AMBER ALERT NJ - Dulce Mariá Alavez, 5, abducted at Bridgeton City Park, Cumberland County, 16 Sept 2019 #5

[Backstroke10]

She's made mistakes, but i'm rooting for her so hard here. Imagine people accusing you because they've got nothings better to do and you not being able to respond in a perfect version of your second language despite none of them being able to talk a word of your first language. Must kill you.

BBM I'm rooting for her too. There was an earlier post about someone reporting that they had seen the mother sitting in her car once before at the park while her kids were playing. It's comments like this that I find upsetting. It's like people are trying to find things wrong with her. MOO Kids have been abducted within seconds of a parent looking away, walking around the corner of an aisle, in their front yard playing, etc... It happens and it's happened to societies perception of the "perfect" parent. MOO

 

[MimosaMornings]

I don’t see a comment like “I saw the children out playing on the playground and the mother was in the car” as a derogatory statement. JMO
I would take it as a factual observation. Facts are helpful. The trash talk on FB or wherever it is - a hindrance to finding Dulce and not helping the family in their search efforts.

MOO

 

[jjenny]

You are correct (it's not just your opinion, can people stop that, it's fact) but i'm not sure why you'd expect different? Cases take work to solve, it's horrible that the families aren't immediately comforted with answers but it's just not realistic for something like that to happen.

We are comparing this case to a case that was just solved and very quickly.

 

[jjenny]

I don’t see a comment like “I saw the children out playing on the playground and the mother was in the car” as a derogatory statement. JMO
I would take it as a factual observation. Facts are helpful. The trash talk on FB or wherever it is - a hindrance to finding Dulce and not helping the family in their search efforts.

MOO

Well, exactly. Facts are facts. Someone might want to sugarcoat them, but I am not one of those people.

 

[Nadal]

We are comparing this case to a case that was just solved and very quickly.

Then you shouldn't do that IMO. Most cases take a while to work out, LE might know who did it by now and they're just trying to compile evidence.

Comparing a case to a case isn't helpful because they are very different even if they seem similar on the surface.

 

[jjenny]

Then you shouldn't do that IMO. Most cases take a while to work out, LE might know who did it by now and they're just trying to compile evidence.

Comparing a case to a case isn't helpful because they are very different even if they seem similar on the surface.

I think it's pretty obvious here LE has no clue who the suspect is, or what happened. As for what helpful or not, you have your opinion but you have to realize that not everybody is going to have the same opinion as you.

 

[Backstroke10]

I don’t see a comment like “I saw the children out playing on the playground and the mother was in the car” as a derogatory statement. JMO
I would take it as a factual observation. Facts are helpful. The trash talk on FB or wherever it is - a hindrance to finding Dulce and not helping the family in their search efforts.

MOO

Well, exactly. Facts are facts. Someone might want to sugarcoat them, but I am not one of those people.

I’m not talking about the day of the abduction. I’m talking about someone making this statement about the mother sitting in her car during a prior visit to the park. How would that statement help this investigation? How does it have any relevance at all?

 

[jjenny]

I’m not talking about the day of the abduction. I’m talking about someone making this statement about the mother sitting in her car during a prior visit to the park. How would that statement help this investigation? How does it have any relevance at all?

It was not a statement, it was quote from msm article which are surely allowed to quote. From the start we were discussing whether somebody planned the abduction or if this was random. If mother sat in the car, while children played by themselves, and somebody observed that previously, that could have been a planned obduction. So that's how it has relevance.

 

[WildOrchid]

It could point to the possibility of a perp watching routine of Dulce’s family in the past and figuring the adult wasn’t nearby or within sight. Which could mean the day it was observed (the Fri before the abduction) would be another possibility to capture the perp on camera.

I’m not talking about the day of the abduction. I’m talking about someone making this statement about the mother sitting in her car during a prior visit to the park. How would that statement help this investigation? How does it have any relevance at all?

 

[Nadal]

I think it's pretty obvious here LE has no clue who the suspect is, or what happened. As for what helpful or not, you have your opinion but you have to realize that not everybody is going to have the same opinion as you.

This isn't obvious at all. LE routinely hold back what they know from the public, anyone who has followed a large number of cases knows LE often know exactly who it is but they don't say so to protect a future conviction.

Have no idea if that's the case here but it's a definite possibility, especially this early. I would love it if every child was found in a week but it's only been a little over a month and that's very early in missing child terms.

 

[PunkCake]

CHECK IN.

All quiet on the home front.

 

[Backstroke10]

DBM duplicate post

 

[Backstroke10]

It was not a statement, it was quote from msm article which are surely allowed to quote. From the start we were discussing whether somebody planned the abduction or if this was random. If mother sat in the car, while children played by themselves, and somebody observed that previously, that could have been a planned obduction. So that's how it has relevance.

Where are you getting that I said anything about quoting or not quoting MSM articles and what do you mean it’s not a statement? The quote obviously came from someone’s statement. Obviously you didn’t understand my post.

 

[MsBetsy]

I'm not sure why the quoted post did not appear but I'm replying to the suggestion that the mother sitting in her car watching her kids somehow will prove that a predator was watching.

I don't see how it's relevant. Lots of people sit in their cars and watch their children. Plenty of mothers sit and talk to other mothers and don't pay attention to their children. Parents let their children play outside in front of their homes without watching them.

How would any of that indicate that a predator was watching the child?
I don't know the context of the interview or what question was asked, but it sounds to me like the person was indicating that the mother had a habit of sitting in the car while her kids played, and she was suggesting that she was negligent.

That does absolutely nothing to help LE solve the case.

All it does is open the door for more people to criticize and blame the mother.

Imo

 

[MsBetsy]

We are comparing this case to a case that was just solved and very quickly.

Which case is that?

 

[jjenny]

I'm not sure why the quoted post did not appear but I'm replying to the suggestion that the mother sitting in her car watching her kids somehow will prove that a predator was watching.

I don't see how it's relevant. Lots of people sit in their cars and watch their children. Plenty of mothers sit and talk to other mothers and don't pay attention to their children. Parents let their children play outside in front of their homes without watching them.

How would any of that indicate that a predator was watching the child?
I don't know the context of the interview or what question was asked, but it sounds to me like the person was indicating that the mother had a habit of sitting in the car while her kids played, and she was suggesting that she was negligent.

That does absolutely nothing to help LE solve the case.

All it does is open the door for more people to criticize and blame the mother.

Imo

If this was an abduction, then presumably the perp (whether random or planned) saw the child playing without adults around, and kidnapped the child. So, I would say, the predator did watch the child and took an opportunity, assuming of course this was an abduction, no? And that's not relevant? Then what is?

 

[WildOrchid]

Respectfully, while I acknowledge that it’s “early” in terms of solving a mystery, it is decidedly not early statistically in bringing Dulce home unharmed and well. I’m not attempting to speak for everyone but the reason I’m here (and the reason I’m so frustrated) is to help think of ways to get these babies (OUR kids, our treasures, our future, our innocents) home safe and sound and away from these godawful humans who keep taking them away from their loved ones and harming them. So while it’s reasonable to say that patience is a virtue and we should wait on LE to gather their bread crumbs, statistically that doesn’t work with the outcome we all desire. I’m sick of these little kids being taken and hurt and chucked away like garbage. I want to see urgency in this case and I don’t. LE has asked for help. And then gone quiet. And no arrests have been made. And Dulce is not found. That tells me no “help” has come forward, therefore no Dulce and no further pressers.

This isn't obvious at all. LE routinely hold back what they know from the public, anyone who has followed a large number of cases knows LE often know exactly who it is but they don't say so to protect a future conviction.

Have no idea if that's the case here but it's a definite possibility, especially this early. I would love it if every child was found in a week but it's only been a little over a month and that's very early in missing child terms.

 

[Backstroke10]

Which case is that?

I think they are talking about the Kamille "Cupcake" Mckinney case.

 

[MsBetsy]

If this was an abduction, then presumably the perp (whether random or planned) saw the child playing without adults around, and kidnapped the child. So, I would say, the predator did watch the child and took an opportunity, assuming of course this was an abduction, no? And that's not relevant? Then what is?

Well, that's how most predators abduct a child. They see an opportunity and they act on it.
We know that the mother was sitting in the car.
Why is it suddenly being mentioned now?
Even if a new witness has just come forward saying they saw the mother in the car, how is that relevant, since we have known this from the start?

 

[jjenny]

Well, that's how most predators abduct a child. They see an opportunity and they act on it.
We know that the mother was sitting in the car.
Why is it suddenly being mentioned now?
Even if a new witness has just come forward saying they saw the mother in the car, how is that relevant, since we have known this from the start?

I don't want to discuss this over and over again. For those who think it's irrelevant, you don't have to agree with those who think it might be relevant. Since we really have no clue what happened to the child, I personally don't think we know what is relevant or what is not.
There are still multiple possibilities:
1) child was randomly abducted by a stranger
2) child was abducted but it was planned (could be by somebody known to the child or somebody who observed the child previously but is not known to the child)
3) child met with unfortunate accident but for whatever reason body hasn't been found
There are probably more scenarios. All still on the table.