- Joined
- Jul 8, 2008
- Messages
- 18,299
- Reaction score
- 51,502
Right. Car jackers tend to take cars for a couple of reasons:
1. To get to a location because they don't have a car;
2. To steal a car to strip for parts for money
To hijack a car, with a child in it, then dump it, is rare.
However, giving the jacker the benefit of the doubt. If he stole the car, looked in the rear view mirror, saw the child, then chances are he'd want to dump the car STAT.
Uhhh...my problem is why did he take the child with him? A 2 year old could hardly give LE a complete descriptions, and would be a horrible witness.
And wouldn't it make more sense for the jacker to leave the child there? This way he's not charged with further crimes (other than the kidnapping - but could prolly get off on a lesser charge by saying he didn't know the child was there).
I'm willing to eat crow, but I think I'm going to find the father did something with the 2 year old.
This article also says the father was alone with the girl in the car:
The girls uncle, Olando Jones, said Lane was on his way to the girls mothers house to pick up clothing for the girl who was to stay with Lane for a week.
http://www.freep.com/article/201112...carjacking?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE
I'll continue to pray that little Bianca is recovered quickly.
MOO
Mel
You will not be eating crow by yourself, I'll join you. A 2006 Grand Marquis is only worth about $9,000 and isn't very popular for carjacking. Loves gas about as much as I love chocolate. Can't see any reason that a carjacker who would keep a child would then dump the car just a mile from the carjacking location.:waitasec: It just doesn't make sense to me. I don't think this is going to end very well and I hope that I'm wrong.