Again I never said burglars didnt use it
I said they MIGHT NOT HAVE it. . .
Yes but the implication was that it was not likely, as in pretty unusual,
and that is not what my web search revealed to me.
Carla Lashelle said:
. . .And its the same with the car/vehicle ATV
stuff. LE never said the suspect had an ATV they always
said car or ATV etc. ie something with wheels that drives. . .
I seem to remember they also said the terrain was such that they
felt an ATV was likely needed. It may have been in the video
of one of the news clips. A car is heavier and tends to leave
definite tracks, broken brush and other signs of its passage
not to mention its limits of where it can go when going cross country.
I think if a car had been used they would have said so and not kept
mentioning an ATV as a possibility also.
To think a car a more likely vehicle to use in kidnapping in a town
with roads would make sense but lets flip this around and ask
if you would likely park a car out in the woods & brush and then
take your victim to that heavy vehicle and attempt to drive
cross country through the brush to a spot 8 miles north of the victim's
home and there dump her lunch box and possibly lose a piece
of duct tape and then proceed on your way to the interstate from there?
To me an ATV makes more sense for that area and so I can see how
LE would keep bringing that ATV up in their statements to the public.
If it was so unlikely I think LE would not be wasting time bringing up
the ATV angle in their statements to the public. Something has made
them believe an ATV is probable/likely to have been used in this case.
I do not know if they found tracks they have not mentioned to the public
or not but I do believe they have reason to keep mentioning the ATV.
Hunters are known to use ATV's in that general area
(info from reading about the case.) Hunters are known to wear camo.
This perp was dressed in camo.
This person was able to get away in a short amount of time
in what appears to have been a cross country route to
leave her lunchbox with blood on it and possibly duct tape with blond hairs
and possibly other, as yet unlisted, evidence.
This spot was said to be near to, or on the way to, the interstate
from the point where Holly was taken.
However if you want to insist a car was used then sure a car/truck
was used.
(I am not hung up on it had to be an ATV only but it helps open up some
possibilities for me.)
Now then lets figure how he got her from point A to point B
and where he finally took her to keep her out of sight during those
daylight hours.
I do not see this as a planned crime yet. There is nothing to show he
accounted for others being in the home. And he allowed himself to be
seen. Pretty half hazard stuff for a planned crime committed by someone
allegedly so slick they have not been traced or found.
As has been said before, a more simple explanation is usually best.
This was likely an unplanned crime by someone already in the area
either hunting and/or looking at houses to see what he could pick up
and he was surprised by Holly coming out to her car and decided
to make his escape and not leave behind the one witness that he knew
had seen him.
So he takes Holly away in his car and they manage to get through the
woods leaving no trail behind because it took people with dogs and ATVs
looking for the trail and even then had to have someone phone in a tip
before they found the lunch box and other stuff a mere 8 miles north.
You would think a car would leave a cross country trail
a blind man could follow.
This car must have been a whiz at going cross country with out leaving
evidence behind. Or maybe they went from the woods right
around to the car parked near her home on a road and then
went to the interstate but then doubled back from the interstate to
the creek area where the lunch box and other items were found. (why?)
Now then lets step back yet again and remember that no vehicle has been
proven yet. He might have simply had his vehicle parked along
the interstate and walked her through 8 miles of woods to the place
where her items were found. Although it has been said that he got
out of the area fairly quickly and I took that to mean there wasn't
time to have gone on foot. Still a foot escape is a possibility.
See, if he was planning all this as has been put forth then you would
expect that pesky car to have been closer again for that
faster getaway but then why double back off the interstate to that
place in the woods where her stuff was found? And why head out into
the woods before going to the nearby car if he did not know he was being
watched?
The simpler explanation is that he went into the woods and, whether on
foot or ATV or car or truck, proceeded north to where her lunch box
and stuff was found and then got on the interstate and left the area.
This was all done in daylight hours so I would expect the woods
helped cut down on the possibility of others seeing them together
although I think it was an unintended bonus for the perp
but more importantly going north got them back to the interstate
(where I suspect his main vehicle was parked) which interstate
at least offered a fast way out of the area.
I think he either went straight home with her or went to another
remote location that he already knew would be 'safe' for him
to do what he thought needed to be done.
In my opinion:
It was not planned and not a pretty crime in terms of planning
but it was a simple exit from an unplanned surprise which resulted in
an unplanned grab of a victim and straightforward exit
north to the interstate and thus out of the area
to an as yet unknown 'safe' place for the perp.
***************************
It has been asked how someone is taken away by ATV against their will
and I submit that if you scare someone enough they will comply
with your every wish. But then if a hunter can get his kill home on one
then I suppose a human could also be transported.
