my opinions only, no facts here:
I understand your initial cynicism, but remember that I began my previous post with admissions of significant failed interpretations of some cases in my past. As another example of my past mistakes, I predicted in the 1980's that the Green River Killer was unmarried. The astute sleuth can detect that I am an honest man, humbled by experience and not a bombastic liar. But to argue for my present state of mind, watching the Tanya Rider case on "Disappeared" Season 2 I deduced 7 minutes into the episode that no crime had occurred and the woman had driven her vehicle off the road (I had never heard of this case before that time). In other words, I have learned from past mistakes and have increased my sleuthing skills over the decades.
The distribution of evidence in the Holly Bobo case is curious. It seems planted, not to taunt the police, but as some predictable and immature effort to mislead them or others. But in this 'most secretive case in my memory' even the so-called locations of discovered evidence comes into question. I can only work with what I have, and I reiterate- if I had two more pieces of factual evidence I could figure this thing out.
I believe you are right- why would a kidnapper drive south, towards town? The kidnapper would head north, away from a population center. Further, who in their right mind would be merrily disposing of evidence if the victim was still sitting beside them? Common sense, my friend. Here is a potential problem with the complete secrecy in this case- suppose the searchers found a significant item at location Z. If this was immediately and fully revealed to the public, some passerby might report that they saw this item earlier at time X, and time X might blow the case open.
