IA IA - Elizabeth Collins, 8, & Lyric Cook, 10, Evansdale, 13 July 2012 - #35

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, this news has sure puts a dent in my speculation that Klunder took and murdered our two girls.

i worry that they ruled him out based on his suspected location at the time of the abduction rather than using DNA or other evidence from the remains site that could actually tie him to the case. A cell phone could be left at a location giving a false alibi or witnesses could lie or be mistaken on when they saw him. The on-star feature on some cars give the vehicle location but not the driver location. The driver could be in another vehicle or someone else was driving their vehicle. I wish they would have said he was seen on video or in a store buying groceries or clothes - something that could not be refuted.

So it looks like I'm back to the drawing board with no clue as to whom may be responsible for this terrible crime.
 
Yes! They finally publically announced it. We can now move on from the Klunder conversations.

Not that it makes me feel any better though, knowing that there is still another 2 girl abductor/killer out there.

One thing I had to go back and listen to again was the interview with Jim Simpson. When he spoke he mentioned how "this is not something someone does once", and "may repeat actions, and hopefully will make a mistake the second time" (paraphrasing). :eek:
Let's all HOPE we don't have to wait for that person to "make a mistake" or "repeat their actions" for LE to find who did this to E&L for goodness sake...do we REALLY give hope that another girl/two girls to give their lives to catch the sicko?

Then I'm reading into his words (thinking to myself) how he's speaking about someone re-committing this type of crime "down the road" and "WILL make a mistake" etc. (speaking in a future tense), so clearly this is not someone who is currently locked up for a long period of time or isn't being monitored by LE.

Then I realised he's a retired police officer from NY and likely has zero knowledge about E&L's case specifics at all. :( He appeared to be speaking of cases in general - how a person makes a mistake in a future crime and ends up getting caught for something down the road and tied to previous crimes.

The #1 thing that I took from this entire interview was this comment from the reporter:
"Investigators took time looking into any connection between the Dayton case and the Evansdale case - because of the similarities. But based on the information collected from FORENSIC TESTING - they are comfortable saying he is no longer a person of interest."

IMO this means - they have DNA to match up and it's not matching anyone who is currently in the system, including all RSO's - correct?
 
I would think that unless they were able to eliminate him with DNA, they wouldn't be able to make that statement. But who knows? They may have known for awhile but held that card hoping the real killer would feel comfortable and brag. Unless they tell us how they ruled him out it's hard to say. I still feel it was someone local and a sex crime, I think now all sex offenders have to give DNA, but not sure when that started. It's possible it could be a sex offender who offended years ago when this was not the law, I think unless they offend again their DNA would not be in the system. Could be wrong not sure about the laws.
 
skeet said:
I would think that unless they were able to eliminate him with DNA, they wouldn't be able to make that statement. But who knows? They may have known for awhile but held that card hoping the real killer would feel comfortable and brag. Unless they tell us how they ruled him out it's hard to say. I still feel it was someone local and a sex crime, I think now all sex offenders have to give DNA, but not sure when that started. It's possible it could be a sex offender who offended years ago when this was not the law, I think unless they offend again their DNA would not be in the system. Could be wrong not sure about the laws.
Click to expand...

According to the interview they stated that they know where Klunder was on that day - and also ruled him out with forensic evidence.

Iowa law states that all current RSO's have to provide DNA, and they've also added (I believe) any aggravated offense into the mix as well - it's a very broad spectrum with the additional offenses. If anyone in the last 10 years has committed a sexual offense their DNA would be in there - even longer if they were required to register for life...as far as RSO's go.

So yes, it could be someone who offended over 10 years ago and hasn't commited any offenses since then. But anyone currently on the registry is out I think.

I was also trying to think of some other things that we could toss around to discuss:

As far as where the girls were found - I think the majority of us believe this indicates local knowledge (possibly a hunting/fishing/camping/outdoorsy background) and likely a strong familiarity with the area.

One thing I'd like to discuss further - we saw how they cleared a HUGE area around where the girls were found. I would say close to at least a 100 foot radius. They had cut down the tall grasses, branches, etc. Does anyone else think that maybe they were looking for casings? Or do they typically clear a huge area when outdoors, regardless?

Does it make more sense if the COD was NOT evident (blunt forces to the head, strangulation, or maybe stab wounds) that such a large area would be mowed down? How much area is typically cleaned out down to bare grass if it's a stabbing, strangulation, etc?

If there were obvious gunshot wounds, I can see why such a large area would be cleared. Would this person take the time to pick up the casings before they left the area - especially in an area that is KNOWN for hunting?

Hmmmm...:waitasec: Just trying to spark some more conversation here. :blushing:
 
re: Klunder, forensic evidence could be anything from DNA to testing the mud on the undercarriage of his vehicle, his fingerprints in the vehicle he was driving the day Elizabeth and Lyric disappeared, etc. etc. etc. etc. Reading the article it sounds to me like the forensic evidence confirmed the circumstantial evidence and they were finally able to establish to their satisfaction that he was elsewhere on that day.

re: the mowing

They were most likely looking for anything and everything that could be evidence: casings, cigarette butts, bits of rope, buttons that might have come off clothing, tangled fishing line, pieces of tape, shreds of cloth, traces of footprints, indications of a vehicle, hair snagged on branches, a pencil somebody dropped, the foil wrapper from where some guy stopped to take a dose of Sudafed, condoms, Coke bottles and beer cans, granola bar wrappers, plastic shopping bags that blew in from three counties away, etc. etc. etc. And then all that would have to be analyzed, which takes a long time, and then tracked down to see whether it came from some random hunter or fisherman, etc. etc. etc. etc.

Based on what LE here did when they were searching for evidence in our serial killer case, they likely canvassed the area as well as they could with the vegetation in place, and then mowed the area and canvassed it again.
 
It was never Klunder.

The MO is all wrong.

Klunder was a disorganised offender, our abductor is the exact opposite.

:twocents:
 
SapphireSteel said:
It was never Klunder.

The MO is all wrong.

Klunder was a disorganised offender, our abductor is the exact opposite.

:twocents:
Click to expand...

IDK... I honestly don't think our prep was smarter or more organized. I think he was just really lucky.

Sent from my SCH-R970 using Tapatalk
 
Squeeze said:
IDK... I honestly don't think our prep was smarter or more organized. I think he was just really lucky.

Sent from my SCH-R970 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Try as I might, I simply cannot envision a single random abductor hanging out in the bushes of the bikeway on the offchance an unattended child or two would bike past.

There is too much wrong with the scenario.

The fact that two years has gone by without resolution OR a bolo, tells me that this is NOT a random, lucky chance for a pedophile.

Apart from anything else, two little girls (one of whom was adult sized) are not going to be easily handled or abducted, by one person in a public park.

It would be like herding cats (no offence), you'd just get one in your car and the other would be screaming and/or running away.
 
I really never thought it was Klunder, for no specific reason other than "gut feeling," but I'm so glad some news has finally been released. Does it mean we're one step closer? I hope so!
 
It is reassuring to know the investigation is not "cold" but ongoing.

As I thought.

LE do not "give up" on the abduction and murder of two children.

Ever.
 
SapphireSteel said:
Try as I might, I simply cannot envision a single random abductor hanging out in the bushes of the bikeway on the offchance an unattended child or two would bike past.

There is too much wrong with the scenario.

The fact that two years has gone by without resolution OR a bolo, tells me that this is NOT a random, lucky chance for a pedophile.

Apart from anything else, two little girls (one of whom was adult sized) are not going to be easily handled or abducted, by one person in a public park.

It would be like herding cats (no offence), you'd just get one in your car and the other would be screaming and/or running away.
Click to expand...

Unless of course it's someone they knew or were familiar with...then there wouldn't be a fight at all, now would there...?

I'm still on the fence as to whether the entire "scene" at the park was staged or not.
A few scenarios I've thought about:
1. Girls were instructed to meet someone there and when they got there this person played the game of "leave your bikes quick, we'll be right back, let's go get ice cream" or "Grandma is sick - we gotta go NOW".

2. The girls were picked up somewhere else NEAR the park and the bikes and purse went one way and the girls went another...

3. I even considered the idea that the girls never left the immediate area of the house at all...and were taken close to home and the bikes staged after the girls were taken...but that wouldn't account for Mr. Carpenter or the other sightings of them riding down by the lake.

4. I do remember that LE stated that "we believe we have the vehicle on camera" - but didn't know what vehicle they were looking for. But now that they seem to want info on the "older white SUV" I find it a bit scary that this vehicle in particular evaded all the CCTV in Evansdale as well (to the extent of getting a plate # or any defining details). Unless of course you were from the area and knew where NOT to drive...
 
threecrazykids said:
Unless of course it's someone they knew or were familiar with...then there wouldn't be a fight at all, now would there...?

I'm still on the fence as to whether the entire "scene" at the park was staged or not.
A few scenarios I've thought about:
1. Girls were instructed to meet someone there and when they got there this person played the game of "leave your bikes quick, we'll be right back, let's go get ice cream" or "Grandma is sick - we gotta go NOW".

2. The girls were picked up somewhere else NEAR the park and the bikes and purse went one way and the girls went another...

3. I even considered the idea that the girls never left the immediate area of the house at all...and were taken close to home and the bikes staged after the girls were taken...but that wouldn't account for Mr. Carpenter or the other sightings of them riding down by the lake.

4. I do remember that LE stated that "we believe we have the vehicle on camera" - but didn't know what vehicle they were looking for. But now that they seem to want info on the "older white SUV" I find it a bit scary that this vehicle in particular evaded all the CCTV in Evansdale as well (to the extent of getting a plate # or any defining details). Unless of course you were from the area and knew where NOT to drive...
Click to expand...

I am deeply immersed in the Madeleine McCann case.

It is being broken open, right now as I write this.

Still, the McCann supporters are denying what's fairly obvious to the rest of us.

Until LE tell us it is so, it remains rumour.

Until they tell us "X OR Y IS A POI", no one is.

Unless they tell us what information they have about that day in Evansdale, we don't know.

An active investigation is usually kept secret.

It's taken 7 long years in Madeleine's case and it's still not over, even though the evidence has ALWAYS led one way.

Now we know that approximately 99% of what's been reported in the papers, is false.

Made up. Invented. Spun by a PR team.

Sad, but true. The stuff that is printed usually bears little resemblance to what is going on behind closed doors.

The more Cold Case episodes I see, the more I realise just how tricky and time consuming and reliant on LUCK, an investigation can be.

Detectives talk about "catching a break" which translates into - they find hard evidence to support their suspicions.

Hard evidence is clearly what's lacking here. Physical proof. They may have the hows, whos, whys, but having that tangible physical link to hold up to a jury is pretty much essential to winning a conviction...indeed, pressing charges in the first place.

I am guessing there is no DNA anywhere to be found.

At least, no "unexplainable" DNA.

DNA from family and friends is explainable.
 
SapphireSteel said:
I am deeply immersed in the Madeleine McCann case.

It is being broken open, right now as I write this.

Still, the McCann supporters are denying what's fairly obvious to the rest of us.

Until LE tell us it is so, it remains rumour.

Until they tell us "X OR Y IS A POI", no one is.

Unless they tell us what information they have about that day in Evansdale, we don't know.

An active investigation is usually kept secret.

It's taken 7 long years in Madeleine's case and it's still not over, even though the evidence has ALWAYS led one way.

Now we know that approximately 99% of what's been reported in the papers, is false.

Made up. Invented. Spun by a PR team.

Sad, but true. The stuff that is printed usually bears little resemblance to what is going on behind closed doors.

The more Cold Case episodes I see, the more I realise just how tricky and time consuming and reliant on LUCK, an investigation can be.

Detectives talk about "catching a break" which translates into - they find hard evidence to support their suspicions.

Hard evidence is clearly what's lacking here. Physical proof. They may have the hows, whos, whys, but having that tangible physical link to hold up to a jury is pretty much essential to winning a conviction...indeed, pressing charges in the first place.

I am guessing there is no DNA anywhere to be found.

At least, no "unexplainable" DNA.

DNA from family and friends is explainable.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree that there is no DNA anywhere to be found - which is why I agree on the second part - that all the DNA they have is explainable.

I am not so sure they know the how's and why's yet...I think they have to figure that piece out and then even explainable DNA will fall into place.

I get a sense that LE are waiting for someone to roll on someone down the road, be it for a reduced sentence in an unrelated crime OR that this person for whatever reason decides to come forward. I think they KNOW that someone knows what happened, but they just haven't found that Who.

LE seems to be patiently playing the waiting game...talking in almost every interview that "when we are interviewing people..." always speaking in a future tense as if they just have to find that right person based on the tips they have.

I think once they find that person the DNA will fall into place...they KNOW someone knows what happened to those girls, it's finding the person who can give them that teeny piece of "A-HA!" and it will move quickly...
 
Two things that make me feel the bikes were not staged, 3CK, as you mentioned the sighting by Mr. Carpenter. The second thing is that the dogs followed the girls scent to the edge of the water. I don't know that I think someone was waiting in the bushes, I lean more towards them being either followed or told to go there.
 
threecrazykids said:
I have to disagree that there is no DNA anywhere to be found - which is why I agree on the second part - that all the DNA they have is explainable.

I am not so sure they know the how's and why's yet...I think they have to figure that piece out and then even explainable DNA will fall into place.

I get a sense that LE are waiting for someone to roll on someone down the road, be it for a reduced sentence in an unrelated crime OR that this person for whatever reason decides to come forward. I think they KNOW that someone knows what happened, but they just haven't found that Who.

LE seems to be patiently playing the waiting game...talking in almost every interview that "when we are interviewing people..." always speaking in a future tense as if they just have to find that right person based on the tips they have.

I think once they find that person the DNA will fall into place...they KNOW someone knows what happened to those girls, it's finding the person who can give them that teeny piece of "A-HA!" and it will move quickly...
Click to expand...

What's most remarkable about this case - apart from the girls of course - is the resounding silence from LE.

Even in the early days, there was an air of miscommunication with the FBI saying one thing and Smock saying another.

Now it's just ground down to absolute silence.

Watching all the "cold case" shows, it seems remarkable that they haven't appealed for more public assistance, issued a poster featuring the vehicle they're looking for (have they?) or had more of a media drive.

There are only two explanations imo -

1. LE in and around Iowa are totally useless or
2. they have a case and they're still working it

I go for 2. :please:
 
I personally think and hope it's #2. I can't shake the thought that there is SOME reason people (Drew especially) got involved with awareness movements involving RSOs. Don't get me wrong, I totally support the efforts, it just seems like an odd thing to pick randomly out of nowhere after your child was kidnapped and found dead. I feel (IMO only) like it has to be related. Maybe it's just what he thinks happened to her and he has no other info, but I feel like he knows more than he's allowed to say. Hopefully.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 104 more.
Total: 2,680 (members: 105, guests: 2,575)

Online statistics

Members online
105
Guests online
2,575
Total visitors
2,680
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
601,284
Messages
18,121,956
Members
230,996
Latest member
unnamedTV
Back
Top