IA IA - Elizabeth Collins, 8, & Lyric Cook, 10, Evansdale, 13 July 2012 - #26

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ms Pragmatic said:
I see what you are saying. You mean if say Wylma had a significant other, he may know that she is overly tired from babysitting the kids every day and in his own warped mind, he may feel as though she would be better off without having to babysit?

The above was a silly hypothetical and I am in No way stating that I think that happened. Please do not ask me for a link that Wylma has a boyfriend :) I was simply trying to clarify mjskit's point in my own mind.
Click to expand...

This is another example of how someone might have gained/profited from abducting and killing Lyric and Lizzie.

It may not make sense to us, but it could have made sense to Wylma's hypothetical boyfriend. It's just one more possibility when trying to figure out what kind of person would do this to Lyric and Lizzie.

Is it likely? Probably not. Is it possible? Sure, I've lived long enough to realize that anything is possible.
 
GrainneDhu said:
As I recall, Lyric's cousin is 11 years old. It is hard for me to believe that LE hasn't questioned her and that she could withhold any information she had.
Click to expand...

I agree, an 11 year old girl is not going to hold up well under LE questioning.

I suppose it's possible that Lyric knew why she was going to that certain destination, and her cousin did not. Maybe?:waitasec:
 
Marilynilpa said:
This is another example of how someone might have gained/profited from abducting and killing Lyric and Lizzie.

It may not make sense to us, but it could have made sense to Wylma's hypothetical boyfriend. It's just one more possibility when trying to figure out what kind of person would do this to Lyric and Lizzie.

Is it likely? Probably not. Is it possible? Sure, I've lived long enough to realize that anything is possible.
Click to expand...

I'm glad you didn't ask me for a link about Wylma's boyfriend. :floorlaugh:
 
carbuff said:
Thank you very much.That is amazing! Now I understand what you mean. I believed you before :) but I didn't quite get how it worked.

So if I'm understanding that correctly, the dogs say that the girls left the bikes where they were and walked along the water toward the trees? But if the perp had carried them farther into the woods, they would have left scent still, right? What about in a vehicle?

Now I understand where they got drowning. And the paddleboat question.
Click to expand...

Well, we're not sure which way the track went because the handler reports have not been released. Sandy Breault of the FBI said that the dogs tracked the girls to the water but gave no information beyond that. We do have a report from AuntTB, bless her heart, but while I believe she is truthful, I have no reason to believe she knows anything about trained scent dogs. She did say, though, that she thought the dogs were tracking the girls from next to the lake over to the wooded area, for whatever that is worth. She could be totally correct or totally incorrect.

So far as what dogs are actually following when tracking, human beings have no idea. It could be mind control rays for all we know! But the best theory is that what they are following is the skin rafts that humans shed by the tens of thousands every minute. Skin rafts are skin cells that have been sloughed off plus whatever skin oils, bacteria and fungi are attached to them. Each human being has unique skin rafts, even identical twins.

Simply carrying someone does not eliminate their shedding of skin rafts.

Tracking someone who is in a vehicle is a hit or miss proposition. For one thing, modern vehicles are quite airtight, particularly if the a/c is set on re-circulate. For another, roadbeds and road sides are a fairly adverse environment for tracking. I don't know of any truly reputable handlers who will guarantee their dog can follow a person in a vehicle with 100% certainty. If it happens, it happens but it doesn't always happen, if you get what I mean.
 
otto said:
There was no profit here. Two children were grabbed off the street on a warm, summer afternoon. They were taken to an isolated, abandoned park 20 miles away and their bodies were found five months later, by chance.

There was no profit. This is most likely a sexual predator that hid what he did very well for half a year. This is most likely a very dangerous man that preys on women and children, and who will do this again next time there is an opportunity. There is no "profit" in a murder like this.
Click to expand...

There was absolutely profit here. This happened the DAY BEFORE Dan was supposed to go to court and surrender his freedom. He was being sentenced to FIVE 20-year prison sentences. He would likely never see the outside of a jail cell ever again. And since his daughter disappeared, he is still walking around a free man.

There is also a very large fund sitting in the bank for the families to use. To date, it has not been drawn from, but it is there for them to use in the future.

I am not saying that Dan or Misty did this. But you can't make a statement like "nobody profited" when some people clearly did.
 
Bootsctr said:
I am leaning toward a scenerio like Evelyn Miller. However, I would not be surprised if this is NOT the case either! But, considering the lack of information LE has given us, I think they are not releasing information such as verifying if TG saw the girls' bikes or if the fisher people came forward, cause of death, etc. because alll of that is crucial to their case. We know there is something "not quite right" with the information that we have. The perp knows what information is correct and what is not and of course LE is very well aware of it because they are in control of all of the information. I think the guilty party or parties are walking a tight rope and if they slip up or have already slipped up someone will know and hopefully inform LE. I think LE has a pretty good idea who did it, but are playing a game of cat and mouse in order to get all the evidence to prosecute. :twocents:
Click to expand...

In the Evelyn Miller case, though, LE made it clear who the top suspect was from almost the very beginning. They would talk about Casey Frederickson's version of events but in such a way that the holes in his story were made glaringly obvious.

The police aren't doing anything of the sort in this case.
 
Bootsctr said:
Yes, Thank you GrainneDhu! I love reading your posts. You too carbuff!

I, however, am not really understanding what you mean about where they got drowning and the paddleboat question.... :banghead:

If the girls were at the lake and actually went out in a paddleboat and they were killed while they were in the paddleboat and then brought back to shore, would the scent change for the dogs? :waitasec:
Click to expand...

Law enforcement had already ruled out drowning before the dogs arrived. They went on draining the lake because there was an eensy-weensy teeny tiny fraction of a percentage chance that the girls were still there. They wanted the families to have their minds at ease about that possibility.

Over that first weekend, they did have a water HRD dog on the lake, checking it out. The dog did not indicate at all, meaning that the dog did not detect any scent of a human body in the water.
 
GrainneDhu said:
Law enforcement had already ruled out drowning before the dogs arrived. They went on draining the lake because there was an eensy-weensy teeny tiny fraction of a percentage chance that the girls were still there. They wanted the families to have their minds at ease about that possibility.

Over that first weekend, they did have a water HRD dog on the lake, checking it out. The dog did not indicate at all, meaning that the dog did not detect any scent of a human body in the water.
Click to expand...

I agree. I think LE drained the lake because they HAD to. If they hadn't and somehow those girls washed up somewhere along the way, LE would have looked incompetent. They would have been clobbered for not eliminating the obvious first. I think LE was busy doing many other things while that lake was being drained...and they could do that easily because everyone was occupied with the developments at the lake.
 
I've got lots of thoughts going through my head today - just throwing this out there.

Regarding the phone and the purse...trying to decide if the scene at the lake was staged or not staged:

If this was an "inside job" per se...going off the thoughts of someone profiting, etc. that person would more than likely KNOW that the cell phone wasn't active. They would KNOW that there was no way (once they were away from the house...wherever they were) for them to call for help.

If this person was random, they wouldn't know that. They would have reason to trash the cell phone and the purse.

Unless of course they DID know it was inactive, but staged it to APPEAR there was a mishap with the purse tossed over the fence.

For cryin out loud...:banghead: :floorlaugh:
 
GrainneDhu said:
In the Evelyn Miller case, though, LE made it clear who the top suspect was from almost the very beginning. They would talk about Casey Frederickson's version of events but in such a way that the holes in his story were made glaringly obvious.

The police aren't doing anything of the sort in this case.
Click to expand...

I didn't follow that case on here, but casually watched it on the news - so I know little details other than when they made the arrest of Frederickson. But did they at any point state that he was "cleared" or "not a suspect"? Then they turned around once they had everything they needed and charged him?

I don't know as this is the first case I've followed on here...is it common for LE to state people aren't suspects and then turn around and arrest them?:dunno:
 
threecrazykids said:
I didn't follow that case on here, but casually watched it on the news - so I know little details other than when they made the arrest of Frederickson. But did they at any point state that he was "cleared" or "not a suspect"? Then they turned around once they had everything they needed and charged him?

I don't know as this is the first case I've followed on here...is it common for LE to state people aren't suspects and then turn around and arrest them?:dunno:
Click to expand...

Think of this conversely. If they say someone IS a suspect, LE had better be ready to charge them. If you name a suspect, that person will have to retain a lawyer and then the clock is ticking. lE would not name someone a suspect if they weren't close to charging because usually all communication between LE and the suspect stops and is done in the presence of a lawyer.
 
JaimeInLA said:
There was absolutely profit here. This happened the DAY BEFORE Dan was supposed to go to court and surrender his freedom. He was being sentenced to FIVE 20-year prison sentences. He would likely never see the outside of a jail cell ever again. And since his daughter disappeared, he is still walking around a free man.

There is also a very large fund sitting in the bank for the families to use. To date, it has not been drawn from, but it is there for them to use in the future.

I am not saying that Dan or Misty did this. But you can't make a statement like "nobody profited" when some people clearly did.
Click to expand...

BBM

I thought it was the day after he went to court. Maybe I need to reread things to refresh my memory. MOO
 
threecrazykids said:
I've got lots of thoughts going through my head today - just throwing this out there.

Regarding the phone and the purse...trying to decide if the scene at the lake was staged or not staged:

If this was an "inside job" per se...going off the thoughts of someone profiting, etc. that person would more than likely KNOW that the cell phone wasn't active. They would KNOW that there was no way (once they were away from the house...wherever they were) for them to call for help.

If this person was random, they wouldn't know that. They would have reason to trash the cell phone and the purse.

Unless of course they DID know it was inactive, but staged it to APPEAR there was a mishap with the purse tossed over the fence.

For cryin out loud...:banghead: :floorlaugh:
Click to expand...

:floorlaugh: I believe me and you are on the same :rollercoaster: I know we are :deadhorse: but the "facts" in this case are driving me to :needdrink: The more I think about it, the less I understand. Before I throw in the :whiteflag: I'm not going to :panic: I'm going to let the good :nurse: give me a :chillpill: and I'm going to ride the :bananalama: before I have a :laughcry:
 
threecrazykids said:
I think it's only fair that if we aren't allowed to discuss the family as a possible suspect we need to also follow the same ideology for RSO's in the area.

Per the below article RSO's have all been cleared as well.


Authorities stopped cars near Meyers Lake in 95-degree heat and searched inside the backs of vehicles and checked trunks, the Register reported. All sex offenders in the area have been cleared after talking with police, the report said.



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/18/search-for-missing-iowa-cousins-yields-no-clues/#ixzz2HV4v9d00

So...family has been cleared and RSO's have been cleared. Who's left?

:waitasec:
Click to expand...

You can discuss the RSO's here are the rules:

New Rules on Sex Offenders and Rumors - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community
 
Cracking up at the thought of Wylma and her boyfriend. LOL!!!
 
nursebeeme said:
You can discuss the RSO's here are the rules:

New Rules on Sex Offenders and Rumors - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community
Click to expand...

Hmmm...learn something new here every day. Please don't take this as snark because I honestly don't know.:please:

Why are the rules any different for RSO's who are cleared? Are we to assume that even though LE clears them because they have a previous offense it's ok to still sleuth them, but because WS is a victim family friendly site we can't assume the same for family?

I read the rules I just don't understand why cleared for family and cleared for RSO's are different. If you need to PM it to me so I understand that works too. I would just like to know where the difference falls. Thanks!
 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-Elizabeth-Collins-abducted-drug-dealers.html

Here is another example of how someone could have profited. As stated in this MSM article: "Mr Morrissey, 36, was due to stand trial for multiple charges of methamphetamine possession, making and delivering and for beating his estranged wife as early as Tuesday but a judge today delayed the case a month saying she 'understood' the search for his daughter had distracted him."

There were 2 witnesses present when he beat Misty -- Tammy and Lyric. This is why Lyric did not live with Dan. So theoretically, she would be a witness in his upcoming spousal abuse trial. An example of a "profit" would be removing a witness.

(AGAIN -- NOT saying I think this is what happened. This is only a hypothetical.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 157 more.
Total: 2,164 (members: 158, guests: 2,006)

Online statistics

Members online
158
Guests online
2,006
Total visitors
2,164
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
594,760
Messages
18,011,569
Members
229,489
Latest member
jenuine3684
Back
Top