IA IA - Elizabeth Collins, 8, & Lyric Cook, 10, Evansdale, 13 July 2012 - #29

[eileenhawkeye]

I'm not quite sure what your point is.

Are you saying BECAUSE nothing has been released, it's NOT a random or a serial killer?

No one knew about Sigg until AFTER the information was released...no one knows about serial killers until AFTER they are caught....?

:waitasec:

I was just wondering whether it was unusual or not for LE to release information in a murder investigation. From the cases you listed, most of them involved strangers killing strangers, where the community was at risk. I don't know if that means LE tends to stay quiet in cases where they believe the victim knew their killer, and therefore the community isn't at risk....

 

[eileenhawkeye]

This is from a February 15, 1997 article:

A judge released the autopsy report on 6-year-old JonBenet Ramsey yesterday after blacking out details only investigators and the killer would know. The report indicated she was sexually assaulted and strangled.

''The (autopsy) report contains no information which, if made public, would harm our investigation,'' a statement by Detective Commander John Eller said.

Apparently, the media had requested for the information to be released, and the judge agreed, under some circumstances. I wonder if that could happen in this case? Have we heard anything about the Iowa media filing any requests in the courtroom to get more information?

 

[Marilynilpa]

I was just wondering whether it was unusual or not for LE to release information in a murder investigation. From the cases you listed, most of them involved strangers killing strangers, where the community was at risk. I don't know if that means LE tends to stay quiet in cases where they believe the victim knew their killer, and therefore the community isn't at risk....

BBM

I've wondered if this might be LE's position. Doesn't mean I think it's right or wrong - I've just wondered.

 

[daisynae]

This is from a February 15, 1997 article:



Apparently, the media had requested for the information to be released, and the judge agreed, under some circumstances. I wonder if that could happen in this case? Have we heard anything about the Iowa media filing any requests in the courtroom to get more information?

That is very strange.
the fact that the parents do not want the details may have people backing off even more.
What the heck is goin on in Iowa.
It is like they have thier own rules.



.

 

[otto]

That is very strange.
the fact that the parents do not want the details may have people backing off even more.
What the heck is goin on in Iowa.
It is like they have thier own rules.



.

There are three parents: Heather, Drew, Wylma, a mother: Misty and a father: Dan ... so five related adults in total. The only parent that has said that she is not concered about the details surrounding her daughter's abduction and murder is Heather ... as she is with God and that's all she needs. Heather's personal position would have no bearing on whether the cause of death is released. The cause of death will be released when/if there is a trial and nothing that any of the parents say will change that.

 

[threecrazykids]

This is from a February 15, 1997 article:



Apparently, the media had requested for the information to be released, and the judge agreed, under some circumstances. I wonder if that could happen in this case? Have we heard anything about the Iowa media filing any requests in the courtroom to get more information?

I have a feeling if any of these types of requests would be granted the media would be all over it.

They've (LE) said that they won't release anything from the autopsies because it would hinder the investigation. LE headed that off right from the start when they did the presser releasing confirmation that the bodies found were indeed the girls.

I find it interesting in the link you posted that they didn't find it a hindrance to the investigation to release that she was strangled and sexually assaulted. I didn't follow that case much at all, bits and pieces here and there, but I'm going to assume that whomever found her knew she'd been strangled and sexually assaulted? Therefore it was already known by more than LE and wasn't "confidential"???

 

[shoregirl]

Awwe Girl No biggie we all gett a little bugged with this case and
I am so livid with this "Poet"
I just want the police to check him out.
or have Kent Smock come out and say he has been cleared
If he can do that about the RSO he can sure as hell come out and
say something about this guy who is writing about Killing his Mother.
rapping and killing young girls.ect.[/QUOTE

I understand I really do. I just get a visceral reaction to him. It would be great if LE would clear him and end it. It dismays me that if you call in a tip there is no follow thanking you and letting you know the status.

 

[RNER]

I was just wondering whether it was unusual or not for LE to release information in a murder investigation. From the cases you listed, most of them involved strangers killing strangers, where the community was at risk. I don't know if that means LE tends to stay quiet in cases where they believe the victim knew their killer, and therefore the community isn't at risk....

I believe LE DOES NOT release a lot of information in a murder investigation, especially when it is believed that there is no risk to others in the community (the victims were the specific targets)!

 

[otto]

I believe LE DOES NOT release a lot of information in a murder investigation, especially when it is believed that there is no risk to others in the community (the victims were the specific targets)!

Police have told the Evansdale community that there is a risk, and that parents need to be more cautious, more vigilant and that they need to teach their children about "stranger danger", so "risk to community" cannot be related to the fact that investigative evidence has not been released during this murder investigation.

 

[georger]

My fear is, LE believes quite possibly the girls' deaths are related to a serial killer. An unknown serial killer. .

A traveling serial killer who finds or knows about 7 Bridges ... he may have a
local area contact ?

:blushing::twocents:

 

[georger]

I still don't understand how releasing the COD is going to put an investigation in jeopardy.

Why does it matter if this person shot, strangled, drugged, etc. the girls? How does the public knowing that interfere with the investigation? I'm not saying it doesn't and there isn't a valid reason, I honestly don't know.

It's not like it's going to change who did it or how they did it so why is it a secret?

They say "we're not releasing this because it's something only the killer would know".

Um...:waitasec: haven't they been stating all along that they are confident that someone out there knows who took these girls and knows they have the pertinent information that would bring justice to the killer?

They've gone as far as making sure this person knows that an arrest would be made and the payout of the reward would be immediate. :waitasec:

I think the reason they aren't releasing it is because, just like every other thing in this case, they don't know. They may know little things. Little things that when you put it all together doesn't mean squat. But they don't know the big things....the things that matter.

Everyone knows my stance on how LE has APPEARED to handle this.

They could make an arrest today and surprise the pants right off me...but I'm not holding my breath on that.

What is the reason LE doesn't want to reveal COD? What is the risk of releasing it if only LE and the perp know? What would change if the public was aware that the girls had been shot? Or what would change if we knew they were strangled?:waitasec:

I agree with much of what you say, but I also admit to having a bias.
Ive seen how small town LE incompetence works, first hand. Ive also
seen how when competent LE steps in, thing do start to happen - BIG TIME! Solutions are set in place very quickly. The public and personal welfare of family restored, trumping small town hierarchy. So I am biased
and I admit it. Thanks for your post!

 

[georger]

BBM

If that were true, then the cause of death would always be released, regardless of whether there was an ongoing, active investigation, and the only reason that cause of death would not be released is if police have no information on the cause of death.

Does that sound right? Should all information about an active investigation be released to the public?

It wouldn't be surprising if the cause of death is unknown, given that the bodies may have been decomposing and skeletonized in the five months that they may have been exposed in the park. Should police make a statement that the cause of death is unknown? If they did, we would know that the children had been dead for 5 months, that there was no evidence of a weapon and we could probably deduce more information as well. How would that move the investigation forward? Is the need to know information about the cause of death based on personal curiosity, or is there an investigative reason that the information should be released?

Quite obviously there is a middle ground.

"is there an investigative reason that the information should be released?"

That would depend. If you want the public to help, then yes! If you don;t want the public involved, then no.

Only time sill tell, won't it ? But is an "experiment" really needed?

 

[Marilynilpa]

Quite obviously there is a middle ground.

"is there an investigative reason that the information should be released?"

That would depend. If you want the public to help, then yes! If you don;t want the public involved, then no.

Only time sill tell, won't it ? But is an "experiment" really needed?

Would you please share how you feel the public can help LE at this point in the murder investigation?

 

[otto]

Quite obviously there is a middle ground.

"is there an investigative reason that the information should be released?"

That would depend. If you want the public to help, then yes! If you don;t want the public involved, then no.

Only time sill tell, won't it ? But is an "experiment" really needed?

In the case of the murder of Jessica Ridgeway, a necklace was found at the crime scene. When they found it, police knew that it may or may not be connected with the murder. Police released that investigative evidence in the hope that someone would recognize the necklace. It was connected with Austin Sigg. Police did not release the name of Austin Sigg, but they zeroed in on him. His name was only released after he confessed to his mother and she reported him to police. Then the public was notified.

The video of Lyric and Elizabeth was released. That investigative information was most likely released in the hope that it would generate new leads ... and that may have happened.

Releasing the cause of death would not lead to new evidence. If a weapon was found, then releasing that information may produce new leads. Statistically speaking, children are most often murdered by ligature or manual strangulation, so there's probably no real weapon.

The release of investigative information during a murder investigation is not an experiment ... police are trained professionals that analyze evidence and determine whether the release of evidence is necessary to generate new leads.

 

[cluciano63]

I have doubts that LE has anything to release that would prompt answers from the public. Many cases don't.

In Dylan's case in Colorado, LE has released almost nothing. They have given no indication that a predator might be on the move in the area. Of course they don't know what happened to Dylan in that case. But I feel sure that parents are being more cautious anyway.

 

[RNER]

Police have told the Evansdale community that there is a risk, and that parents need to be more cautious, more vigilant and that they need to teach their children about "stranger danger", so "risk to community" cannot be related to the fact that investigative evidence has not been released during this murder investigation.

"investgative evidence"??????? I stated "information"!

LE releasing a statement that this is an actual "murder" investigation would be a start to release to the public. By no means is it giving a COD, which I believe won't be released until trial or a suspect is apprehended and charged, but it gives some sense of direction to the community. Another would be whether or not the community needs to be fearful of another abduction or similar crime (other than being advised to be "vigilant"). Maybe I missed this information being given out by LE, not just by media. I don't see this kind of information (or evidence as you call it) being harmful to the investigation.

My opinion is that the "risk to the community" warnings given directly by LE in this case have been vague and scarce. Let's see...1 or 2 in July shortly after the abduction, and 1 or 2 in December after the bodies were found, and maybe 1 within the last month. Advice to "remain vigilant", without any reference of specific warnings or precautions is hardly an indication of a potential for other abductions.

Big differences between "murdered" and "dead girls" as well as "warnings" and "stay vigilant" and anything in between varies the community/public involvement and perception .

 

[otto]

"investgative evidence"??????? I stated "information"!

LE releasing a statement that this is an actual "murder" investigation would be a start to release to the public. By no means is it giving a COD, which I believe won't be released until trial or a suspect is apprehended and charged, but it gives some sense of direction to the community. Another would be whether or not the community needs to be fearful of another abduction or similar crime (other than being advised to be "vigilant"). Maybe I missed this information being given out by LE, not just by media. I don't see this kind of information (or evidence as you call it) being harmful to the investigation.

My opinion is that the "risk to the community" warnings given directly by LE in this case have been vague and scarce. Let's see...1 or 2 in July shortly after the abduction, and 1 or 2 in December after the bodies were found, and maybe 1 within the last month. Advice to "remain vigilant", without any reference of specific warnings or precautions is hardly an indication of a potential for other abductions.

Big differences between "murdered" and "dead girls" as well as "warnings" and "stay vigilant" and anything in between varies the community/public involvement and perception .

I don't really understand what sort of community involvement is required for a police department to investigate a murder. Community involvement isn't required for lawyers, doctors, accountants and professors to do the jobs that they are trained to do ... why would detectives need community involvement to do their jobs? If people have information that pertains to the abduction/murder, they should report it to the police. That strikes me as the beginning and end of it. What else should the community be doing to help the detectives do their jobs?

Regarding public information that two children were abducted and murdered in the community, police have said that they believe that the person responsible lives in the community. Everyone knows that there has not been an arrest. What additional information does the community require in order to understand that a very dangerous person is living amongst them? Should people be afraid, no. Should people be cautious, more protective of their children and educate their children about dangerous people ... police have said that they should.

 

[otto]

I get the impression that there's some frustration because there is no resolution to this case. When there is frustration, we sometimes look to focus that frustration in one direction. In this discussion, that focus seems to be on the people that are doing the most to solve the case: investigators. Fortunately, it doesn't sound like the Evansdale community is focusing frustration on investigators for the unsolved abduction/murder of two children. Instead, the community seems happy with the police investigation and are instead focused on establishing memorials for the children.

If the community wants to become involved in public safety, they should. Eight people attended the meeting where police were available to discuss community safety, amongst other things. The first step would be to increase community participation in those events. The community can also become involved in education to reduce the possibility that this happens again by creating programs like Safewalk, Child Self Defense classes, and establishing organized, affordable activities for children during summer months ... and so much more. A big city crime occurred in a bedroom community, so the bedroom community needs to develop big city programs to protect their chidlren ... but they don't need to help the police do their jobs.

 

[RNER]

I don't really understand what sort of community involvement is required for a police department to investigate a murder. Community involvement isn't required for lawyers, doctors, accountants and professors to do the jobs that they are trained to do ... why would detectives need community involvement to do their jobs? If people have information that pertains to the abduction/murder, they should report it to the police. That strikes me as the beginning and end of it. What else should the community be doing to help the detectives do their jobs?

Regarding public information that two children were abducted and murdered in the community, police have said that they believe that the person responsible lives in the community. Everyone knows that there has not been an arrest. What additional information does the community require in order to understand that a very dangerous person is living amongst them? Should people be afraid, no. Should people be cautious, more protective of their children and educate their children about dangerous people ... police have said that they should.

Once again...misinterpreted my statemnt for the sake of arguing or I didn't state my point clearly!!!!!!!!!!!

IN THE REAL WORLD...

People should know right from wrong, but they don't!
People should feel safe, but they don't!
People should report criminal activities, but they don't!
People should report suspicious activity or information to LE, but they don't!
People should supervise and protect children, but they don't!
LE should serve and protect the community, but they don't!
Children should be free from harm, but they aren't!
Missing children should be found alive, but they aren't!
Criminals should be locked up, but they aren't!
Crimes should be solved, but they aren't!

I have faith and hope that this case will be solved, and LE will apprehend those responsible...However, I don't think they are doing it alone!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[cindersoot]

A traveling serial killer who finds or knows about 7 Bridges ... he may have a
local area contact ?

:blushing::twocents:

I know it is a big stretch, but there are quite a list of unsolved murders of young woman and children in the area from the 70's on. Most of these cases involved the dumping of the body in a remote wooded area.:what: