Good read here:
Red Flags:
- The Convenient Witness Elimination: Rebecca Haro claims she was knocked unconscious, eliminating herself as a witness to the actual abduction. Perpetrators often claim they were incapacitated—unable to identify their child's attacker.
- The Vague Attacker: Despite being conscious enough to hear "Hola," she does not describe the attacker. Staged abduction cases feature similarly phantom-like assailants.
- The Physical Evidence: A black eye serves as visible "proof" of an attack. Several cases I have observed include self-inflicted injuries to support the abduction narrative.
…
The point I disagree with from personal experience is the “vague attacker” one. I was robbed once, and my description of the robbers that I gave to the police immediately after the attack was as vague as it gets. I remember what the one said to me (“just give me your purse”). There were two of them. They were men. I identified their race. One was taller, one was shorter. Any height estimate I could give was a very wide range. Same with age. They were dressed casually, dark colored clothes. When asked by police if I’d recognize them, I said no.
And I wasn’t physically attacked. And one of them was right next to me, whispering into my ear as my recollection goes. The other was in front of me. I heard them coming and stopped and turned around, so I even watched them approach. Meaning, I got about as good a look at them as one can get.
Factors that contribute to this, both in my case and generally:
1) Trauma affecting memory
2) While they were physically close, the interaction was relatively brief
3) My goal during the interaction was NOT to be a good witness. I did not want to give them any reason at all to kill me.
4) At the best of times, it is very difficult to describe and recognize someone. I know that trying to find someone in a bar who you have seen 6 photos of on a dating app is actually very hard. Trying to remember what someone that you spoke to was wearing is very difficult if nothing about the outfit gave you reason to note it. And it’s well known that eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable, especially when identifying someone of a different race.
But going to the first point made above, my statement to police was essentially: “Yes, I got a good look at them. No, I couldn’t identify them or describe them with any particularly.” So in that respect, my statement was certainly different from the first point made above. So on the one hand, I think it’s unlikely someone would make up a story that involved them having a good look at the person, but not offer any valuable description. But on the other hand, had I gone on the news, what are the odds I’d be reading Facebook comments about myself saying my story is so unbelievable, because how could I have gotten a good look at them but not have a description of them or be able to identify them?
Not to mention that incapacitating someone is indeed a strategy often used by perpetrators. And such incapacitation can cause injuries. (And here, no one thinks her injury was self-inflicted for the story.)
So while those may be common elements of a fake story, I question how helpful they are in distinguishing a fake story from a real one, because I think they’re likely to be common in many true stories, too.
www.fox10tv.com
