- Joined
- Feb 4, 2014
- Messages
- 4,627
- Reaction score
- 23,007
In panic I would forget that and try CPR. Anything to save her. I don't think it would have made it worse, I'm just wondering if he had to try anything to save her.
You don't give CPR to someone who is still alive/breathing. Or do you mean that maybe he made it worse by trying that ?
I included in one of my previous posts that they "wanted more money".That's not correct unless I am missing something. Wasn't it said "They wanted more money" ?
Isn't that plausible that you'd go to a wealthier neighborhood to increase your odds of a higher return on a burglary ?
Robbing potentially 3 houses in succession would also seem to be a way to get "more money".
Stealing a car and going 10 miles away so you aren't where the police are looking for that car and not in the neighborhood it was stolen ?
Again, not at all saying there couldn't be other motives.
But are these not highly plausible reasons to anyone ?
In the first presser on November 13, LE described the getaway vehicle as a dark-colored SUV. Where you see the SUV mentioned in my timeline is in quotes from earlier media reports.Confused about the car-Sebring versus a dark colored SUV. The PB affidavit notes the stolen car was recovered at 10:58 PM on Nov. 11th.
Bessie's outline notes "the recovered SUV" in relation to LE looking for evidence within the vehicle.
Also, earlier in the case , there was a report about a dark SUV speeding away from the Sunnyfield Court area.
Is the stolen Sebring, white or a light color, the only vehicle involved or is there a dark SUV in the picture too?
Yes, he did. He called 911. The paramedics arrived and transported her to the hospital.In panic I would forget that and try CPR. Anything to save her. I don't think it would have made it worse, I'm just wondering if he had to try anything to save her.
I included in one of my previous posts that they "wanted more money".
I think your ideas are all highly plausible. I'm merely pointing out a very logical and simple explanation for why they ended up in that particular neighborhood.
CI stated that after the first burglary they wanted more money.
Taylor stated that he "possibly" rode in a silver car to go see Cheese around 56th and Guion Rd.
Taylor states that he "possibly" stopped off at Sunnyfield Ct.
Taylor only remembers (<--don't believe this for a second) being dropped off around Cheese's place.
CI stated that when they left the addition after the crimes, they dropped off Taylor at 56th and Guion Rd.
Connect the dots and it makes sense that they left San Clemente headed toward 56th and Guion to drop off Taylor. Along the way, they decided that they "want more money", and discussed hitting another house. So where do they end up? In the vicinity of their intended destination, or a mere three miles away. JMO
![]()
Ten miles comes from a mapped route directly from San Clemente to Sunnyfield Court. We mentioned ten miles before we knew of the Guion Rd. location.Thanks for this, I wasn't even thinking about the final destination. I think even if that wasn't a part of the picture, I'd still find it plausible, but this explains it very well.
Also, the distance is further than I was thinking - I could have sworn that the earlier burglary was just 10 miles away, and NW of sunnyfield ct. This map clarifies alot for me.
I apologize, I'll have to look back and see why I thought that. Maybe another burglary location that got ruled out ?
I think what you have here makes complete sense.
None of this really helps me understand why they picked Amanda's street and the two houses there.
I do find it odd that they somehow ended up in an empty house on that cul de sac that they proceeded to spend an hour seemingly comfortably in drinking wine and beer in no great panic to get in and out.
The homeowner returned to her burglarized home at 8:17am when she placed the 911 call. I have no idea but it sounds like she may work a night shift? Or was out of town and returned home on a flight that landed in the early am? Or or?? I don't know but how did they know that the owner hadn't popped out to a 24 hr Walgreens for something and wouldn't be right back? She seems to be a single woman living alone. Did they know that? How did they know that the owner wasn't a big burly guy carrying a gun and ready to bust in shooting?
That SUV is a puzzler. I still think about all those guys and tvs in a Sebring. I wonder if it didn't enter into the picture as a pickup for some of the loot? There were all those other calls made to an as yet identified (to us at least, I'm sure LE knows) phone. Then the one guy walks away carrying the stolen goods ... well he certainly wasn't carrying all those TVs!In the first presser on November 13, LE described the getaway vehicle as a dark-colored SUV. Where you see the SUV mentioned in my timeline is in quotes from earlier media reports.
The probable cause affidavit just released the other day does not include any mention of a dark-colored SUV. It states the vehicle used to transport the suspects, and to haul away the stolen property, was the 2007 silver Chrysler Sebring, stolen during the first burglary on San Clemente Dr. That is the stolen vehicle recovered after the crimes which contained items stolen in the burglaries. How "dark-colored SUV" entered the picture is unknown to us.
Personally, I'm going to lay it aside and wait and see if an explanation comes out later. For now, it's a non-issue, imo.
I keep wondering about that too. Most of my neighborhood parks in their garages, so to an unknown person, it looks like nobody's home. Likewise, 75% of my neighbors don't use outside lights (a pet peeve of mine).
This would be incredible luck to find somebody not home at that time (10:00 a.m. would be more reasonable to assume someone's at work). And to be brazen enough to hang out and drink......I have to believe they knew something about that person.
LOL! No, he certainly was not. It's kind of hard to get past that one, isn't it. In fact, I can imagine the detective had to choke back some guffaws listening to that part of the CI's story.That SUV is a puzzler. I still think about all those guys and tvs in a Sebring. I wonder if it didn't enter into the picture as a pickup for some of the loot? There were all those other calls made to an as yet identified (to us at least, I'm sure LE knows) phone. Then the one guy walks away carrying the stolen goods ... well he certainly wasn't carrying all those TVs!
In panic I would forget that and try CPR. Anything to save her. I don't think it would have made it worse, I'm just wondering if he had to try anything to save her.
And there ya go. We're not talking about mental giants. What we know of their ilk, and the past crimes these three have committed -- particularly the older two -- their behavior is rash and impulsive. I wouldn't venture too deeply into their thought processes. My intention with the map was to pose a logical answer to the question of why/how they ended up in the general vicinity of AB's house, 10-plus miles from the first burglary. Beyond that, :dunno:Looking at your wonderful map, Bessie, I wondered why they came so far down Kestrell out of their way. There are other nice homes off Kestrell closer to 56th that they could rob and get over to Guion easily. Those neighborhoods are closer to the ATMs they visited. Maybe they wanted to go to ATMs far away from the house. But they still had to go back into that neighborhood to pick up Taylor...reluctantly IIRC. Lots of risk in this.
But I noticed that they can leave Amanda's area without going back out Kestrell just by turning left toward I-65 for a few blocks and then right on W 38th which parallels the freeway and takes them to Guion via an access road. It's a straight shot to 56th without going out the way they came in. A little less risk...but do they care?
None of this really helps me understand why they picked Amanda's street and the two houses there. But crime doesn't really make sense to me and maybe not to the criminals either. Disorganized, random lives produce disorganized random crime, I guess. I just don't see this as personally targeted at this point. JMO
I'm curious why this is a pet peeve. I rarely have mine on. Just curious!
And there ya go. We're not talking about mental giants. What we know of their ilk, and the past crimes these three have committed -- particularly the older two -- their behavior is rash and impulsive. I wouldn't venture too deeply into their thought processes. My intention with the map was to pose a logical answer to the question of why/how they ended up in the general vicinity of AB's house, 10-plus miles from the first burglary. Beyond that, :dunno:
But here's something else of interest.Look closely at this route. This is starting to make more sense in terms of why they ended up in AB's neighborhood. It's hard to capture it in one image. You really have to go to the map link and zoom in to see what I mean.
Point A - They leave San Clemente and drive southwest down to E. 38th. On E. 38th, they head west toward Guion Rd.
Point B - From E. 38th, they approach W. Kessler Blvd. They take W. Kessler Blvd North exit. W. Kessler Blvd. is the main street which opens onto AB's neighborhood and a few other subdivisions.
Point C - After the crimes, they travel north on Kessler, then west on 56th, and drop off Taylor at Guion Rd.
Point D - They then backtrack south to E. 38th, and take E. 38th east to Rookwood (in the "Boulevard" neighborhood) where they ditch the car.
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/San...bb56923185!2m2!1d-86.1675409!2d39.8248892!3e0
![]()
Which leads to the next question: where did Watson and Gordon go after they ditched the car?