- Joined
- Mar 14, 2013
- Messages
- 231
- Reaction score
- 769
Sure appreciate your thoughts. And they not only remembered it was prunes she was eating, but the exact time she was eating them.
Surely if the witnesses remembered these details, they would have remembered the correct name of the store, which at that time was called Om Natural Health Foods.
The most basic facts of the case appear, upon scrutiny, to not be facts at all:
Lynne was not 18.
The store was not called All Good Things.
Her English final was not scheduled for the day she disappeared (though this could be spin by the school administration)
She took her backpack, checkbook, and ID.
According to the owner, Durst never lived at the Ripton property police focused on in 2015.
According to the town of Ripton staff, who researched the issue thoroughly, there is no record or memory of Durst ever living in Ripton.
There are no legal records, in fact, placing Durst in Vermont at all in December of 1971.
The chief source of details claiming Durst was in Vermont are the Vilners and the Israels, who claim to have known both Durst and Schulze.
Other than struggling to establish an alibi that absolves him from some OTHER crime, I can think of no reason for Durst--who has a solid history of fervent denial--to suddenly remember he was a serial killer in Vermont. Given what the Israels have already said publicly, it is logical to assume they are the source of the 2012 tip.
The question remains then as to why the Israels, and to some extent the Vilners, would want after many decades to suddenly create the idea that a serial killer sold Lynne prunes on a Friday afternoon in 1971.
I see two possibilities (among others): as friends, these three families needed to establish an alibi for Robert Durst on or around December 10, 1971--one they knew would have little chance of actually connecting him to the disappearance of a local college girl.
The second possibility, and the one which nags at me more, is that something happened at the Charlie Miller camp, and the people who were actually present for it need to pin it on an alleged serial killer. This theory would be supported by looking at when the property came up for sale over the years, and seeing whether, for example, there may have been anxiety on the Israels' and Vilners' part as to a new owner digging something up. We know 2012 is a focus point; I'd be interested also in the Israels' allegation that Durst returned to Middlebury for one morning later in the '70s (was evidence moved that year, bringing a need to pin that, too, on Durst?) Police, like reporters and the town of Ripton itself, would have found upon scrutiny that there is no evidence for Durst being at the Miller camp; yet, police are heavily focused on that property. This smacks of a very strong witness statement or forensic evidence; perhaps evidence that can't be definitively connected to Schulze yet.
Surely if the witnesses remembered these details, they would have remembered the correct name of the store, which at that time was called Om Natural Health Foods.
The most basic facts of the case appear, upon scrutiny, to not be facts at all:
Lynne was not 18.
The store was not called All Good Things.
Her English final was not scheduled for the day she disappeared (though this could be spin by the school administration)
She took her backpack, checkbook, and ID.
According to the owner, Durst never lived at the Ripton property police focused on in 2015.
According to the town of Ripton staff, who researched the issue thoroughly, there is no record or memory of Durst ever living in Ripton.
There are no legal records, in fact, placing Durst in Vermont at all in December of 1971.
The chief source of details claiming Durst was in Vermont are the Vilners and the Israels, who claim to have known both Durst and Schulze.
Other than struggling to establish an alibi that absolves him from some OTHER crime, I can think of no reason for Durst--who has a solid history of fervent denial--to suddenly remember he was a serial killer in Vermont. Given what the Israels have already said publicly, it is logical to assume they are the source of the 2012 tip.
The question remains then as to why the Israels, and to some extent the Vilners, would want after many decades to suddenly create the idea that a serial killer sold Lynne prunes on a Friday afternoon in 1971.
I see two possibilities (among others): as friends, these three families needed to establish an alibi for Robert Durst on or around December 10, 1971--one they knew would have little chance of actually connecting him to the disappearance of a local college girl.
The second possibility, and the one which nags at me more, is that something happened at the Charlie Miller camp, and the people who were actually present for it need to pin it on an alleged serial killer. This theory would be supported by looking at when the property came up for sale over the years, and seeing whether, for example, there may have been anxiety on the Israels' and Vilners' part as to a new owner digging something up. We know 2012 is a focus point; I'd be interested also in the Israels' allegation that Durst returned to Middlebury for one morning later in the '70s (was evidence moved that year, bringing a need to pin that, too, on Durst?) Police, like reporters and the town of Ripton itself, would have found upon scrutiny that there is no evidence for Durst being at the Miller camp; yet, police are heavily focused on that property. This smacks of a very strong witness statement or forensic evidence; perhaps evidence that can't be definitively connected to Schulze yet.
