 225 years in prison "because he was not ready on 7/12 to go to jail." On 7/13, his daughter was murdered. Since then, he has not stood trial, and has not spent a day in jail.

Those are all facts, from MSM.

 

[JaimeInLA]

"The charges against Mr Morrissey, on the other hand, carry 45 years in prison apiece because he is a repeat offender." There were 5 charges.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-Elizabeth-Collins-abducted-drug-dealers.html

 

[Mjskit]

You are correct:

"Ms Cook said Mr Morrissey had been expected to accept a plea agreement July 12, the day before the girls vanished, but decided not to do so because he was not ready to go jail."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-Elizabeth-Collins-abducted-drug-dealers.html

So, to be clear, he was facing 225 years in jail (5 counts that each carry a 45 year sentence), and had pled that down to 5-10 years. That is a pretty good deal! And instead of taking that deal, he instead decided that he would roll the dice and go to trial instead, and face 225 years in prison "because he was not ready on 7/12 to go to jail." On 7/13, his daughter was murdered. Since then, he has not stood trial, and has not spent a day in jail.

Those are all facts, from MSM.

I don't about Iowa but where I live IF he is found guilty of those charges the sentences could all run together (at the same time) not consecutively.

 

[Bootsctr]

Don't forget about Black Hawk LE having to deal with a jail break the day before the girls' disappearance until he was caught some time Friday morning, July 13th after a high speed chase.

http://wcfcourier.com/news/local/ne...cle_c0c1c09a-cc68-11e1-902e-001a4bcf887a.html

 

[GrainneDhu]

I didn't follow that case on here, but casually watched it on the news - so I know little details other than when they made the arrest of Frederickson. But did they at any point state that he was "cleared" or "not a suspect"? Then they turned around once they had everything they needed and charged him?

I don't know as this is the first case I've followed on here...is it common for LE to state people aren't suspects and then turn around and arrest them?:dunno:

I didn't follow the Evelyn Miller case here, I followed it with the help of a Google feed.

No, they never said Casey Frederickson was not a suspect. They never said Casey Frederickson had been cleared. Those were some of the early hints that LE had found problems with his version of events.

 

[FrayedKnot]

Think of this conversely. If they say someone IS a suspect, LE had better be ready to charge them. If you name a suspect, that person will have to retain a lawyer and then the clock is ticking. lE would not name someone a suspect if they weren't close to charging because usually all communication between LE and the suspect stops and is done in the presence of a lawyer.

ITA.

IMHO, too much is made of LE's POI/suspect declarations.

Thing is, publicly announcing that someone they are eyeballing is a POI is making a pretty stiff statement. And if they do not have the evidence to make the arrest then, they may NEVER get it.

It can screw up an investigation not to mention a trial (if they get that far) to start naming POI's before they have the cuffs out.

I take LE not naming a POI with a big ole box of salt unless I hear emphatic or very specific wording such as "Mrs. Blah has been cleared and is not a suspect in this investigation". Even saying "we have no suspects" or "we have not ruled out anyone" or "the parents have not been named suspects" is vague enough for me, anyway, to still consider that they might still be the guilty party.

I am speaking in general of all these types of cases, not L & L's specifically.

 

[hollyblue]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-Elizabeth-Collins-abducted-drug-dealers.html

Here is another example of how someone could have profited. As stated in this MSM article: "Mr Morrissey, 36, was due to stand trial for multiple charges of methamphetamine possession, making and delivering and for beating his estranged wife as early as Tuesday but a judge today delayed the case a month saying she 'understood' the search for his daughter had distracted him."

There were 2 witnesses present when he beat Misty -- Tammy and Lyric. This is why Lyric did not live with Dan. So theoretically, she would be a witness in his upcoming spousal abuse trial. An example of a "profit" would be removing a witness.

(AGAIN -- NOT saying I think this is what happened. This is only a hypothetical.)

I wonder if Lyric had to be asked questions about the drugs? Either LE or CPS? Like if she knew a guy name "Harry"or a woman named "Celia" that would come over to the house or that Dad hung around? Someone that was caught along with Dan?

 

[Ms Pragmatic]

ITA.

IMHO, too much is made of LE's POI/suspect declarations.

Thing is, publicly announcing that someone they are eyeballing is a POI is making a pretty stiff statement. And if they do not have the evidence to make the arrest then, they may NEVER get it.

It can screw up an investigation not to mention a trial (if they get that far) to start naming POI's before they have the cuffs out.

I take LE not naming a POI with a big ole box of salt unless I hear emphatic or very specific wording such as "Mrs. Blah has been cleared and is not a suspect in this investigation". Even saying "we have no suspects" or "we have not ruled out anyone" or "the parents have not been named suspects" is vague enough for me, anyway, to still consider that they might still be the guilty party.

I am speaking in general of all these types of cases, not L & L's specifically.

Thank you. That is where I was going with my post. LE has been very vague and I don't think they have ruled anyone out.

 

[Ms Pragmatic]

I wonder if Lyric had to be asked questions about the drugs? Either LE or CPS? Like if she knew a guy name "Harry"or a woman named "Celia" that would come over to the house or that Dad hung around? Someone that was caught along with Dan?

Great thought. I have no answer. Do we know if she would have been on the witness list?

 

[Mjskit]

Grasping at straws here and trying to think of things that have not been discussed. Lyric was the only daughter of Misty and Dan. Was Elizabeth Heather and Drew's only daughter also?

 

[jenandemmie]

Grasping at straws here and trying to think of things that have not been discussed. Lyric was the only daughter of Misty and Dan. Was Elizabeth Heather and Drew's only daughter also?

No, they have two other daughters, both younger than Elizabeth. They also have a son that is older than Elizabeth. She was #2 of 4.

(I refreshed just before typing this so I hope I'm not one of 12 people answering this question, lol!)

 

[palaminodee]

OT: meth lab fire arrest
http://wcfcourier.com/news/local/ar...cle_7188d5ae-5a9d-11e2-9fd1-001a4bcf887a.html

 

[threecrazykids]

:uthere:

........


:desert:


.......


:waiting:

 

[tlcya]

Hmmm...learn something new here every day. Please don't take this as snark because I honestly don't know.lease:

Why are the rules any different for RSO's who are cleared? Are we to assume that even though LE clears them because they have a previous offense it's ok to still sleuth them, but because WS is a victim family friendly site we can't assume the same for family?

I read the rules I just don't understand why cleared for family and cleared for RSO's are different. If you need to PM it to me so I understand that works too. I would just like to know where the difference falls. Thanks!

simply my :twocents:

The difference is, we are ALWAYS a victim friendly forum and NEVER a RSO friendly forum. While the MSM you linked states LE has cleared the RSOs in the area regarding the girls' case, they are still RSOs and their information (charges, registered address, etc) are public record.

Victim families are not considered a possible threat to public safety. RSOs are, which is why they invented the registry in the first place.

So as long as we stick to the rules regarding not using that RSO information to harrass, its all good IMO.

It is not illegal (in my opinion) if when a child goes missing or is harmed we look at the sex offenders in the area and post their information, along with maps to show how close they live to the victim.

In every case we have local people reading and posting here. Therefore we are within the guidelines using this info for local information.

We are serving the public good in that locals can find this information useful in ways that do not relate to the girls' case.

Again, all just MOO and maybe a mod can explain better.

 

[threecrazykids]

simply my :twocents:

The difference is, we are ALWAYS a victim friendly forum and NEVER a RSO friendly forum. While the MSM you linked states LE has cleared the RSOs in the area, they are still RSOs and their information (charges, registered address, etc) are public record.

Victim families are not considered a possible threat to public safety. RSOs are, which is why they invented the registry in the first place.

So as long as we stick to the rules regarding not using that RSO information to harrass, its all good IMO.



We are serving the public good in that locals can find this information useful in ways that do not relate to the girls' case.

Again, all just MOO and maybe a mod can explain better.

Thank you for your reply. I understand what you're saying. I don't know that I agree that we should NEVER be RSO friendly unless we know without a shadow of a doubt there wasn't something off the wall that landed that person on the registry. That is a different discussion though. :floorlaugh:
I (personally) have mixed feelings about the registry.

However, their past criminal record and family's past criminal record are both public. Cleared means cleared according to mod's when it comes to family...so why not RSO's? They are still open as likely suspects even though they are given the same status as far as suspects go by LE? It's just semantics I guess.

I won't violate rules and I won't bash anyone, I am just curious as to why the difference with anyone's criminal history. That is all.

Thank you by the way for your :twocents: I do appreciate the reply!:seeya:

 

[24Roses]

The day I get out of the immediate area & the lead takes me elsewhere will be a blessing. Help, I can't get out of the 2 or 3 mile area yet. Well, maybe I'm up to 5 or 6 but that's just recently. A few with Bremer connections possibly. Too many ties within this community by family names & locations. Majority are some of the best people you'd ever want to know I've found out. Thank you Elizabeth & Lyric for bringing me to meet your community & family. It's amazing from where I live in AZ. xoxo RIP.

Your theory sounds very interesting & it seems that others understand what you are getting at. I wish you would explain more without saying too much (if it would get you into trouble).

 

[carbuff]

Well, we're not sure which way the track went because the handler reports have not been released. Sandy Breault of the FBI said that the dogs tracked the girls to the water but gave no information beyond that. We do have a report from AuntTB, bless her heart, but while I believe she is truthful, I have no reason to believe she knows anything about trained scent dogs. She did say, though, that she thought the dogs were tracking the girls from next to the lake over to the wooded area, for whatever that is worth. She could be totally correct or totally incorrect.

So far as what dogs are actually following when tracking, human beings have no idea. It could be mind control rays for all we know! But the best theory is that what they are following is the skin rafts that humans shed by the tens of thousands every minute. Skin rafts are skin cells that have been sloughed off plus whatever skin oils, bacteria and fungi are attached to them. Each human being has unique skin rafts, even identical twins.

Simply carrying someone does not eliminate their shedding of skin rafts.

Tracking someone who is in a vehicle is a hit or miss proposition. For one thing, modern vehicles are quite airtight, particularly if the a/c is set on re-circulate. For another, roadbeds and road sides are a fairly adverse environment for tracking. I don't know of any truly reputable handlers who will guarantee their dog can follow a person in a vehicle with 100% certainty. If it happens, it happens but it doesn't always happen, if you get what I mean.

Thank you again.

Does the statement I bolded mean that sometimes the dogs can follow a scent from a vehicle, but if they don't, we can't read anything into that? So if they follow a person's scent down the road, that means the person was in the car, but if they don't, the person might have been in the car and just not shedding skin rafts outside the car in a place where the dogs can find them?

And does Breault's statement mean that the dogs confirmed the girls were at the lake at the same time as the bikes? Or is even that reading too much into it?

 

[tlcya]

here's my thinking on the "cleared" RSOs. Firstly, how big is the "area" they cleared the RSOs in? the immediate neighborhood, Evansdale, Waterloo, the county? Were there any who reported addresses in the "area" who were not there, had moved, were nowhere to be found, when LE went to talk to them and clear them?

in response to recent rumors of an arrest in this case (unfounded rumors) the Evansdale Police chief had this to say:

Chief Smock told KWWL sex offender teams from the state Division of Criminal Investigation are helping interview people of interest, but he says no one has been detained and those interviewed are not any closer to being suspects than anyone else.

On the other hand, he says no one's been cleared of suspicion, either.

http://www.kwwl.com/story/20351247/...chief-squashes-rumors-of-arrest-in-girls-case

 

[Bootsctr]

:lurk:

:back:

:eye:

 

[threecrazykids]

here's my thinking on the "cleared" RSOs. Firstly, how big is the "area" they cleared the RSOs in? the immediate neighborhood, Evansdale, Waterloo, the county? Were there any who reported addresses in the "area" who were not there, had moved, were nowhere to be found, when LE went to talk to them and clear them?

in response to recent rumors of an arrest in this case (unfounded rumors) the Evansdale Police chief had this to say:

Chief Smock told KWWL sex offender teams from the state Division of Criminal Investigation are helping interview people of interest, but he says no one has been detained and those interviewed are not any closer to being suspects than anyone else.

On the other hand, he says no one's been cleared of suspicion, either.

http://www.kwwl.com/story/20351247/...chief-squashes-rumors-of-arrest-in-girls-case

My understanding was all of the RSO's in Evansdale were cleared within a few days. The reason I remember this was I had stated it seemed quite fast (IMO) at how fast they stated all had been cleared. And Abben had made that comment in more than one interview because that was obviously questioned right away by reporters.

Anyone who was missing, moved, or nowhere to be found I would think would be a HUGE red flag! For cryin' out loud, I hope any that WERE in those statuses were eventually cleared. Any of those circumstances would for warrant an immediate check up by their probation/parole officer.

Sounds to me (since that article was from Dec 14th and the bodies were found on the 7th) that there was some sort of sexual assault/crime with the girls. If not, they probably wouldn't be looking into a sexual connection (hence using sex offender teams). Ugh...poor little girls. :sick: