IA IA - Elizabeth Collins, 8, & Lyric Cook, 10, Evansdale, 13 July 2012 - #19

[SapphireSteel]

I value your opinion because you have many years of experience behind you. With that being said, have you...

Seen many cases where 2 bigger girls were abducted by a random pedophile in the middle of the afternoon on a bike path, with (reported by LE)no signs of force, no witnesses, no evidence, no sightings, no person of interest, no suspicious vehicle, no motive, no amber alert, no potential threat to the rest of the community, ...

on the day after the father of one of the missing girls goes to court and changes his plea on serious felony meth/drug charges??????????

This is why I believe it was well-planned, well-executed by someone with power, money, access to many "players", and the abilty to intimidate potential witnesses from coming forward.

Personally I have not seen these circumstances replicated in any other crime, ever.

The closest we come is the two little sisters abducted from their front yard but even then, it was a roadside abduction and the girls were smaller and not on bikes.

This plus the apparent planning involved leads me to believe the motive is not (primarily) sexual.


:dunno:

 

[RNER]

I would have considered it possible that Lyric was kidnapped to shut DM up except for the fact that DM decided to turn down the plea bargain the day before Lyric disappeared. Anyone who was unhappy about Dan testifying against them could breathe easy because he had already decided not to do so. Kidnapping his child would only inspire him to cooperate with LE and reveal everything he knows.

I think you're right about the girls being murdered by a pedophile. I just got done posting several examples of double abduction/murders by strangers, so it's not unheard of.

Have there been any recently? These examples were over 30 years ago when communication and surveillance technology and media coverage were very limited. IMOO...I would think it would be more difficult for a random pedophile/serial killer to abduct TWO girls at once today without someone knowing, hearing, seeing something!

 

[SapphireSteel]

Have there been any recently? These examples were over 30 years ago when communication and surveillance technology and media coverage were very limited. IMOO...I would think it would be more difficult for a random pedophile/serial killer to abduct TWO girls at once today without someone knowing, hearing, seeing something!

I agree.

The way LE are releasing info though, they could well have and we just don't know about it.

:banghead:

 

[Marilynilpa]

If Lyric was the target, why wasn`t she kidnapped near her home in Waterloo without the complication of taking Elizabeth ... and why Lyric rather than other siblings. It`s impossible. I don`t believe it for a minute and furthermore, there is not one single piece of evidence to support any wild theory that these two cousins were kidnapped for any reason whatsoever. The fact that they were kidnapped and have completely vanished without any demands for anything suggests to me that the perp is a pedophile and that they will never be seen again.

BBM

So because you don't agree with someone's theory, it's "wild"? I believe there are quite a few posters on here who believe this to be a planned abduction rather than a random abduction. Why is one theory wilder than another?

Let's please get back on track and do something constructive rather than destructive, okay? Regardless of how it happened and who is right or wrong, someone took these two girls and we have no facts whatsoever to indicate who it is. JMO.

 

[otto]

I value your opinion because you have many years of experience behind you. With that being said, have you...

Seen many cases where 2 bigger girls were abducted by a random pedophile in the middle of the afternoon on a bike path, with (reported by LE)no signs of force, no witnesses, no evidence, no sightings, no person of interest, no suspicious vehicle, no motive, no amber alert, no potential threat to the rest of the community, ...

on the day after the father of one of the missing girls goes to court and changes his plea on serious felony meth/drug charges??????????

This is why I believe it was well-planned, well-executed by someone with power, money, access to many "players", and the abilty to intimidate potential witnesses from coming forward.

Aren`t children usually kidnapped during the day when they are out of sight of their parents or guardians, if only for a moment? When that happens, especially when it`s a random perp, it can take years to solve the crime ... at least that`s my impression.

I fail to see how kidnapping Elizabeth intimidates anyone. Kidnapping Lyric wouldn`t intimidate anyone either.

 

[otto]

BBM

So because you don't agree with someone's theory, it's "wild"? I believe there are quite a few posters on here who believe this to be a planned abduction rather than a random abduction. Why is one theory wilder than another?

Let's please get back on track and do something constructive rather than destructive, okay? Regardless of how it happened and who is right or wrong, someone took these two girls and we have no facts whatsoever to indicate who it is. JMO.

I was referring to the suggestion that Elizabeth was abducted in connection with meth collateral. I can`t connect that theory to any of the information that we know about the case.

 

[Marilynilpa]

I was referring to the suggestion that Elizabeth was abducted in connection with meth collateral. I can`t connect that theory to any of the information that we know about the case.

In regarding to my theory about the girls, there is no need to connect the abduction with meth collateral because I never once indicated there was a connection.

I'm afraid you interpreted my comments to mean I suspect someone connected to Lyric's side of the family. I did not say that and, IMO, I made it clear that anyone (trusted friend, church member, etc) could have taken the girls. No mention of meth at all.

Since you don't agree with my theory, perhaps you would like to share yours. Who knows, maybe you'll point out something that I haven't considered.

ETA: I agree with many of your posts, so we can't really be all that far apart, IMO.

 

[SouthernMom]

Have there been any recently? These examples were over 30 years ago when communication and surveillance technology and media coverage were very limited. IMOO...I would think it would be more difficult for a random pedophile/serial killer to abduct TWO girls at once today without someone knowing, hearing, seeing something!

Joseph Duncan, III did it twice before he was caught. First were Sammiejo White, 11 yrs old, and Carmen Cubias, 9 yrs old.
Then he kidnapped Shasta and Dylan Groene. In the second instance, Dylan was a boy and there was more planning that went into the abduction, along with the murder of the family. However, in both instances no one had a clue and there were no witnesses. Getting caught with Shasta is what led to his being charged with Anthony Martinez' murder and being a most likely suspect in the cases of Sammiejo and Carmen. Sadly he may never be charged with those murders.

Edited to add: Jet, as he likes to refer to himself, blogs from prison and has a following. This could very well be someone who wants to follow in his footsteps.

 

[hambirg]

That describes my ex husband

My deepest condolences . . . . :floorlaugh:

 

[Sunlight]

Personally, I think the perp(s) may get caught precisely because of poor planning and not taking into account things like cctv cameras, which is why I think the abduction is one of a perverse nature. MOO

 

[GrainneDhu]

So by going to trial in attempt to prove his innocence, he won't implicate others? The prosecutors won't bring up his "associates" and their involvement while attempting to demonstrate his crimes?

By taking the plea, would he have had to "testify" against others?

Keep in mind that, technically, no one has to prove their innocence at trial and, in fact, it's impossible to prove a negative. The prosecutor must prove the defendant guilty.

The prosecutor cannot bring up anyone who is not directly implicated in the charges brought against DM unless he takes the stand. So just knowing Joe BigDealer is not enough; the prosecutor would have to prove that Joe BigDealer was directly involved in the acts that DM has been charged with.

Trying to prove one's own innocence by implicating others only works on Perry Mason; in the real world, it is exceptionally difficult to implicate someone else without also admitting to being an accomplice or an accomplice after the fact. "Joe BigDealer did it and I know because I saw him" then begs the question "why didn't you report it to the police at the time?" It's not a viable defence and only an incompetent lawyer would suggest it or condone it.

I have no way to know what the terms of the plea bargain were but to get that much reduction of jail time (from 40 years down to 5 in prison and 5 on parole), typically the defendant has to agree to testify against other potential defendants. Such good plea deals are usually only available to someone whose testimony would provide the evidence needed to bring a charge in a case or cases where there isn't enough evidence to bring charges without it.

The above is based on what I have seen happening in Iowa in many other drug cases.

 

[cindersoot]

Otto, I totally agree with you. I don't think this case has anything to do with meth.

 

[GrainneDhu]

Guess I'm confused...

I was thinking that they might have taken the girls to keep him from talking in a trial because of the fear that the girls would be harmed or killed if he said too much.

Maybe the "abduction" was planned no matter what he decided to do in court the day before. IMOO...Either way would implicate others.

If DM's lawyer is even semi-competent, DM will never testify at his own trial (very few defendants do and it's generally considered a very bad idea when a defendant insists upon doing so).

I just don't see how DM could implicate anyone else if he goes to trial. It's not a viable defence. Saying "I know someone did this illegal thing" only proves that the person so testifying was an accomplice after the fact (and therefore just as guilty as the perp).

While DM's lawyer had undoubtedly made a proffer that implicated others for the plea bargain, the proffer is useless without DM's testimony in court. It can't be used in court, it can't even be used as the basis for reasonable cause to get a search warrant.

 

[Considering]

Originally posted 7/22/12 by Considering
When I am thinking of someone that one of the girls knew, I am thinking more along the lines of, "Hi! Remember me? I'm Susie's Dad." "Hi! Remember me? I'm your mailman." "Hi? Remember me? I fixed your Grandma's leaky roof." "Hi! Remember me? I substitute in your class when your teacher is sick." In other words, someone that one of them (or even both) has seen and somene who can say something like one of the examples above that could cause the girls to think, "Oh, yes. I remember him (and therefore, he isn't a stranger)." Then, a little conversation and perhaps one of the girls remembers that they have been gone too long and she says, "Lyric/Elizabeth! We should have been home a long time ago! We're going to be in trouble!" And the perp says, "Hey! My van is parked right over here. Jump in and I'll drive you straight up to Liz's house and explain it to all to Grandma so you won't be in trouble. Then, I'll come right back and pick up your bikes." Off they go....

Here's another scenerio using the same type meeting with a man who they come to believe isn't really a stranger. This time let's put the man himself on a bike. Elizabeth's house isn't far from the Evansdale Nature Trail. In this scenerio the "known" stranger said, "Guess what, girls?! I just talked to your Grandma (or your mom/aunt at the store) and told them I was going to ride down to Meyers Lake. They said you could with me if you wanted to. Come on! It'll be fun!" Off they go down the trail which doesn't appear from the aerial view, anyway, to be as visible as riding down the streets might be. So, they ride down the trail and arrive at the lake. They're hot after such a long ride (it's long for two little girls, after all). Now, the "known" stranger says, "Boy, I'm tired, girls. My van is parked right over on the other side of these trees. Tell you what - let's cut through the woods over to my van and I'll drive you up to Liz's house and we'll get a drink. I'll come back and get your bikes because it would be too hard for you to get your bikes through the woods or you and your bikes won't all fit in my van at the same time so I'll just take you two girls and my bike for now. I'll come back for your bikes after I drop you off. It wouldn't be safe to leave you here alone." Off they go....

Originally posted 8/20/12 by Considering
I know that some people believe that there had to be at least two perps involved but I don't think there had to be. I think one person could have done it. A menacing man, for example, would have been very frightening to me as a child. I don't believe having a friend along would have caused me to feel less terrified at the age of 9 or 10, either. It's possible that whoever abducted the girls used a gun (as was mentioned earlier in the thread) but I don't think that would be necessary. I think telling two scared little girls that you have a gun in your pocket would be enough to have them do as they're told. That being said, I can think of a scenerio in which a perp would not need a gun or to say that he had one in order to abduct two girls. I'll use THE white van, since it's so...popular. Let's say that a perp is walking around the block or to his mailbox. We can also have him jogging, or riding a bike or a skateboard for that matter. He sees the girls. He pretends to fall at a time and place he knows the girls cannot help but notice. They stop to help him or maybe he asks them to help him up. They drop their bikes to assist the "nice" man to his feet. When the "nice" man stands up, he can't walk -- he must have broken/sprained his ankle. If the girls will just help him get to his van that's parked right there at the edge of the woods, he will drive himself to the hospital. Maybe he needs one or both to hold his hand so he doesn't fall. Maybe he needs someone to carry his skateboard/push his bike back to his van. Of course, they're going to help this nice man. They can't leave him hurt and alone. It wouldn't be the right thing to do. It wouldn't be "kind." He's so appreciative of the help they are giving him. If they'll just open the sliding door/back door on the van, he thinks he can get in easier (or he needs them to put his skateboard/bike in the van for him). The girls open the door. Maybe they get inside to help pull him up. Maybe he pushes them inside. Regardless, he gets the girls inside. It's quiet. It's quick. It works. They're gone.

Looks like I'm back to my original theory on the abduction. I had started thinking they were kidnapped closer to Elizabeth's house, but now I'm back at the lake as the abduction site.

 

[Marilynilpa]

Otto, I totally agree with you. I don't think this case has anything to do with meth.

Since my theory doesn't mention anything about meth, do you agree think it is possible that someone known to at least one of the two girls, and trusted by their family, could have planned and carried out this abduction?

I'd like to hear theories from people who think this was not an abduction by someone trusted by the immediate family of one of the girls. Do you think is a planned abduction, but not by someone the family knew? Do you think it is random?

Not directed just to you cindersoot, I'd really like to know what others are thinking. We all have the same basic facts, so it would be interesting to see how differently they can be interpreted, IMO.

 

[GrainneDhu]

Have there been any recently? These examples were over 30 years ago when communication and surveillance technology and media coverage were very limited. IMOO...I would think it would be more difficult for a random pedophile/serial killer to abduct TWO girls at once today without someone knowing, hearing, seeing something!

The examples I chose were from my own memory of cases, backed up with a little googling. By necessity they're on the old side because a lot of my true crime reading is through books rather than msm reporting on current cases.

If the perp had a weapon, abducting two girls together would not be more difficult than abducting one in the same spot. If by chance one of the girls did resist, we've seen a bunch of examples in these threads of what happens: the perp drives away. And is rarely caught.

All it takes is being on the lookout for a pair of potential victims in a place unlikely to have cctv coverage.

 

[ktgirl]

The examples I chose were from my own memory of cases, backed up with a little googling. By necessity they're on the old side because a lot of my true crime reading is through books rather than msm reporting on current cases.

If the perp had a weapon, abducting two girls together would not be more difficult than abducting one in the same spot. If by chance one of the girls did resist, we've seen a bunch of examples in these threads of what happens: the perp drives away. And is rarely caught.

All it takes is being on the lookout for a pair of potential victims in a place unlikely to have cctv coverage.

I agree. A gun or other weapon could scare the girls into going with the perp without a fight. So could a number of ruses (come look at this kitten or some other ruse).

 

[RNER]

Otto, I totally agree with you. I don't think this case has anything to do with meth.

I have 2 theories...one involving drug/meth associates, the other is an abduction by someone who befriended the girls, possibly known to the family, but definately known to the girls.

I don't see a "snatch and grab", opportunistic, random, seize the moment-type pedophile taking TWO girls of this age on bicycles from a public trail. I would think there would be easier targets in the area...although they have managed to be "missing without a trace" for over 2 months!

 

[SouthernMom]

The examples I chose were from my own memory of cases, backed up with a little googling. By necessity they're on the old side because a lot of my true crime reading is through books rather than msm reporting on current cases.

If the perp had a weapon, abducting two girls together would not be more difficult than abducting one in the same spot. If by chance one of the girls did resist, we've seen a bunch of examples in these threads of what happens: the perp drives away. And is rarely caught.

All it takes is being on the lookout for a pair of potential victims in a place unlikely to have cctv coverage.

ITA My theory is that the perp was on the lookout for one victim and got two. I don't think it was ever planned to take two girls; this was a last minute change of plans and the perp could not resist the desire to commit this crime.

 

[RNER]

Otto, I totally agree with you. I don't think this case has anything to do with meth.

So... by having this theory (myself included), it has to be purely coincidental that the abduction occured the day after Dan's court appearance and the family background has nothing to do with the abduction.