Peter,
I have no doubt in my mind that something went truly wrong at that house and that the 911 call holds clear clues as to what happened.
And don't forget, that the fact, she could make that call is already a hint in itself
The extent of what went wrong, I have no idea. I can only guess, because I have no reason to believe the trio of MP, JB and CPH.
Going for a wild theory, you might ask if I am expecting any references to GB4 (which is GB2 at the time) on that tape. That is far fetched, but I am not closing any doors. Insistence of LE to hold back the audio adds more clouds.
But you have to believe, they all were bound at least to the laws of physics, which made it impossible for any of them to be in two places at the same time and also made time travels impossible for them to act on knowledge that would be only available 7 months in the future. Also none of them had x-ray eyes.
And when you accept that, there are two problems with the "foul play" theory. Pak couldn't be seen by Coletti and at the same time directly on SGs heels. So we know, he had lost SG's trace when he left Coletti. And, assuming, none of the others had an invisibility cloak, none of those "suspects" actually knew where she was. So how did they find her in the first place?
The second problem is, that SG couldn't have known about the GB2. She had no time machine to go seven months in the future when the bodies were discovered. So any arguing about she panicked because she knew is nonsense. She couldn't. Which means, she panicked without obvious reason. Now of course, the widest followers of a "conspiracy theory" conjecture snuff videos out of the thin air. Brewers house was searched only months later. No snuff there. Sure, he could have hidden it somewhere else. And he went voluntary to a lie detector test. Sure, he could be a sociopath of Hannibal Lecter like qualities. But this is only the game to "invent" anything out of the blue to hold the theory alive.
Dormer says on Dec 8th, 2011
It is very easy to get engulfed in water, muck and fall down and not be able to get out of there. So we surmise thats what happened,
Dormer says on Dec 13th, 2011
It is very easy to get engulfed in water, muck and fall down and not be able to get out of there. So we surmise thats what happened,
Dormer happens to be the only person who can build theories. That is funny enough.
Dormer isn't be the only one. And the drowning part is a theory. Could be the same stroke or heart attack (not that uncommon with drug/alcohol mixes) or simply hypothermia. According to medical studies, between 1/2 and 1/2 of hypothermia victims show paradoxical undressing. Add to this drugs and alcohol, which both wide the vessels, and getting rid of her clothes is not that much of a miracle anymore. So ... as said earlier, Dirmer wasa in way over his head with that case. But then so was all SCPD and all Dormer said had to come from inside the SCPD anyway.
Currently, in my eye, JB and MP stand somewhere between innocence and manslaughter.
You could maybe, with some luck, get JB for negligent manslaughter. Pak? I don't see how? When he tells, he was not even in the house, any jury will let him go.
I'm trying to put myself in JB's shoes, but his actions doesnt add up to something I can understand.
First of all, I would do anything to retrieve that 911 call, just to get clear from the implications and show people that Shannan is "lunatic". Or perhaps he cares about the dignity of the poor girl?
All he wants, is this whole story to go away. The problem for him is not, what people are talking. The problem is, he probably committed some other offenses than murder. Patronizing a prostitute, drug use, offering drugs. So the best he can do is stay silent. And how would he get hold of those tapes anyway? He is not charged with anything, so his lawyers can't force the prosecution to hand them over to prepare a defense. So SCPD can keep those tapes and nobody can get them from them. He can ask, reporters can ask, relatives of victims can ask, but SCPD doesn't need to release that evidence. And as long as they argue it's only to protect their investigation, nobody can force them to show their cards. Which gives them a neverneding green light to stand in their own way.
Going back to the night, in my house some crazy hooker calls 911 and talks to the operator for minutes, saying that I am trying to kill her. Just for precaution, I would call 911 too. Lots of other courses of action could be suggested.
You forget two details here. There was a little drug party going on in that house and SG wasn't the only one involved. So how stoned was Brewer, how stoned was the drifter? What makes you think, they were even able to make rational decisions?
For sure, it took Pak some time to arrive at Coletti's place, even he had the shorter way than SG and used a car. That means, he had to waste a little time to figure out, what happened in the first place before he went looking for SG. So it obviously wasn't that easy to get an answer from Brewer.
Martin County Sheriff Richard Crowder gets a call on a Saturday morning when he is off duty. It is one of his deputies, Gerard John Schaefer.
Schaefer says; "Boss, I did something stupid. I met two runaway girls. I decided to scare the hell out of them, so they would be better behaving kids. I took them to grove. Tied them to a tree and went away, to let them a few hours to ponder and take a lesson out of this. But when I got back there, the girls were gone."
I'm sure you know the truth and it is much more different that.
Now, which one makes more sense? A young deputy teaching a lesson to the vagabond girls, or the young deputy is one of the worst serial killers in the history.
Sometimes reality can be crazier than the wildest guesses.
Of course, in Schaefer's place, his souvenir collection was found. Mostly jewelry, also a tooth if I remember right. So, there was forensic evidence. And of course, the girls disappeared in Schaefer's patrol area, not in his house. Which once more shows the difference between hunting area and the place an SK lives. So ... aside of comparing apples and pears, all that you can see is another SK who didn't kill in his house. So what, some do, some don't?
And calling him one of the worst serial killers in history is a little bit over the top. He is convicted for two, maybe thirty are connected but not hard enough that he could have been charged. Thirty doesn't bring him in the top ten, not even the top fifty. If you go back in history, you find for example Lopes (convicted in 110 cases), Shipman (never charged because he died, about 200 cases hard linked), of course Bathory (convicted for 80 in the 1600s), de Rais (140 cases listed in the trial documents), Garavito (convicted in 138 cases). Even Ridgway came to 50. So Schaefer was not that impressive.