Here is a link to where we discussed this - trying to determine if LE was actually implying that the crime was committed in the park or not (this verbiage came from the Evansdale Police Dept page dedicated to the case):
"The offender is familiar with both Meyers Lake/Angels Park in Evansdale and Seven Bridges Wildlife Area in Bremer County. The offender specifically chose Seven Bridges Wildlife Area because of the offender’s familiarity with the area and the fact that it afforded the offender privacy needed to commit the crimes with limited risk of detection by others."
So by them stating it afforded the offender the privacy to commit the crimes - were they implying they believed the crimes were committed there in the park? :thinking:
I don't have the link handy but I do know that one reporter (granted...it was a Nancy Grace reporter I believe) stated that his sources tell him that they believe the park was a "dumping ground" and not the original scene of the crime.
So take that for what it's worth...
I tend to find it being the dumping ground more likely - but that's just my opinion. I think having 2 of them out in the open (granted, it's a remote area) is extremely risky. If this person got them into a car, it would be much more of a controlled situation to get them to a house (pull into a garage and close it) than to take them to a public park and walk them 100 or so yards into the area they were found. I would think that was extremely high risk for exposure.
I am more of the belief that it's more likely this person took them to a house that afternoon - and then dumped their bodies at the park after they were already deceased.
My feeling is if anything more than an abduction were committed in the park itself there would be alot more evidence to work with.
Attacking not 1 but 2 victims physically in an open area, where one could draw attention, or send a potential witness running for help , seems almost too risky
I feel this individual approached these girls , and used some kind of con to get them to an awaiting vehicle . Now its also possible that this individual used some kind of threat of force (produced a weapon) and forced the girls to walk to a vehicle .
Either way it would have to be quiet , forcing them lets say at gunpoint , could account for the bicycles being found laying on the ground away from the roadside .
He could simply told them "not to make a sound and no one would get hurt"...it depends on how the child would react. But in order to get 2 victims there has to be a means of control at least till they get to a point where the abductor feels safe.
Some kids will turn and run and scream, some will fight , some will simply ball up and comply, I think most fall into this category because theyre taught to repspect all adults, or they fear adults (teach your kids to be assertive to adults) , but the offender cannot take a risk on the 1st 2 possibilities, he needs to get them out of that park.
We can only assume the girls were near where their bikes were found when the offender approached , but having seen my own kids drop their bikes at a playground and go off running , I can't say this is true in this case.
But if it was the bikes are located a good distance from the road . That seems to indicate that this offender had to find a way to move the victims that distance without calling attention to himself . In the event hes discovered, he has to have an out , therefore simply luring a victim is the safest means .
That doesn't mean he didn't , in most cases, if they cant lure a victim they just grab, but then you are taking a hell of alot of risk (Amber Hagerman)
In the majority of cases, the offender is in the area where the abduction occurrs for a legitimate reasons, they usually either live or work there .
The Body recovery site is usually somewhere greater than 0.5 Miles, from the site of the abduction, somewhere rural , and is known to the offender. (cant remember the percentages off hand sorry)
SO your theory that he may have taken them to a house is entirely possible , it assumes alot of risk to bring 2 kids into a home in a possible hot search area however.
If we had bodies that (forgive the graphic description) were dismembered or there was evidence of prolonged torture , or some other form of time consuming personation, then Id be right with you on the house, but I have yet to see that anywhere in the reports
In my experience (as well as a study done in 2006 by the State of Washington on Child abduction murders) they take their victim out of the immediate area , unless for some reason they cant, but they want to get to a "safe" area as quickly as possible .
When they get near the area where they feel they are "safe" they assault and murder the victim(s) , usually in the immediate area (usually less than 200 feet) from where the body or bodies are recovered.
Often in or near the vehicle itself.
They then flee, but very rarely does their post offensive behavior go unnoticed
) - so if this person lived out closer to Seven Bridges it is entirely possible there would be no risk whatsoever taking them to their own home.