1) Back then it would not have been odd to even leave the doors unlocked. If they locked automatically would mean the intruder(s) didn't necessarily just walk in.
2) This happened so fast after she arrived it seems very unlikely to be random.
From reading this thread I got the strong sense that the perp(s) were somehow tipped off that she would be there. Since this was not a regular gig for her, how would they know about it? It would have to be someone very close to her indeed, or the people she was working for.
3) The basement windows at 2 houses involved is interesting.
Now if the perp(s) had actually had a car in the driveway (according to Mr. X witness) then it seems less likely they would sneak around back and come up through the basement than simply try to trick her at the front door. As such if Mr. X is correct then I think perp came in through the front door. Then, consequently I would tend to agree with the idea that the situation at the basement window would appear more as an escape route rather than an entry point.
4) However, I am curious how the prof. managed to not drag mud and blood in and confuse the crime scene. I have to consider the possibility that the prof was perhaps snooping on his teen daughter and something went wrong. Just curious, did the prof have a 2 tone car matching Mr. X's description?
5) Ok, something happened to her outside or so it seems... she escapes through the basement window or somehow is chased back to that area where blood pours. But did the blood on the other neighbors window well come first or second? It's possible it happened in either sequence. Because if she were seriously wounded emerging out of the basement window it would seem unlikely she would run over to a neighbors basement window. I'm of course also wondering what evidence exists for this case? Was anything saved at all? All of this blood, if it still exists could be proven to be hers or not hers. Just a passing thought that the blood might not have been hers and if not, that would open up a lot of possibilities.
6) Now putting myself in an innocent prof's shoes, if I were so concerned that I was standing there pounding on the door with no answer, I'm not sure i would crawl through that narrow open basement window. That would strike me as ODD! I think I would be much more inclined to force a door open or open a larger window right in the front of the house. Coming in and up through the basement seems like a rather creepy act to me. Which I can see as giving support to a theory against the prof. And gives the prof an excuse for screwing up the crime scene. It's not impossible that he did that, just weird and lends itself to suspicion. So, ok, also curious here, did he just leave the baby in the house and walk right out the front door while it locks behind him? Again, if this were me and however I got inside I would not be wanting to leave a baby in that situation and would be calling LE immediately from inside the home.
7) what does the girl think who was supposed to be babysitting that night? Since only boys were given polygraphs it's going to leave a lot of unanswered questions.
Girls talking back and forth may have tipped someone off about her being there.
8) The way the bloody pieces of clothing were flung out is interesting. Again raises the possibility that things are not as they seem. If you were to leave so much evidence at a crime scene, and then leave so many bloody pieces where they would be easily found, why would you bother hiding a body? It's possible it happened that way, but its also making me wonder about just how much of this could have been staged. Because except for no body it all seems the work of very inexperienced bungling person(s).
The baby sleeping through all of it, also tilts toward the staging possibility. Knowing if that were her blood everywhere would really be the key.
9) It's possible that the blood was that of a perp or both hers and a perp or wasn't either. It does seem most likely that it is her blood, and that she sustained the injuries attempting to escape and was captured. If that is true, the extent and locations of the blood would indicate to me that a) she put up one hell of a fight and that b) either the 2nd perp did not exist or was more hands off (like waiting in the car). Since Mr. X reported 2 men, then I'm thinking man #2 was not as hands on or she would not have made so much traction. What does not make sense at all for me is that if she were hit in the head or stabbed coming up out that first window, how could she possibly make it to the neighbors basement window and why bother? It's hard for me to believe that as she was coming up out of that window well gushing with blood that she would be able to overpower a man run to the neighbors only to get down into their window well and try opening their basement window. Why not just keep running and screaming and go to the front of the houses? Now the person may have forced her down into that neighbors window well, but that's quite a stupid and risky thing to do. So again, I really have to wonder if that was her blood, or even if it were hers if it wasn't staged.
10) With all of this blood and screams, and potentially knowing that the prof would be on the way, why bother to take her? If this was to be a kidnapping, or sexual assault, it clearly went wrong so why not just end her right there in the back yard and get the hell out of there? a) It wasn't her blood or very little of it was hers b) she wasn't that seriously injured and so the reason for her abduction was still valid c) it was staged.
Now if I entirely throw out Mr. X witness...
one possibility is that someone who was supposed to open the window and dump the blood had the wrong house, and so later realized it and did it a second time.
Because of the peculiarities with the evidence the theory of the Prof as perp and/or that this was somehow staged needs to be ruled out.
Is there any chance at all that she would have used such a method to run away from home? Back in this time period it was not unheard of for Teens 15, 16, 17 years old to take off. Someone on this thread mentioned another case of 2 girls missing in Rhinelander close to the same time period, and suggested they may have gone to Milwaukee. Can such a thing be ruled out here?
Some have suggested that she would not have left the baby. But knowing that the prof would show up shortly after 1 hr had passed, it could have been timed such that the baby spent very little time alone.
Is there a conflict of where the perps were at before and after she goes missing? I thought there was a trail of blood / evidence leading some distance away from the house to another street. But if Mr. X is correct the car was right there in the driveway.
Same car in 2 places? 2 cars? Or is Mr. X wrong?
