IA IA - Elizabeth Collins, 8, & Lyric Cook, 10, Evansdale, 13 July 2012 - #17

[Considering]

Because there is no POI or they don't want the POI to know that he/she is a POI or they don't want people sleuthing the POI and posting what they find on the net for others, including the POI, to read.

Maybe they are attempting to gather more evidence on a POI and don't want to alert the POI that he or she is a POI.

BBM:

Again....
LE has had over 5 (FIVE ) weeks to
gather information, to gather evidence, to test
evidence, to search for the little girls and to
find a POI and even make an arrest.

IF LE had a clue where the girls were ---LE would have rescued them.
You can bet on that.

If LE had a poi in mind he'd either be watched like a hawk or arrested.
LE would not take a chance of the creep running free and abducting AGAIN.

I'm beginning to think LE has nada.
Time will tell.
IMO

<Modsnip> I'm not sure where this came from. I never said I thought LE had a clue where the girls were and had not rescued them. I never said that if LE had a POI in mind, they were not watching him like a hawk. I never said LE had a POI in mind but had not arrested him.

If LE knew the girls were alive and knew where they were located, of course, they would rescue them.

Of course, if LE has a POI in mind, they are watching him. If LE and the D.A. had a suspect and enough evidence to prosecute that suspect, I'm sure they would arrest him.

Yes, LE has had 5 weeks to gather information, gather and test evidence, find a POI, and make an arrest. Does that mean that LE has a POI? Not in my opinion. Does that mean that LE does not have a POI? Not in my opinion.

I have no idea what LE knows or thinks. It isn't my business to know. That being said, I am concerned that they do not have the evidence they need or even a POI. I hope that they know a lot that we are not aware of. I fear that they do not.

:moo:

 

[SapphireSteel]

But he can be mistaken. We have learned in trials here that eye witnesses are the most unreliable and the number one cause that has led to innocent people being convicted of a crime they did not do.

People can really believe they saw someone but sadly they are often mistaken. I am sure even this LE department has had tips about sightings of the girls in other states and they turned out to be faulty.

But why in the world would the FBI question this man for a day and a half about him just seeing the girls supposedly? Why would it take that long.

I had to give an eye witness statement to LE one time and it didnt take me 30 minutes and that included talking with LE and writing out my statement.

IMO

Thank you for this thoughtful post.

They didn't question Mr P, they were in his shop downloading his cctv (he owns the auction house).

There is precious little confirmed detail so we all have to go on msm.

My point was, and is, that IMO there are several credible witnesses to the girls/their bikes.

If you disregard one, you disregard all, as all of their stories TIE IN.

First we have Mr P pondering out loud to the media "how could they get that far in 8 minutes?" Based on what exactly?
Answer - what he learnt from the FBI, my opinion only.

Then we have Mr C who saw the girls "between 12 and 1" which his wife later corrected to "12 and 3"...two more witnesses.

Finally we have Mr G who saw the bikes at AROUND 12.20, and told his daughter too.

One...easy to accept they're wrong or mistaken.

Two...less easy.

Three, four, five all stating consistent stories...I'm taking it...especially when you consider grandma STARTED SEARCHING AT 12.30.

Why didn't she find them, if they were still to be found?

Please be aware this is MY OPINION ONLY and not intended to replace fact.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I believe I saw an article that said that LE was there for that long to look at all the footage he had and that they got a bunch of stuff from it, but that only the girls were seen on bicycles. I'm sorry, I don't have the link handy. MOO

Thanks.

I think I messed up. Sorry.

I have just come on line and should have read further back than I did.

I thought SS was talking about the man who said he saw the girls while watering his lawn and the man seeing the bikes at 12:27.

Now I will go back and read further back like I should have to start with. LOL!

 

[threecrazykids]

Completely off topic but I was so amazed I have to share.

We have a yellow lab who I wanted to see just how much of a sense of "tracking" he was capable of. LOL The dog has never hunted, tracked anything so I thought I'd put him to the test to see how much instinct even the non-trained dog may have.

We have 30 acres of land out behind our house that has mowed trails that we walk our lab in almost every night. Tonight, I called my dog into the house, while I sent my husband out on a section of the trail that we have never walked with him. He brushed up against 2 overhanging branches on his way (intentionally).

We typically cut through the back yard to the fence opening and head to the left as the trail that goes straight goes directly to the end of the creek and really no where else to walk but towards the left. There are literally hundreds of cut ins, outs, turns, etc that the kids all mow so there is no rhyme or reason to the trails. HOWEVER, on our walk, we take the exact same path every night.

Anyway...I sent my husband out there about 10 mins before we left. I closed the blinds so the dog didn't see him heading out there. Once I could see from inside the house he was completely out of site I said to the dog "wanna go for a walk" to which of course he got excited.

We walked out the back door (opposite of the door my husband went out of). We got to the edge of our lot (where the dog's underground fence collar would go off) and he stopped and waited for me to give him the "ok" that he could go past and onto the acreage.

I'm not kidding you guys...he didn't even break stride. He went to the treeline along the back of our house - sniffed right at the 2 spots where he had brushed - and completely ignored our EVERY NIGHT walking path. He literally sprinted right to my husband who was crouched down behind a huge brush pile under a tree he's never been to in an area he's never walked.

I was completely amazed that he did this. I fully expected him to turn left when we got to the fence and continue our walk as we do every night. Nope...he didn't even as much as turn to the left...he went straight with his nose down and then raised up a couple times and found him immediately!

Coincidence or not...it was super cool to me that he found him that fast. LOL

Now, back to our regularly scheduled programming.:woohoo:

I wonder how long I could leave my hubby out there hiding before I told him the dog couldn't find him....:floorlaugh:

 

[elmomom]

The camera...8 minutes slower than the US cellular clock. That means 12:19 when the girls are seen on the cctv. So what is the significance of that? Compared to what? The only other verifiable time it can be compared to is 12:27, which is when the cell call was made.

Please, somebody straighten me out with some logic.

There is no logic in that timeline. None. If the CCTV was indeed 12:19 and the call was the other side of 8 minutes at 12:27, then we cannot make the sighting of the bikes around 12:20 can we? The timeline is illogical.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Thank you for this thoughtful post.

They didn't question Mr P, they were in his shop downloading his cctv (he owns the auction house).

There is precious little confirmed detail so we all have to go on msm.

My point was, and is, that IMO there are several credible witnesses to the girls/their bikes.

If you disregard one, you disregard all, as all of their stories TIE IN.

First we have Mr P pondering out loud to the media "how could they get that far in 8 minutes?" Based on what exactly?
Answer - what he learnt from the FBI, my opinion only.

Then we have Mr C who saw the girls "between 12 and 1" which his wife later corrected to "12 and 3"...two more witnesses.

Finally we have Mr G who saw the bikes at AROUND 12.20, and told his daughter too.

One...easy to accept they're wrong or mistaken.

Two...less easy.

Three, four, five all stating consistent stories...I'm taking it...especially when you consider grandma STARTED SEARCHING AT 12.30.

Why didn't she find them, if they were still to be found?

Please be aware this is MY OPINION ONLY and not intended to replace fact.

I owe you an apology SS.

I mistakenly thought you were talking about the other sightings of the girls and not Mr. P.

But imo, I am not so sure LE thinks the actual visual sightings of the girls are credible.

IMO

 

[jacy]

Again....
LE has had over 5 (FIVE ) weeks to
gather information, to gather evidence, to test
evidence, to search for the little girls and to
find a POI and even make an arrest.

IF LE had a clue where the girls were ---LE would have rescued them.
You can bet on that.

If LE had a poi in mind he'd either be watched like a hawk or arrested.
LE would not take a chance of the creep running free and abducting AGAIN.

I'm beginning to think LE has nada.
Time will tell.
IMO

Minus a week where this was not considered an abduction. The psychological edge lost there bothers me, among other things.

 

[SapphireSteel]

That is awesome.

I have posted here before how sniffer dogs work and I'll repeat in light of your story.

Dogs "see" scent. It literally pours off us in vapour trails. The closest description is that tiny balls of colour pour off us, we all have a different colour.

A dog will no more mistake a colour than we would.

These colours also fade with time, so his instinct is to tell him to go straight to the brightest, freshest colour.

 

[Sunlight]

There is no logic in that timeline. None. If the CCTV was indeed 12:19 and the call was the other side of 8 minutes at 12:27, then we cannot make the sighting of the bikes around 12:20 can we? The timeline is illogical.

Unless the call was made "before" the trip to the lake...someone could just be mistaken or "misremembered".

 

[Jules71]

There is no logic in that timeline. None. If the CCTV was indeed 12:19 and the call was the other side of 8 minutes at 12:27, then we cannot make the sighting of the bikes around 12:20 can we? The timeline is illogical.

Right! So what does this tell us? (Rhetorical - kind of)

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I wonder how long I could leave my hubby out there hiding before I told him the dog couldn't find him....:floorlaugh:

We have played that game with our two doggies too. My hubby will hide out in the yard and they dont know where he is but when I let them out they make a bee line to him everytime. They wub their daddy. lol And the same thing happens when I try to play hide n seek with them. LOL!

One is a Malti-Poo and the other one is a Malti-Shi. They can sniff out our cats too. They love to play with them and often the cats are hidden trying to stay in the shade.

IMO

 

[otto]

There is an excellent post a couple of pages back about average biking speeds for children.

It is well within the bounds of likliehood that they did indeed get that far, that fast...if not faster.

I believe the poster estimated 6 minutes.

:moo:

I read that article. The average speed of children under the age of 13 is 9 mph. They had to travel 1.5 miles.

9/60 = 4.5/30 = 2.25/15 = 1.125/7.5. So, that means that the girls would have covered 1.1 miles in just under 8 minutes, and they're still not at the lake.

 

[SapphireSteel]

I owe you an apology SS.

I mistakenly thought you were talking about the other sightings of the girls and not Mr. P.

But imo, I am not so sure LE thinks the actual visual sightings of the girls are credible.

IMO

No need to apologise, I don't think I'm expressing myself too well today.

Off topic, to lighten up...this is FUNNY...for all the furparents out there.

http://dog-shaming.com/

 

[elmomom]

Unless the call was made "before" the trip to the lake...someone could just be mistaken or "misremembered".

Right! So what does this tell us? (Rhetorical - kind of)

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

It simply tells us that we have two seemingly upstanding non-confabulating "witnesses" who have given completely conflicting information to the media.

So, choose which, if either, you want to believe is correct. Personally, I go with the official CCTV time, 12:11, as the last time anyone saw the girls, or any evidence of them.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I read that article. The average speed of children under the age of 13 is 9 mph. They had to travel 1.5 miles.

9/60 = 4.5/30 = 2.25/15 = 1.125/7.5. So, that means that the girls would have covered 1.1 miles in just under 8 minutes, and they're still not at the lake.

Wow! Thanks for the mathematical answer, otto.

I dont think these girls were ever at the lake that day.

 

[SapphireSteel]

I read that article. The average speed of children under the age of 13 is 9 mph. They had to travel 1.5 miles.

9/60 = 4.5/30 = 2.25/15 = 1.125/7.5. So, that means that the girls would have covered 1.1 miles in just under 8 minutes, and they're still not at the lake.

Didn't the same article state that a hurried pace is more like 15 miles ph?

From that tiny snippet of cctv, I believe they were hurrying.

:cow:

 

[roseofsharon]

Thank you for this thoughtful post.

They didn't question Mr P, they were in his shop downloading his cctv (he owns the auction house).

There is precious little confirmed detail so we all have to go on msm.

My point was, and is, that IMO there are several credible witnesses to the girls/their bikes.

If you disregard one, you disregard all, as all of their stories TIE IN.

First we have Mr P pondering out loud to the media "how could they get that far in 8 minutes?" Based on what exactly?
Answer - what he learnt from the FBI, my opinion only.

Then we have Mr C who saw the girls "between 12 and 1" which his wife later corrected to "12 and 3"...two more witnesses.

Finally we have Mr G who saw the bikes at AROUND 12.20, and told his daughter too.

One...easy to accept they're wrong or mistaken.

Two...less easy.

Three, four, five all stating consistent stories...I'm taking it...especially when you consider grandma STARTED SEARCHING AT 12.30.

Why didn't she find them, if they were still to be found?

Please be aware this is MY OPINION ONLY and not intended to replace fact.

Saphhire, I think Mr. DS and his wife RS are the owners of Cornbelt Auctions and Mr. P is their manager.

It's interesting that online an auction is advertised for Tuesday, July 12, 2012?

IMO only

 

[katydid23]

Wow! Thanks for the mathematical answer, otto.

I dont think these girls were ever at the lake that day.

You might be correct that the girls were never at the lake that day.

But why do you think Aunt Tammy went right to the lake immediately upon her initial searches? Coincidence?

 

[Sunlight]

Didn't the same article state that a hurried pace is more like 15 miles ph?

From that tiny snippet of cctv, I believe they were hurrying.

:cow:

Could be that they were hurrying. The 8 minutes is still an issue no matter how you look at it. I have no problem with the girls getting to the lake in 8 minutes, but that isn't really the issue. Two technological, verifiable time keeping elements are in conflict with what that 8 minutes is being compared to.

 

[otto]

Thank you for this thoughtful post.

They didn't question Mr P, they were in his shop downloading his cctv (he owns the auction house).

There is precious little confirmed detail so we all have to go on msm.

My point was, and is, that IMO there are several credible witnesses to the girls/their bikes.

If you disregard one, you disregard all, as all of their stories TIE IN.

First we have Mr P pondering out loud to the media "how could they get that far in 8 minutes?" Based on what exactly?
Answer - what he learnt from the FBI, my opinion only.

Then we have Mr C who saw the girls "between 12 and 1" which his wife later corrected to "12 and 3"...two more witnesses.

Finally we have Mr G who saw the bikes at AROUND 12.20, and told his daughter too.

One...easy to accept they're wrong or mistaken.

Two...less easy.

Three, four, five all stating consistent stories...I'm taking it...especially when you consider grandma STARTED SEARCHING AT 12.30.

Why didn't she find them, if they were still to be found?

Please be aware this is MY OPINION ONLY and not intended to replace fact.

"Pahl is the manager of Cornbelt Auctions, 3520 Lafayette Road, where a 24-hour camera captured the footage from its position behind the building.

...

Pahl said FBI officials arrived within 20 minutes of learning about the video and &#8220;sat up here all Monday until about noon on Tuesday watching everything we had.&#8221;

&#8220;I think they marked every single car that went by,&#8221; he said. &#8220;I know they downloaded a ton of stuff off of this.&#8221;

http://www.kcrg.com/evansdaledisapp...-Sighting-of-Missing-Girls-163897346.html?m=y