IF THE SHOE FITS : ALL THAT IS BELOW IS MERELY A THEORY !
(New Profiles, part X)
There's an old song with the lyric: a girl in trouble is a temporary thing
There's a slightly older song that goes: i looked around & couldn't find an exit, so i'm making you into a door
Getting back to our case,
The subsequent theme of her going in & out of mini-marts ostensibly seeking directions could then simply be a cover, to act-out the lie that she would have to tell her family that she'd simply gotten lost, periodically calling them every now & then, or trying to.
The Martin Way Diner incident can now be seen in a slightly different light. Now it might be considered perhaps that she was indeed running to something as opposed to the 'from' investigated earlier. He may well have asked her to follow him somewhere in the car. Their order wasn't ready yet (remember this is a diner, not Jack-in-the-Box or McDonald's), but he may have been motioning for her to move-it-along nevertheless. She, in a hurry & also quite nervous about what was to proceed (possibly low blood sugar by this point), stumbles & falls some before she gets to the car (there is always the chance that she was drugged to, but the combination of alcohol & little to eat should be enough).
How they pass the hours from that point, we don't know. A walk along the harbor? A visit to Priest Park? Maybe a tour of the churches? There are a lot to choose from in little Olympia. She may well be trying to back out of it by now. I wouldn't be surprised if her woman's intuition told her something is not quite right with this guy. At some point she may even decide 'to heck with it'. He may have to threaten her, not so much with bodily force as much as emotional pressure. But a veiled threat to the safety of her son is not outside the realm of possibility either. The Williams' house could also be seen within this context. She has to use a phone again to let her family not worry. He can't let her use his because that would give him away. He points out the Williams' house. It has a cross in the lawn.
At some point, either in one car or two, they arrive on the beach. Perhaps he chased her there. Maybe he simply led.
Azriel too might not have realized things were so terribly wrong until it was too late. But finally sensing something was indeed very wrong, he perhaps did what he could to try & help.
I still think it was him that frantically knocked on the Grimmer's door late that night. As I explained in last week's submissions, the Grimmer's reported a knock on their door at around 1:00 am. But they/we are unclear as to whether it was the new time (& hence midnight) or the old time (technically 1:00 am, since the clock doesn't jump forward until 2:00 & then from 2:00 to 3:00). My guess is that they set their clocks before going to bed & so it is the new time figure that is cited. This means that it was around midnight (old time), most likely just after, when they heard the knocks. If the Grimmer's had actually answered their door instead of cowardly hiding, they probably could have saved the life of at least one soul.
But if the perpetrator is indeed 'Brother' why would he 'bother' to wait until midnight? Superstition? On the face of it, that's not very Christian. But 13 is indeed considered by some quite the unlucky number. Even 'fatal' or 'evil' according to the coarse 'theology' that some more 'old fashioned' groups might follow. More possibly it was his own attempt to give a sick rationale to what he was about to do. He would 'save' them by not 'damning' them to their deaths on the 13th. He would also be 'saving' them on a Sunday, the Lord's day.
It was also the 'new moon', very dark down there on what passes for a beach. Hard to see what one is doing in fact. Initially I was assuming a wider struggle & chase had happened, that somehow, either Azriel or his mother managed to get the one shoe off of the perpetrator, after they had gotten out of the car & were perhaps already in the water. Not unlikely, but they'd have to be very quick thinking & I hate to say this, because they were obviously so very unlucky that night, but they would have had to have been at least a little lucky to get the shoe off of a bigger guy such as this, whoever it might be. But there is also, assuming 'the devout's' involvement, a far easier explanation. When a baptism is performed, the parties involved first take off each of their shoes.
And like I mentioned, it was quite dark on that little sliver of beach. No moon that night, & no lights from the street lamps illuminating them either. A shoe, especially if a child had thrown it off somewhere, would be easily lost.
For whatever reason, the perpetrator, 'luckily', was not able to find his shoe.
And that may well be one of the more significant factors in identifying the murderer. The shoe tells us a lot. Who would, & just as importantly, who wouldn't, wear that type of shoe? Also, one male figure would have come home early Sunday morning without a shoe, or if he was smart, either shoe (It's much easier to try to explain the loss of both shoes as opposed to simply one shoe; such as, 'oh my feet were aching so I took my shoes off & when I turned around, some little kid had stolen them').
So whose shoe is it?
I know I have my own emboldened & hardened assumption (based on personality types, etc.)
[However, if we have to revert to the old understanding that the 13-size mentioned by the authorities was indeed meant to convey a child's size, the 9-size (adult) would understandably follow of course to belong to Shantina. This wouldn't necessarily force the dismissal of the elements highlighted above, it would just make the identification of the perpetrator perhaps a bit more difficult.]
One other thing that needs to be addressed here, is that of the open doors on the car. A lot has been made about their possible significance. Initially I saw the fact that since it was the left-side sliding door & the rear hatch that were left open, it could be simply that those were the exit points of escape, assuming a soporific, high-tide 'accident' (as mentioned last week). Then, once I was pretty sure foul-play had been involved, the open doors, where they were, could explain entry points for a perpetrator. (i.e., the child may have been hiding in the back of the car & he or they had to get them out). But in the latest scenario it would simply & obviously be an after-the-fact. The perpetrator would necessarily have to find & recover any articles that might incriminate themselves; any handwritten notes, a phone, & certainly any another messaging unit, as well. He couldn't be sure how high the water would come up. But why then leave the doors open? Simply that he probably had closed one of the two front doors, realized it made an unnecessarily loud noise when he did, & decided not to risk slamming either of the other doors, lest they cause a local homeowner to turn on their porchlights & possibly get a glimpse of him. As for any missing articles that have not yet been found, they may well be lost at sea. But just as possibly at least one could have been saved as a souvenir (a purse? a handbag?). For a religious man like he, it would allow him to share reverence & ask continual forgiveness. And he will still have possession of that. Without it, in fact, he may well be simply damned.
This brings up another potentially horrendous aspect to this case. What if Shantina were not the first to 'go downstream' in this manner (assuming Azriel was simply an unfortunate witness to the intended crime). The cover of the clergy evokes a powerful trust in many, including young women who might be at a spiritual crossroads perhaps in their reproductive beliefs. Wouldn't you have faith in a man of the cloth? You would expect him to ultimately care enough to do the right thing would you not? Even in this day & age, many would still place more inherent trust in a minister than a policeman or a doctor. I should point out however, that in the recent months, there have been other cases in Washington where women have disappeared or been found murdered next to water, their cars found abandoned. I wonder if the pretext initially given to these women might not have been quite similar?
So admittedly what is outlined above are ASSUMPTIONS based on more ASSUMPTIONS, & there sure a whole heck of a lot of them ! (hah), but still perhaps worth checking out?
And yes there are many unanswered questions. (esp., does the abusive ex-boyfriend fit at all into the case anywhere?)
Just trying to help out a bit here by offering up lines of inquiry.
[ And once again, THANK YOU all for bothering to read through this voluminous bit of theories. I know it's a lot & I promise to reciprocate likewise ^ _ ^
(& apologies if i've only re-stated the tired & obvious). Thanks ! ]
