If their intent was to burn the car with the bedding in it
(gas found poured or spilled in the front seat), door standing open, probably somewhat
close to the burning brush pile, why would they have called the FD when they did?
Why not wait a bit longer till the car was more engaged?. . .
Until now I have refrained from commenting on the seemingly fake car burning attempt.
To me it seemed more like a prop in a play than anything else and so not worthy of
too much time and thought.
Not knowing all the details of evidence concerning this fire it would be very easy to
miss the reason for the car burning so I hesitate to comment.
However if you don't mind I will toss a couple of crazy guesses out:
The car burning attempt was a prop in a play, the 'kidnapping of Zahra play',
yet who were they trying to mislead?
These two had to know they would be investigated for the murder of Zahra.
They aren't totally stupid and so they also knew they could easily be charged
with murder in the case.
If the goal is to beat a murder charge your best odds are to plant reasonable
doubt in the mind of the jury. From their viewpoint fooling LE would be nice but
not necessary. In fact they probably have seen a few CSI episodes and
counted heavily on the burning vehicle being tested due to the ransom note.
If the car had been allowed to get too involved in burning then something
might have been destroyed, evidence that would tie in to the kidnapping note
and thus to the 'kidnappers.' And if/when they are charged with murder this evidence
could be pointed at in trial to seem to point towards some unknown kidnappers having
set the fire in an attempt to cover up that the kidnappers had already
done evil to this child.
Such a play prop does not have to totally fool anyone. Maybe it just needs to plant
legal grounds for reasonable doubt in a few minds on any jury.
Summary:
So at the least they wanted to fool someone by having planted evidence in the car
which presence tied it to the car
which was linked to the ransom note which, in turn, pointed to unknown 'kidnappers'
and all this to lead thoughts away from looking closely at the immediate family.
So were they trying to fool LE or trying to influence a jury member later on
by planting legal grounds for 'reasonable doubt'?
To quote part of a song I once heard, "Who do they think they're foolin'?"
Either way the thing seems like a prop in a play.
The script:
'. . . "I don't know if they set a fire in the yard to distract us to go out and then they
snuck in the door, or, I don't know," he continued. "Somebody had put gas in my
company's truck that I drive for work. . . .'
http://abcnews.go.com/US/search-zahra-baker-911-tapes-released/story?id=11916819
The link to 'kidnappers':
'. . . It was then that police discovered a ransom note addressed to Adam Baker's boss
on the windshield of Baker's car. . . .'
http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=7785427
Suggestive evidence?:
'. . . It was also revealed today that police dogs searching for the missing girl have
detected the smell of human remains on two cars at her North Carolina home. . .'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...t-human-remains-home-missing-Zahra-Baker.html
I do not know what else was found in the vehicle.
)
