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

[SapphireSteel]

why SS? What struck you as strange about it? Could you elaborate?

TIA

Surely.

She used the phrase "whether it was true or not".

The fact that she used the word "true" implies an unspoken alternative, which could be either "false" or "lies".

Whenever a witness refers to "truth", it means that they feel like someone doesn't believe them.

Put yourself in Tammys shoes - she knows she spoke to a boy fishing, and she knows she spoke to a man who had seen the girls on the bike path. There is no reason to add "whether it was true or not" if you are speaking from a viewpoint of knowing it is true.

Forensic linguistics is fascinating stuff, all too often written off as an inexact science. Extra information is sensitive information so when a sentence or word appears where it shouldn't, as in this case, you red flag it.

 

[chelsea6]

Way back towards the beginning of this, didn't someone say one of the mothers was concerned and told her daughter not to talk to some teenager that was older than her? Why is that in my head?:waitasec: And then when the girls were found, and we were talking about the hunters, a new person posted something about a friend of hers knew one of the hunters, and the girls remains were described as grotesque. How grotesque can a bunch of bones be?

I've been searching for both of these, but there are way too many posts, so I'm asking if anyone remember seeing either of these?

 

[threecrazykids]

I wish we had something new to talk about. : (

I wish we did too! Patience isn't one of my best virtues...:blushing:

 

[Marilynilpa]

Way back towards the beginning of this, didn't someone say one of the mothers was concerned and told her daughter not to talk to some teenager that was older than her? Why is that in my head?:waitasec:

I don't recall that, and I've been here since the first thread. Maybe it was something on Facebook?

 

[tlcya]

I don't recall that but I do remember one of the girls' other cousins was being chatted up by some older guy (a young man) and receiving inappropriate texts or photos from him. That took place shortly after the abduction I think.

Are you referring to a different incident with Lyric or Elizabeth specifically? I would be interested in hearing more if anyone else knows about this.

 

[threecrazykids]

Another mystery.

Tammy said she spoke to a boy.

TAMMY brousseau, AUNT OF MISSING GIRLS: Absolutely not. There was nothing that seemed terribly out of the ordinary. There was a little boy fishing, and he had been there a long time. I asked him as well, when I first approached and started asking random people. I said, "Did you see two little girls on a bicycle? He said "No". I said, "How long have you been here?" He said, "A long time."

So when I told you a man said that he had seen them going east on the bike trial, whether that was true or not, yes, they have his name, they know who he is. But it appears what he said was true because like I said the lake wraps around and the bikes were found on the south side. And that`s where the girls --

BBM - Has Tammy been challenged as to the truth of her account? That sentence implies that she has in my opinion. :waitasec:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1207/16/ijvm.01.html

It's funny you should say that, I kind of read it that way at first as well...but I think what she means is "whether or not he's telling the truth or not, LE has his name, etc."

ETA: She goes on to say "But it appears what HE said was true because..."

 

[SapphireSteel]

It's funny you should say that, I kind of read it that way at first as well...but I think what she means is "whether or not he's telling the truth or not, LE has his name, etc."

ETA: She goes on to say "But it appears what HE said was true because..."

I know.

It is still a red flag no matter whose sighting she is discussing.

She didn't say anything about the boy fishing being truthful.

Do you see where I'm going with this?

The word "true" should not appear in a genuine first hand account, at all. The teller assumes it is true.

Tammy assumed the boy was telling the truth, so why did she pose a question over the testimony of the cyclist?

Either she herself thinks he's not being truthful, or she knows LE thinks he's not being truthful.

There has never been a report of a sighting of the girls at the lake, by anyone except Tammy's "mystery cyclist". We know he is not Mr G as Mr G never claimed to have sighted the girls, only their bikes.

So, essentially we have an unknown cyclist, seen only by Tammy, who claims he saw the girls.

Then Tammy says "whether that's true or not" which to me could mean

Tammy believes the cyclist is lying or
Tammy is lying about the cyclist.

She also says it "must be true" because that is where they found the bikes. If you doubted the guys story, you would be screaming from the rooftops that the mystery cyclist was the last one to see the girls so where is his polygraph?

So where is this sighting in LE"s official timeline?

:cow:

 

[tlcya]

Surely.

She used the phrase "whether it was true or not".

The fact that she used the word "true" implies an unspoken alternative, which could be either "false" or "lies".

Whenever a witness refers to "truth", it means that they feel like someone doesn't believe them.

Put yourself in Tammys shoes - she knows she spoke to a boy fishing, and she knows she spoke to a man who had seen the girls on the bike path. There is no reason to add "whether it was true or not" if you are speaking from a viewpoint of knowing it is true.

Forensic linguistics is fascinating stuff, all too often written off as an inexact science. Extra information is sensitive information so when a sentence or word appears where it shouldn't, as in this case, you red flag it.

I took her wording to indicate the fact that she does not indicate a "knowing" if the man she spoke to saw the girls or saw someone else but that it would appear to her as if it could be true since the girls bikes were found in an area that would have been accessible from where he claimed to have seen them.

statement analysis is interesting to me but some folks take it to the extreme (not referring to you) so I tend to take it with a grain of salt. I think it a valid practice, but have always wondered, how, if you do not know a person's normal pattern and manner of speech, you can then discern stuff from their speech at times of great stress or worry.

Thanks for explaining further what caught you about Tammy's statement.

 

[Marilynilpa]

Another mystery.

Tammy said she spoke to a boy.

TAMMY brousseau, AUNT OF MISSING GIRLS: Absolutely not. There was nothing that seemed terribly out of the ordinary. There was a little boy fishing, and he had been there a long time. I asked him as well, when I first approached and started asking random people. I said, "Did you see two little girls on a bicycle? He said "No". I said, "How long have you been here?" He said, "A long time."

So when I told you a man said that he had seen them going east on the bike trial, whether that was true or not, yes, they have his name, they know who he is. But it appears what he said was true because like I said the lake wraps around and the bikes were found on the south side. And that`s where the girls --

BBM - Has Tammy been challenged as to the truth of her account? That sentence implies that she has in my opinion. :waitasec:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1207/16/ijvm.01.html

BBM

I wonder if Tammy would have gotten a different reply if she'd worded her question a little differently. She asked the boy if he'd seen two little girls on a bicycle, and he said no. He may have seen two girls riding their bikes, but he didn't see two girls on one bicycle.

 

[SapphireSteel]

I took her wording to indicate the fact that she does not indicate a "knowing" if the man she spoke to saw the girls or saw someone else but that it would appear to her as if it could be true since the girls bikes were found in an area that would have been accessible from where he claimed to have seen them.

statement analysis is interesting to me but some folks take it to the extreme (not referring to you) so I tend to take it with a grain of salt. I think it a valid practice, but have always wondered, how, if you do not know a person's normal pattern and manner of speech, you can then discern stuff from their speech at times of great stress or worry.

Thanks for explaining further what caught you about Tammy's statement.

Statement Analysis and Forensic Linguistics are two different things, although they share principles.

Forensic Linguistics is a very real science, and if you read any major crime details or court records you will likely find that one of the things that tipped LE off was something unusual the suspect said.

There is a branch of the FBI entirely devoted to Forensic Lingusitics.

It is how they caught the Unibomber.

Forensic Linguistics forms part of most university degrees in the criminal justice and psychology arena.

 

[Marilynilpa]

I know.

It is still a red flag no matter whose sighting she is discussing.

She didn't say anything about the boy fishing being truthful.

Do you see where I'm going with this?

The word "true" should not appear in a genuine first hand account, at all. The teller assumes it is true.

Tammy assumed the boy was telling the truth, so why did she pose a question over the testimony of the cyclist?

Either she herself thinks he's not being truthful, or she knows LE thinks he's not being truthful.

There has never been a report of a sighting of the girls at the lake, by anyone except Tammy's "mystery cyclist". We know he is not Mr G as Mr G never claimed to have sighted the girls, only their bikes.

So, essentially we have an unknown cyclist, seen only by Tammy, who claims he saw the girls.

Then Tammy says "whether that's true or not" which to me could mean

Tammy believes the cyclist is lying or
Tammy is lying about the cyclist.

She also says it "must be true" because that is where they found the bikes. If you doubted the guys story, you would be screaming from the rooftops that the mystery cyclist was the last one to see the girls so where is his polygraph?

So where is this sighting in LE"s official timeline?

:cow:

BBM

No where - just like TG's sighting of two bikes. LE's official timeline includes only information they deem valid, IMO.

 

[RNER]

Way back towards the beginning of this, didn't someone say one of the mothers was concerned and told her daughter not to talk to some teenager that was older than her? Why is that in my head?:waitasec: And then when the girls were found, and we were talking about the hunters, a new person posted something about a friend of hers knew one of the hunters, and the girls remains were described as grotesque. How grotesque can a bunch of bones be?

I've been searching for both of these, but there are way too many posts, so I'm asking if anyone remember seeing either of these?

I thought the "teenager" pertained to neighbor girls, I don't know for sure though! And yes, I do recall a poster saying something about knowing one of the "hunters", but can't recall what she said.

I would believe that finding ANY remains of a person would be "grotesque" to many people, whether it was "a bunch of bones" or an intact body.

I don't believe the condition of the deceased bodies has been released yet, so they may have been more than "a bunch of bones".

 

[threecrazykids]

I know.

It is still a red flag no matter whose sighting she is discussing.

She didn't say anything about the boy fishing being truthful.

Do you see where I'm going with this?

The word "true" should not appear in a genuine first hand account, at all. The teller assumes it is true.

Tammy assumed the boy was telling the truth, so why did she pose a question over the testimony of the cyclist?

Either she herself thinks he's not being truthful, or she knows LE thinks he's not being truthful.

There has never been a report of a sighting of the girls at the lake, by anyone except Tammy's "mystery cyclist". We know he is not Mr G as Mr G never claimed to have sighted the girls, only their bikes.

So, essentially we have an unknown cyclist, seen only by Tammy, who claims he saw the girls.

Then Tammy says "whether that's true or not" which to me could mean

Tammy believes the cyclist is lying or
Tammy is lying about the cyclist.

She also says it "must be true" because that is where they found the bikes. If you doubted the guys story, you would be screaming from the rooftops that the mystery cyclist was the last one to see the girls so where is his polygraph?

So where is this sighting in LE"s official timeline?

:cow:

Excellent points! :rocker:

 

[threecrazykids]

BBM

I wonder if Tammy would have gotten a different reply if she'd worded her question a little differently. She asked the boy if he'd seen two little girls on a bicycle, and he said no. He may have seen two girls riding their bikes, but he didn't see two girls on one bicycle.

I also think if she wouldn't have included the "on a bicycle" or "on bikes" or anything referring to the bikes she may have gotten a different answer too.

If she would have simply asked if this person had seen 2 little girls at the park maybe they would have answered differently. Who knows?:waitasec:

 

[Tennlyn]

Way back towards the beginning of this, didn't someone say one of the mothers was concerned and told her daughter not to talk to some teenager that was older than her? Why is that in my head?:waitasec: And then when the girls were found, and we were talking about the hunters, a new person posted something about a friend of hers knew one of the hunters, and the girls remains were described as grotesque. How grotesque can a bunch of bones be?

I've been searching for both of these, but there are way too many posts, so I'm asking if anyone remember seeing either of these?

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Found Deceased IA - Elizabeth Collins, 8, and Lyric Cook, 10, Evansdale, 13 July 2012 - #22
I don't recall any details about what the hunters saw. Just that this poster knows them and they were "devastated".

ETA: I appreciate the discretion shown by the hunters, both for the family's sake and to preserve LE's case.

 

[Bootsctr]

I think this was an excellent theory!!! It kind of just makes the rest of the theories/opinions on what happened make sense. It WAS weird that the scent stopped. it WAS weird that their bikes were left on the one side. Very, very good theory!!

Hello hlegate! Just wanted everyone to be aware that was Threecrazykids' theory. She keeps us on our toes with Lyric's and Elizabeth's case. However, :moo: your post is spot on in regards to TCK's post - it just makes some of the things that are so so out of whack fall in to place. It's like that puzzle missing one piece, you find it and everything else falls into place.

 

[Bootsctr]

Regarding the mention of a memorial at Seven Bridges near where the bodies were found, there are plastic flowers or something at the gate at the entrance (if I recall from my pictures). The park is closed for the winter.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

Thank you again for the pictures of Seven Bridges. I wished I had saved the one of "the tree." You did a great job! :rocker:

 

[cindersoot]

Way back towards the beginning of this, didn't someone say one of the mothers was concerned and told her daughter not to talk to some teenager that was older than her? Why is that in my head?:waitasec: And then when the girls were found, and we were talking about the hunters, a new person posted something about a friend of hers knew one of the hunters, and the girls remains were described as grotesque. How grotesque can a bunch of bones be?

I've been searching for both of these, but there are way too many posts, so I'm asking if anyone remember seeing either of these?

This got me thinking that whoever the hunters were, and bless their hearts, I'm pretty sure that they told family members or friends what they saw and it will leak out. But as far a remembering a poster who said they knew something about the girls bodies, no I don't remember that.

 

[BunnyHop]

Way back towards the beginning of this, didn't someone say one of the mothers was concerned and told her daughter not to talk to some teenager that was older than her? Why is that in my head?:waitasec: And then when the girls were found, and we were talking about the hunters, a new person posted something about a friend of hers knew one of the hunters, and the girls remains were described as grotesque. How grotesque can a bunch of bones be?

I've been searching for both of these, but there are way too many posts, so I'm asking if anyone remember seeing either of these?

I remember reading a post by someone who said they knew the hunters, and one was a woman. That's all I remember. :waitasec:

 

[tlcya]

snipped from Sapphire Steel's post above

She didn't say anything about the boy fishing being truthful.

Do you see where I'm going with this?

The word "true" should not appear in a genuine first hand account, at all. The teller assumes it is true.

Tammy assumed the boy was telling the truth, so why did she pose a question over the testimony of the cyclist?

Either she herself thinks he's not being truthful, or she knows LE thinks he's not being truthful.

I think the questions being posed at the time she is answering these questions causes her to wonder aloud even as she speaks about whether the man actually saw the girls or if he is somehow a suspect.

here is the full question and answer from the transcript.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Does it seem -- do you believe that they were taken by a stranger?

BROUSSEAU: Absolutely. Absolutely. I feel in my heart that there are a lot of pedophiles that live in that area. Myers Lake is not a very large lake. It has the bike trail that runs around it.

When my mother and I, the grandmother who was babysitting, when my mother and I went on our search for them, and this was at about a quarter to 3 -- and keep in mind the last they were seen was at 11:30 a.m., when they told mom they were going on the bike ride. So that is the last time they were for sure seen. And now, it`s going on to -- it`s getting close to being a quarter to 3.

We stop at Meyers Lake. I said, "Mom, drive me to Meyer Lake." I had Elizabeth`s older brother who`s 12, Kelly (ph), with us. And I just jumped out and started asking random strangers, "Have you seen two little girls?" Gave them the description, the colors of the bikes, and possibly what they were wearing.

And one man stepped forward and said, "Yes, I seen them going east on the bike trail at about 2:30." Now, whether he`s telling the truth or not, they do have this man`s name. You know, I don`t know. Whether he`s a person of interest, I don`t know.

But the girls` bike did trail around and ended up on the south side of the lake by the interstate, which would be 380, I-380.

where she speaks of the boy fishing is further into the interview and the question and answer in their entirety are below.

Tammy, I want to get back to you. Do you have any thoughts with anybody in the area -- and I`ll ask this of Misty as well -- acting strangely? Was there -- have you seen any strange people, people driving around in vans, any sense that this is -- any foreshadowing whatsoever?

TAMMY RUSSO, AUNT OF MISSING GIRLS: Absolutely not. There was nothing that seemed terribly out of the ordinary. There was a little boy fishing, and he had been there a long time. I asked him as well, when I first approached and started asking random people. I said, "Did you see two little girls on a bicycle? He said "No". I said, "How long have you been here?" He said, "A long time."

So when I told you a man said that he had seen them going east on the bike trial, whether that was true or not, yes, they have his name, they know who he is. But it appears what he said was true because like I said the lake wraps around and the bikes were found on the south side. And that`s where the girls --

MOO Tammy based off the the questions being asked was thinking rather suspiciously about the man since JVM had just asked about people acting strangely, and whether the family thinks it was a stranger abduction.

I think her hink was up about this guy for some reason. Possibly because at the moment, anyone and everyone could have been a suspect and apparently the girls bikes were indeed located in the direction he had indicated.

ETA a grown man who had indicated he had seen them in the direction their bikes were found to be might cause suspicion in her mind. A little boy saying no, I didn't notice anything or any girls might not raise those same suspicions as a little boy is a less likely person to abduct or harm two girls.