IA IA - Elizabeth Collins, 8, & Lyric Cook, 10, Evansdale, 13 July 2012 - #36

[Grainne Dhu]

Like most women of "a certain age" (i.e., older than dirt), I have worked in hostile work environments. I know how stressful it is, and how difficult it can be to question a superior or to offer suggestions. I have no idea how it works in a police department, but I wonder if Smock negatively impacted the investigation into Lyric and Lizzy's abduction/murders.

The knowledge that he maintains a Facebook friendship with Heather Collins seems questionable to me. I am not accusing Heather of anything, I am just using this as an example of Smock's lack of objectivity. JMO.

I don't see a problem with Smock being FB friends with Heather Collins since she and Drew are pretty much ruled out (have ironclad alibis that would have been easy to check). In reading about cold cases, many of them are solved precisely because the family of the victim managed to make a personal connection with an investigator, so that their loved one's case was always there, waiting, waiting. In a truly just society, this should not matter but in the present day US, we all know that it does matter.

The problems with EPD may not go back all that far. If you think of any small company, something like the boss having an affair with an employee's wife is going to turn things really sour in a big hurry. The inherent stress of police work tends to amplify the speed at which the culture turns bad.

And there was that report that said that the way the EPD handled the case was above standard.

 

[iamnotagolem]

I don't see a problem with Smock being FB friends with Heather Collins since she and Drew are pretty much ruled out (have ironclad alibis that would have been easy to check). In reading about cold cases, many of them are solved precisely because the family of the victim managed to make a personal connection with an investigator, so that their loved one's case was always there, waiting, waiting. In a truly just society, this should not matter but in the present day US, we all know that it does matter.

The problems with EPD may not go back all that far. If you think of any small company, something like the boss having an affair with an employee's wife is going to turn things really sour in a big hurry. The inherent stress of police work tends to amplify the speed at which the culture turns bad.

And there was that report that said that the way the EPD handled the case was above standard.

BBM, Only that's never been released. The only ones stated as not being suspects are Dan & Misty. I also believe that Heather & Smock were friends prior to the girls being missing and murdered.

I really think that the investigation needs to gone through, every witness statement, every video, every tiny bit of evidence they have and work it like a new case.

 

[Marilynilpa]

I don't see a problem with Smock being FB friends with Heather Collins since she and Drew are pretty much ruled out (have ironclad alibis that would have been easy to check). In reading about cold cases, many of them are solved precisely because the family of the victim managed to make a personal connection with an investigator, so that their loved one's case was always there, waiting, waiting. In a truly just society, this should not matter but in the present day US, we all know that it does matter.

The problems with EPD may not go back all that far. If you think of any small company, something like the boss having an affair with an employee's wife is going to turn things really sour in a big hurry. The inherent stress of police work tends to amplify the speed at which the culture turns bad.

And there was that report that said that the way the EPD handled the case was above standard.

I am so glad you are back!

I don't question how EPD handled the case in general. My concern is how tips were handled and how possible suspects were assessed. For instance, if Smock had a friendship with John Doe, would he have discounted any info that crossed his desk that implicated John Doe, or Doe's family?

There is obviously no way to know for sure, but in light of the no-confidence vote I can't help but wonder if things were handled properly in this case. To fire a Chief of Police because his subordinates lacked confidence in him is not something that happens often, IMO, and that raises questions in my mind.

ETA: I am not implicating Heather or anyone else. I am using Smock's friendship with her to illustrate what, to me, indicates a lack of objectivity. JMO

 

[Grainne Dhu]

BBM, Only that's never been released. The only ones stated as not being suspects are Dan & Misty. I also believe that Heather & Smock were friends prior to the girls being missing and murdered.

I really think that the investigation needs to gone through, every witness statement, every video, every tiny bit of evidence they have and work it like a new case.

I meant that Drew and Heather are pretty much ruled out via common sense. So far as I can remember, they were both doing things with witnesses. Heather was at a doctor's appointment, Drew was working. And neither of them had anything in their known histories to suggest they had any criminal tendencies.

Due to their personal histories, Dan and Misty were easier to suspect. I'm glad LE did officially state they are not suspects because they both have enough of a burden to bear without people around them thinking either of them was a child killer.

I agree that the whole investigation should be sifted through again. That seems to be the most common way that cold cases are solved. Re-interviewing witnesses might be particularly important because it is more difficult to remember a lie than the truth. If someone's story now deviates significantly from their story then... well, that would be interesting.

I still think, though, that the perp is someone who has minimal or no ties to either family. It may be that this will not be solved until or unless the perp is caught for something else and decides to confess.

 

[Grainne Dhu]

I am so glad you are back!

I don't question how EPD handled the case in general. My concern is how tips were handled and how possible suspects were assessed. For instance, if Smock had a friendship with John Doe, would he have discounted any info that crossed his desk that implicated John Doe, or Doe's family?

There is obviously no way to know for sure, but in light of the no-confidence vote I can't help but wonder if things were handled properly in this case. To fire a Chief of Police because his subordinates lacked confidence in him is not something that happens often, IMO, and that raises questions in my mind.

ETA: I am not implicating Heather or anyone else. I am using Smock's friendship with her to illustrate what, to me, indicates a lack of objectivity. JMO

I would be surprised if Smock were directly responsible for any aspect of the investigation, particularly checking out tips.

If there had been any irregularities, I would have thought that the NCMEC would have spotted them last summer during their first review of the case or last winter during the second review of the case.

Not saying it is impossible but just that it seems unlikely to me.

 

[iamnotagolem]

I meant that Drew and Heather are pretty much ruled out via common sense. So far as I can remember, they were both doing things with witnesses. Heather was at a doctor's appointment, Drew was working. And neither of them had anything in their known histories to suggest they had any criminal tendencies.

Due to their personal histories, Dan and Misty were easier to suspect. I'm glad LE did officially state they are not suspects because they both have enough of a burden to bear without people around them thinking either of them was a child killer.

I agree that the whole investigation should be sifted through again. That seems to be the most common way that cold cases are solved. Re-interviewing witnesses might be particularly important because it is more difficult to remember a lie than the truth. If someone's story now deviates significantly from their story then... well, that would be interesting.

I still think, though, that the perp is someone who has minimal or no ties to either family. It may be that this will not be solved until or unless the perp is caught for something else and decides to confess.

BBM, And therein lies my biggest problem with this case. Was that all LE needed to rule out Heather and Drew? After following murdered children cases for several years now, it is SOP to start with the parents and work their way out. Heather & Drew have been above suspicion from the beginning of this case. Were they even questioned or was their "good Christian" appearance enough? I'm not saying they killed the girls, but there is always the possibility that they have information that could lead to the girls' killer and not even realize it.

Jessica Ridgeway, I mention her in many cases b/c LE did what they should have done. They started with the parents and worked their way out. They publicly announced that the parents had been cleared as soon as they could.

Heather and Drew have not been cleared, nor has anyone else. Which seriously makes me question the integrity of this investigation. Even though they've said Misty & Dan aren't suspects, they haven't been cleared.

In an ideal world there would be a public announcement that Misty, Dan, Drew, Heather, Wylma, Tammy, Jaramiah, etc have been cleared and detectives are working tirelessly to bring the killer to justice. But this isn't an ideal world. No one has been cleared, everyone is still under suspicion.

 

[Marilynilpa]

I meant that Drew and Heather are pretty much ruled out via common sense. So far as I can remember, they were both doing things with witnesses. Heather was at a doctor's appointment, Drew was working. And neither of them had anything in their known histories to suggest they had any criminal tendencies.

Due to their personal histories, Dan and Misty were easier to suspect. I'm glad LE did officially state they are not suspects because they both have enough of a burden to bear without people around them thinking either of them was a child killer.

I agree that the whole investigation should be sifted through again. That seems to be the most common way that cold cases are solved. Re-interviewing witnesses might be particularly important because it is more difficult to remember a lie than the truth. If someone's story now deviates significantly from their story then... well, that would be interesting.

I still think, though, that the perp is someone who has minimal or no ties to either family. It may be that this will not be solved until or unless the perp is caught for something else and decides to confess.

I believe the perp is someone known to at least one of the families. To me, it seems logical to assume that the girls went willingly with someone known to them. JMO. It is possible the girls went with someone unknown to the family, maybe only Lizzy or Lyric knew the person. In any event, IMO the perp convinced the girls to go with him. Given that Aunt Tammy was convinced Lyric knew what to do in a "stranger danger" situation, I don't think the perp was a random stranger.

I feel that some members of the family were definitely looked at more critically than others. Whether Smock was responsible for that remains a possibility to me.

We know Misty was at work and surrounded by people. Dan was supposedly at his mom's house with his son, and without transportation.

Heather was at a doctors' appointment that morning, since Wylma and Lyric arrived to help out with the kids while Heather was gone. IIRC, it is unclear how long that appointment took and if she came directly home.

Drew was working and got home a little after 2 pm, according to some articles which have been previously linked.

The appearance of propriety does not mean a person is incapable of committing a heinous act. Yet I doubt Smock's friends Heather and Drew were scrutinized as thoroughly as Misty and Dan. Obviously I am not saying they did anything to the girls, I am using them as an example of how the investigation may not have been objective on Smock's part.

IIRC, NCMEC reviewed this case, but did not investigate it on their own. They looked at the info they were given. If I am wrong about that, please correct me.

I think we can all agree that everything should be reviewed. I hope such a review takes place sooner rather than later.

 

[Grainne Dhu]

BBM, And therein lies my biggest problem with this case. Was that all LE needed to rule out Heather and Drew? After following murdered children cases for several years now, it is SOP to start with the parents and work their way out. Heather & Drew have been above suspicion from the beginning of this case. Were they even questioned or was their "good Christian" appearance enough? I'm not saying they killed the girls, but there is always the possibility that they have information that could lead to the girls' killer and not even realize it.

If the investigation had been conducted only by one small town police department, I think the above might be valid speculation. But the investigation was not conducted solely by the Evansdale PD; they called the FBI in right away, the very day Elizabeth and Lyric went missing. I find it utterly beyond belief that every agent the FBI threw into the field on the case from the very beginning would be so amateurish as to fall for a Christian appearance.

Likewise for interrogating Drew and Heather Collins. They weren't just questioned by the Evansdale PD, they were repeatedly questioned by the FBI as well. If they have any information that could lead to the perp, not only do they not realise it but no one in the Evansdale PD, the FBI or NCMEC realises it.

In other words, the hicks are in the best of company on this one.

Jessica Ridgeway, I mention her in many cases b/c LE did what they should have done. They started with the parents and worked their way out. They publicly announced that the parents had been cleared as soon as they could.

Heather and Drew have not been cleared, nor has anyone else. Which seriously makes me question the integrity of this investigation. Even though they've said Misty & Dan aren't suspects, they haven't been cleared.

In an ideal world there would be a public announcement that Misty, Dan, Drew, Heather, Wylma, Tammy, Jaramiah, etc have been cleared and detectives are working tirelessly to bring the killer to justice. But this isn't an ideal world. No one has been cleared, everyone is still under suspicion.

Different states, different cases, different cultures.

Did you know that neither John nor Noreen Gosch have ever been ruled out in Johnny Gosch's disappearance? Of course, there's never been so much as a hint that either of them were involved (all the evidence points to a stranger abduction). Same thing is true for Don and Janice Martin (whose grief I feel certain hastened their deaths at relatively young ages); neither of them were ever formally cleared in either Eugene's disappearance.

By contrast, I don't know a single Iowan who was surprised when Casey Frederiksen was charged and convicted in the Evelyn Miller case. Every single news story from the very beginning made it clear that he was: a) not considered an official suspect and b) guilty as hell.

In that case, the crucial break came because LE was parsimonious about the details of the case, including the cause of death. Frederiksen eventually revealed that he knew how she had been killed, something only the perpetrator knew.

This lifelong Iowan has been reading all the media coverage, particularly the local media (more affected by local culture than the national outlets) and there has been absolutely not a whiff of "this person is not a suspect but is probably guilty" innuendo in any of it. Either Smock and the FBI were able to run an airtight investigation (unlikely) or no one in LE has an idea of the perpetrator (most likely).

 

[dotr]

Wondering if the perp placed the girls in the woods because he wanted them to be found, just not right away?
Why did he not just dump them at the side of a deserted road somewhere? Why did he go through so much "trouble"?

 

[Grainne Dhu]

I believe the perp is someone known to at least one of the families. To me, it seems logical to assume that the girls went willingly with someone known to them. JMO. It is possible the girls went with someone unknown to the family, maybe only Lizzy or Lyric knew the person. In any event, IMO the perp convinced the girls to go with him. Given that Aunt Tammy was convinced Lyric knew what to do in a "stranger danger" situation, I don't think the perp was a random stranger.

I was and remain completely unconvinced that Lyric knew bupkis about "stranger danger" no matter what Aunt Tammy thinks. I've watched too many videos where parents swore up and down that their kid would never be lured off by a stranger only to discover that their kid would leave with a stranger without a second thought. It's not just the USA, either; the same experiment has been run in England, Australia and New Zealand.

All a stranger would have needed was a leash, collar and a story about how the puppy slipped the collar and that person would most likely have slid right out of "stranger danger" category into "Fluffy's owner and therefore not a stranger" for both girls. It takes a lot of time and effort to teach a kid just who really constitutes a stranger and most kids don't really get it until they are well into their teens (it's a developmental thing).

I doubt that either girl was that extremely developmentally advanced beyond their chronological ages and that Aunt Tammy had/has the faintest idea of how to successfully teach the concept (not to mention the considerable investment in time needed to do so). Heck, it is a difficult concept even for adults. For instance, if you live in an apartment building with the same doorkeeper for 15 years, is that doorkeeper a stranger or not? After all, you've seen this person repeatedly over the years, probably more often than you see your own parents, you trust this person to accept packages for you, etc. And yet, when it comes right down to it, what do you know about that person? Not much!

I do think it is possible that the perp is someone who is casually known to Elizabeth and/or Lyric. But that means very little because even to adults, someone that is seen repeatedly in a safe situation seems like someone safe. For instance, I saw a show recently where a woman disappeared from her regular sports bar after watching a basketball game. When LE ran the surveillance footage, they realised she left with a male... but no one at the bar knew who he was by name, even though he'd been a regular there for about a year. He always paid in cash, didn't cause any trouble, was just there week after week after week, so people (including his victim) thought they knew him.

Obviously Elizabeth and Lyric weren't regulars at a sports bar but they were both involved in various youth activities, they went to school, they went to church, they accompanied their parents on errands on occasion, etc.

 

[Grainne Dhu]

Wondering if the perp placed the girls in the woods because he wanted them to be found, just not right away?
Why did he not just dump them at the side of a deserted road somewhere? Why did he go through so much "trouble"?

Iowa doesn't really do deserted roads because we're an agricultural state. If there's a road, there's one or more farmers using it on a regular basis. It isn't like the vast tracts of empty land out west, Iowa is more like the Shire in Lord of the Rings. Additionally, hunters from all over the midwest come for pheasant season in Iowa and then for deer season. There's precious little land in Iowa that isn't walked over at least once a year.

I think you've hit on why Seven Bridges, though. It is not easy to find a place where a body will remain undiscovered for long but those undeveloped parks are a good place if you are just trying to delay discovery. People canoeing the Cedar go through it but 2012 was a very hot, dry drought year and the Cedar was running low and even almost dry in many places.

We're having a relatively dry spring this year, which often means a hot, dry summer in Iowa. I'd be real curious if LE has tried posting some deer cams at Seven Bridges, just to see who they might see.

ETA: I wonder if LE has run the list of fishing licensees and deer tag holders, to see if there is anyone in the investigation who pops up there. Might could add pheasant licenses, too, because even though Seven Bridges itself is not good pheasant environment it is ringed with great pheasant habitat.

 

[roseofsharon]

I believe the perp is someone known to at least one of the families. To me, it seems logical to assume that the girls went willingly with someone known to them. JMO. It is possible the girls went with someone unknown to the family, maybe only Lizzy or Lyric knew the person. In any event, IMO the perp convinced the girls to go with him. Given that Aunt Tammy was convinced Lyric knew what to do in a "stranger danger" situation, I don't think the perp was a random stranger.

I feel that some members of the family were definitely looked at more critically than others. Whether Smock was responsible for that remains a possibility to me.

We know Misty was at work and surrounded by people. Dan was supposedly at his mom's house with his son, and without transportation.

Heather was at a doctors' appointment that morning, since Wylma and Lyric arrived to help out with the kids while Heather was gone. IIRC, it is unclear how long that appointment took and if she came directly home.

Drew was working and got home a little after 2 pm, according to some articles which have been previously linked.

The appearance of propriety does not mean a person is incapable of committing a heinous act. Yet I doubt Smock's friends Heather and Drew were scrutinized as thoroughly as Misty and Dan. Obviously I am not saying they did anything to the girls, I am using them as an example of how the investigation may not have been objective on Smock's part.

IIRC, NCMEC reviewed this case, but did not investigate it on their own. They looked at the info they were given. If I am wrong about that, please correct me.

I think we can all agree that everything should be reviewed. I hope such a review takes place sooner rather than later.

IIRC, in the NG transcript with MCM and WC, when the girls had not come home by 12:30 p.m., WC and her grandson left the Collins' home to look for them. In that transcript, (paraphrasing), WC says because the father had come home.

At that time, I had wondered if DC had come home for lunch or if someone had contacted him about the girls missing.

imo

 

[watcher9]

Grainne Dhu,
Thank you for your excellent post. You brought up some good stranger danger examples.
You could also add that Elizabeth was said to be very friendly and stopped to talk to all the neighbors as she went bike riding. She probably wouldn't think of them as strangers at all. She would have thought they were all her friends. Not that I think it was a neighbor who committed this crime though.

 

[Marilynilpa]

Iowa doesn't really do deserted roads because we're an agricultural state. If there's a road, there's one or more farmers using it on a regular basis. It isn't like the vast tracts of empty land out west, Iowa is more like the Shire in Lord of the Rings. Additionally, hunters from all over the midwest come for pheasant season in Iowa and then for deer season. There's precious little land in Iowa that isn't walked over at least once a year.

I think you've hit on why Seven Bridges, though. It is not easy to find a place where a body will remain undiscovered for long but those undeveloped parks are a good place if you are just trying to delay discovery. People canoeing the Cedar go through it but 2012 was a very hot, dry drought year and the Cedar was running low and even almost dry in many places.

We're having a relatively dry spring this year, which often means a hot, dry summer in Iowa. I'd be real curious if LE has tried posting some deer cams at Seven Bridges, just to see who they might see.

ETA: I wonder if LE has run the list of fishing licensees and deer tag holders, to see if there is anyone in the investigation who pops up there. Might could add pheasant licenses, too, because even though Seven Bridges itself is not good pheasant environment it is ringed with great pheasant habitat.

See why we missed you!?! You always provide such great information!

That is great idea about checking deer tag holders and fishing licenses. With the renewed interest into visitors to Seven Bridges, that would be a logical thing to look into, IMO.

 

[Marilynilpa]

I was and remain completely unconvinced that Lyric knew bupkis about "stranger danger" no matter what Aunt Tammy thinks. I've watched too many videos where parents swore up and down that their kid would never be lured off by a stranger only to discover that their kid would leave with a stranger without a second thought. It's not just the USA, either; the same experiment has been run in England, Australia and New Zealand.

All a stranger would have needed was a leash, collar and a story about how the puppy slipped the collar and that person would most likely have slid right out of "stranger danger" category into "Fluffy's owner and therefore not a stranger" for both girls. It takes a lot of time and effort to teach a kid just who really constitutes a stranger and most kids don't really get it until they are well into their teens (it's a developmental thing).

I doubt that either girl was that extremely developmentally advanced beyond their chronological ages and that Aunt Tammy had/has the faintest idea of how to successfully teach the concept (not to mention the considerable investment in time needed to do so). Heck, it is a difficult concept even for adults. For instance, if you live in an apartment building with the same doorkeeper for 15 years, is that doorkeeper a stranger or not? After all, you've seen this person repeatedly over the years, probably more often than you see your own parents, you trust this person to accept packages for you, etc. And yet, when it comes right down to it, what do you know about that person? Not much!

I do think it is possible that the perp is someone who is casually known to Elizabeth and/or Lyric. But that means very little because even to adults, someone that is seen repeatedly in a safe situation seems like someone safe. For instance, I saw a show recently where a woman disappeared from her regular sports bar after watching a basketball game. When LE ran the surveillance footage, they realised she left with a male... but no one at the bar knew who he was by name, even though he'd been a regular there for about a year. He always paid in cash, didn't cause any trouble, was just there week after week after week, so people (including his victim) thought they knew him.

Obviously Elizabeth and Lyric weren't regulars at a sports bar but they were both involved in various youth activities, they went to school, they went to church, they accompanied their parents on errands on occasion, etc.

You may be right about Lyric and the stranger danger training. As you stated, there have been several undercover videos of a "stranger" who is easily able to persuade a child to walk off with him. In each case, the parent watching the event is astonished (and terrified) that their child disregards their stranger danger training.

I know the case you are referring to re: the sports bar incident, and IMO that is a good example of knowing and yet not knowing someone.

I think a church member, a school employee, a parent's or sibling's friend, or even a cashier at the local store could also be someone a child would be familiar with and not consider a stranger. JMO.

 

[alliemay]

Yes I agree, I think either one of them may have seen this person that took them beforhand, it's a small town, the profile says this person may have lived in the town or had a reason for being there at that time. But personally I don't feel they knew this person as you would know someone who had come to either parents house to visit. I still feel that some sort of threat tactic was used to not only get them to go but also not scream or make a fuss. When I was a kid, if someone showed me a large ugly knife and told me to do something I would have probably complied. I think there would have been several ways this person could have convinced them to get in the car.

 

[threecrazykids]

I'm sure most of you have seen this video trending on SM, but I thought I'd put it here for those who haven't. It was a social experiment about just how easy it is to get a child to go with a stranger - right in front of a parent. While I do know that there are critics stating this is fear mongering amongst parents, I think the experiment itself proves that it's much easier than some parents want to believe.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGIDHrYKJ2s

The parents reactions are a true testament that no matter WHAT we tell our children, if someone doesn't LOOK the part of a "stranger" or "bad guy", the reality is, children aren't innate to fear amongst other humans (particularly adults). If they've grown up in an environment where adults are trust worthy, helpful, and loving people - naturally they don't have warning bells or a gut instinct that produces fear.
There are children who have, in one way or another, been wronged by an adult. I think THOSE children are far more apt to fear another adult speaking to them, or coming near them - with or without a parent in eye sight. They KNOW what adults are capable of. But thank goodness, MOST of our children don't live in a world where every adult (stranger or not) is someone to be feared.
Why? Because a lot of parents (including myself) don't WANT to raise my kids to be fearful of every single person they don't know. That is no way to live a life. I don't WANT my children to think that every man who says hello is a dirty old man who wants to abduct and rape them. What a horrific fear to put into a child.

But finding that balance between what is safe and what is not is where so many of us parents struggle. It's impossible to teach your children who to fear when the majority of sexual assaults/molestation etc. happen with people whom they've grown up with, are relatives, or people their parents and families know and trust.

Unfortunately, this is why I feel that LE may potentially have this one backwards as far as who all needs to be deeply investigated. I have a feeling that Lyric would be MORE apt to be a little more "schooled" in the world of what adults are capable of. Elizabeth may not. Maybe Lyric went along because Elizabeth "knew" this person, even though she herself didn't. Maybe she felt something was off...wanted to stick with Lizzy to "protect" her, but didn't say anything because Lizzy "knew" this person and went more than willingly, so she followed.

 

[threecrazykids]

Iowa doesn't really do deserted roads because we're an agricultural state. If there's a road, there's one or more farmers using it on a regular basis. It isn't like the vast tracts of empty land out west, Iowa is more like the Shire in Lord of the Rings. Additionally, hunters from all over the midwest come for pheasant season in Iowa and then for deer season. There's precious little land in Iowa that isn't walked over at least once a year.

I think you've hit on why Seven Bridges, though. It is not easy to find a place where a body will remain undiscovered for long but those undeveloped parks are a good place if you are just trying to delay discovery. People canoeing the Cedar go through it but 2012 was a very hot, dry drought year and the Cedar was running low and even almost dry in many places.

We're having a relatively dry spring this year, which often means a hot, dry summer in Iowa. I'd be real curious if LE has tried posting some deer cams at Seven Bridges, just to see who they might see.

ETA: I wonder if LE has run the list of fishing licensees and deer tag holders, to see if there is anyone in the investigation who pops up there. Might could add pheasant licenses, too, because even though Seven Bridges itself is not good pheasant environment it is ringed with great pheasant habitat.

Just to clarify - it's the Wapsi, not the Cedar that runs through the park.

Also, in my videos I took of Seven Bridges for my Websleuths friends, you will see that while filming I notice, and even mention deer cams at the site of where their bodies were found. So yes, when I went there, there were cameras up, overlooking the site. I didn't bother to scour the walkway or driveway entry to see if there were more, but I was glad to see they had them up overlooking the recovery site.

 

[roseofsharon]

Welcome back Grainne. IIRC, you are very knowledgeable regarding scent dogs. Could it have been possible that the dogs picked up the girls' scent at Meyers Lake from their bicycles. IIRC, I read that the dogs went back into the forested area of Maiden Lane after being at the location the bikes were found. I'm still not convinced the girls were actually at Meyer's Lake. Thank you for your input on this.

 

[Marilynilpa]

Yes I agree, I think either one of them may have seen this person that took them beforhand, it's a small town, the profile says this person may have lived in the town or had a reason for being there at that time. But personally I don't feel they knew this person as you would know someone who had come to either parents house to visit. I still feel that some sort of threat tactic was used to not only get them to go but also not scream or make a fuss. When I was a kid, if someone showed me a large ugly knife and told me to do something I would have probably complied. I think there would have been several ways this person could have convinced them to get in the car.

I've thought that someone might have told the girls there was an emergency. If the person knew of Heather's health issues (which many would have known via church and Facebook), I can see both girls willingly leaving their bikes behind and going with someone who told Lizzy her mom was in the hospital and he would take the girls to her. After all, Lizzy knew her mom had a serious health issue.

I've also thought that a "friend" told the girls he would give them a ride on his four-wheeler (maybe at Seven Bridges?), and that he had cleared it with Wylma.

Any kind of ruse probably would have worked.

I think the girls went willingly as opposed to being coerced, but that's just my opinion.