IA IA - Elizabeth Collins, 8, & Lyric Cook, 10, Evansdale, 13 July 2012 - #27

[chelsea6]

I'm very surprised that given the size of Evansdale that we haven't heard more rumors (locally) about who the people of the town believe could be responsible or who has been looked into (via the FB pages or comments on articles, etc.). I would think that there would be some serious gossip and hoopla going around in such a small town. Especially something of this magnitude.

At first almost everyone local I heard talking thought it was the drug/cartel/whatever connection. Then it went to possibly some sex offender did it.
Now, sadly, I rarely hear anyone discussing the girls. I asked a person 2 days ago that lives right on Lafayette, on the edge of Waterloo, right beside Evansdale about the girls murder. He asked me, "Who?" hoh: :thud: Of course I reminded him, and he said "Well, they aren't the only ones that got killed in this area, just go back a few years, there's quite a few, some still unsolved."

Other talk is of possibly leaked information. This is a small town, and once in awhile there's a rumor about information "leaked" out of the police station. Of course, if this information were true, it shouldn't be placed on a public message board for the whole world to see, especially the killer. (I'm sure you can respect why I can't share, so please, no p.m's.)
:cow:

 

[tlcya]

B I N G O ! ! !

I enjoyed all your comments. I, too, doubt we're looking at a garden variety troll as she seems too good at it on this particular subj. (She actually made my stomach queasy.)

Now... this is strictly my personal opinion: I hope nobody here, or there, reports her to the website. Irrespective of whether or not "A" has ever had any dealings in IA, I believe it's in society's best interest to let her keep talking. It might be a case of "the more she says, the better."

I share your opinion. Initially struggling with the urge to report but did not for this exact reason.

 

[carbuff]

I still think it happened closer to the Collins house. But I cant explain the dogs.

Yeah, if it wasn't for the dogs confirming the girls' presence at the lake, I would definitely believe that the kidnapping happened not far from where the camera recorded them.

 

[Marilynilpa]

I'm very surprised that given the size of Evansdale that we haven't heard more rumors (locally) about who the people of the town believe could be responsible or who has been looked into (via the FB pages or comments on articles, etc.). I would think that there would be some serious gossip and hoopla going around in such a small town. Especially something of this magnitude.

I just have this gut feeling this HAS to be someone with local knowledge given the secluded area the bikes were left, and then also the 7 Bridges park where the bodies were found (also secluded). This screams local knowledge to me. And for everything to appear so quiet in MSM it makes me wonder what the word on the street is.

I can't help but feel some sort of link of the whole "park" connection. Two girls in the family return home late a week earlier from a park, the bikes are found at Meyer's Lake (also what I would call a park), and the bodies found also at a park. Very strange coincidence IMO. Almost TOO coincidental.

So, what links are there between these 3 places? What is AT a park that would possibly draw someone to be there? Fishing, for one, at Meyer's Lake and also 7 Bridges (even though the fishing would not be good, it's still something that would give a person an excuse to be there). Maintenance of some sort...at all 3 places. Even though 7 Bridges isn't maintained now, it was at one time.

Hunting doesn't take place at Meyer's Lake, nor at the local park the girls were late coming home from. Bike riding I don't believe goes on at 7 Bridges either (as a norm, not saying it doesn't EVER happen)...but I don't think there is enough traffic in 7 Bridges for someone to really stalk a person there and plan something like this.

Fishing hatcheries? DNR or conservation observers? Water quality testing type people? Children's playground equipment repair workers? Is there any playground type equipment at all 3 places? :waitasec:

All three places could be somewhere a worker might spend his/her lunch hour or free time. If the perp is someone who travels around the area, he/she could be familiar with all three locations. 7 Bridges is definitely off the beaten path, but I still think it's possible someone might park there to kill time between appointments or deliveries, for instance. JMO

 

[chelsea6]

All three places could be somewhere a worker might spend his/her lunch hour or free time. If the perp is someone who travels around the area, he/she could be familiar with all three locations. 7 Bridges is definitely off the beaten path, but I still think it's possible someone might park there to kill time between appointments or deliveries, for instance. JMO

Like this guy.. a van driver that snatched this girl off her bike

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/313464

 

[carbuff]

All three places could be somewhere a worker might spend his/her lunch hour or free time. If the perp is someone who travels around the area, he/she could be familiar with all three locations. 7 Bridges is definitely off the beaten path, but I still think it's possible someone might park there to kill time between appointments or deliveries, for instance. JMO

It seems possible also that somebody could have found it by poking around on Mapquest or Googlemaps looking for a remote place. Technology is changing so much about the way people behave.

 

[SapphireSteel]

Yeah, if it wasn't for the dogs confirming the girls' presence at the lake, I would definitely believe that the kidnapping happened not far from where the camera recorded them.

Scent trails can be staged.

All it takes it dragging an item of clothing around or walking around in that person's shoes (if they fit).

All the dogs know is that persons scent was there, not if the person was actually there, nor when.

 

[nursebeeme]

Scent trails can be staged.

All it takes it dragging an item of clothing around or walking around in that person's shoes (if they fit).

All the dogs know is that persons scent was there, not if the person was actually there, nor when.

I do not believe that is true.

I will flag this however for one of the SAR verified professionals to address for you.

 

[SapphireSteel]

It seems possible also that somebody could have found it by poking around on Mapquest or Googlemaps looking for a remote place. Technology is changing so much about the way people behave.

Whoever did this crime knew he had little chance of being interrupted or seen out there.

This would imply (to me anyway) that he is personally familiar with the area. If I were a pedophile, I would take my victims somewhere that is in my comfort zone.

You also can't tell how many people regularly visit a wooded area from Google maps. I think it implies persona, probably locall knowledge. The whole crime implies this in my mind.

I also can't get my head around this - if you are going to go to the huge and risky effort of planning then trapping and taking two girls, you have also already prepared somewhere to take them so you can enjoy your catch in complete privacy.

An afternoon (an hour? less?) in an open, public area simply does not seem to be worth the effort and risk of taking two girls in a public park, on a hot summers day.

If this crime is planned to the nth degree as it appears, then he would also have had planned somewhere to keep them.

To my mind, anyway.

 

[SapphireSteel]

I do not believe that is true.

I will flag this however for one of the SAR verified professionals to address for you.

I hope it's not the same SAR professional who argued black and blue that I was wrong about another aspect of scent (on another thread), then ended up having to apologise.

 

[nursebeeme]

I hope it's not the same SAR professional who argued black and blue that I was wrong about another aspect of scent (on another thread), then ended up having to apologise.

I am referring to the point in your post about not being able to track freshest scent vs old scent.

In our SAR thread this question is actually addressed.

As for what you are referring to above I do not know the answer to that.

 

[Eileen730]

Yeah, if it wasn't for the dogs confirming the girls' presence at the lake, I would definitely believe that the kidnapping happened not far from where the camera recorded them.

I have a question!

If the person that killed these little girls carried them or held them or better yet lived with them and then this person takes the bikes to the lake couldnt the dogs follow the scent of this person and we are thinking its the children they are following? scent transference.

Does that make any sense

 

[foxbluff]

What makes you believe it happened closer to the Collins house? The timeline is too close to happen at the lake? The comments from Abben that "nothing here tells me the girls were here, just the bikes/purse"? The fact that the family firmly believes the girls didn't know how to get to the lake or wouldn't go to the lake?

I am not disagreeing with you in any way, shape, or form...just trying to pick your brain as to what makes you feel this way. :rocker:

I so wish we had more answers than questions...

BBM - I'm just jumping off your post to say every time I see references to the family saying the girls would never have gone to the lake, I am befuddled as to why the women went to the lake to search?!? IDK...

 

[chelsea6]

Whoever did this crime knew he had little chance of being interrupted or seen out there.

This would imply (to me anyway) that he is personally familiar with the area. If I were a pedophile, I would take my victims somewhere that is in my comfort zone.

You also can't tell how many people regularly visit a wooded area from Google maps. I think it implies persona, probably locall knowledge. The whole crime implies this in my mind.

I also can't get my head around this - if you are going to go to the huge and risky effort of planning then trapping and taking two girls, you have also already prepared somewhere to take them so you can enjoy your catch in complete privacy.

An afternoon (an hour? less?) in an open, public area simply does not seem to be worth the effort and risk of taking two girls in a public park, on a hot summers day.

If this crime is planned to the nth degree as it appears, then he would also have had planned somewhere to keep them.

To my mind, anyway.

:websleuther: :yesss:

 

[SapphireSteel]

I'm no "expert" but I have laid my hands on, and read (some of :blush, a book described as "scent dogs 101" written by one of the original experts in the field. Sorry don't have link to hand but I'll find it.

The thing is, dogs can only find scent. That's it.

They can't tell you another thing about it, including how it got there.

Scent rolls off us in waves and the dogs "see" it. They are given a target scent and they "look" for that scent. The best way to describe how they do it, is that each scent has it's own colour. The dog is trained to only pick out one colour, the scent, which pours off us everywhere we go, and onto everything we touch, and leaves behind tiny molecules of colour like a vapour trail.

The dog cannot tell you how the molecules were deposited. He cannot tell you if they came off you, or merely off something you came into contact with, eg, clothing.

He cannot tell how the scent got there, only that it is there.

He also cannot tell when it got there (scent can last for decades in the right conditions), but he will tell you the freshest scent, always, as he goes for the "brightest" colour by instinct.

Just like the presence of DNA...frustratingly, it cannot tell you a gd thing, apart from the fact that it is present at the scene. Unless it's conveniently smeared in/on the victim in the form of semen or saliva or blood, it can conceivably be explained away as transference by a fancy lawyer.

As in the Madeleine McCann case, where a scent dog and a Cadaver scent dog were brought in. The Cadaver hit all over the parent's things, weeks later, indicating that they had been in direct contact with a cadaver, presumably their own daughter.

The McCanns are walking free today, because dogs can't talk and its all being explained away by transference. They are both doctors. :banghead:

ETA: link.

http://books.google.com.au/books?id...=cadaver scent vs decomposition scent&f=false

 

[Eileen730]

I dont think the girls were at the lake.

 

[SapphireSteel]

I am referring to the point in your post about not being able to track freshest scent vs old scent.
In our SAR thread this question is actually addressed.

As for what you are referring to above I do not know the answer to that.

Did I say that?

It must have been a typo...:waitasec:

I know dogs go fresh first.

Can you tell me where? TIA

 

[nursebeeme]

here is the sar q/a thread

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=125709&highlight=sar+dog+questions

some of the questions you guys are discussing are already here. If you have a different question Sarx or Oriah can answer it for you here.

 

[SapphireSteel]

I have a question!

If the person that killed these little girls carried them or held them or better yet lived with them and then this person takes the bikes to the lake couldnt the dogs follow the scent of this person and we are thinking its the children they are following? scent transference.

Does that make any sense

Carried - yes. Often dogs lose the scent at roadsides, indicating the person got into a vehicle, which interrupts the trail. Carrying does not interrupt it, just makes it weaker as a lot of the scent will stick to the top half of the carrier and not land on the ground at all..

Scent off bikes? Maybe not. Scent is like pollen, wind and movement will blow it away and dust it off.

I believe the dogs can indicate strong scent vs weak scent, and weak scents could too easily be explained away by transference so are probably not regarded as strong enough "evidence" for a prosecutor.

:cow:

 

[threecrazykids]

Whoever did this crime knew he had little chance of being interrupted or seen out there.

This would imply (to me anyway) that he is personally familiar with the area. If I were a pedophile, I would take my victims somewhere that is in my comfort zone.

You also can't tell how many people regularly visit a wooded area from Google maps. I think it implies persona, probably locall knowledge. The whole crime implies this in my mind.

I also can't get my head around this - if you are going to go to the huge and risky effort of planning then trapping and taking two girls, you have also already prepared somewhere to take them so you can enjoy your catch in complete privacy.

An afternoon (an hour? less?) in an open, public area simply does not seem to be worth the effort and risk of taking two girls in a public park, on a hot summers day.

If this crime is planned to the nth degree as it appears, then he would also have had planned somewhere to keep them.

To my mind, anyway.

I agree. I don't think the girls were killed at 7 Bridges. Even if they were killed right away (which I am not 100% convinced that happened either), I think they were killed somewhere else and their bodies dumped there.