IA IA - Elizabeth Collins, 8, & Lyric Cook, 10, found deceased, Evansdale, 13 Jul 2012 #38

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
$50,000 Dollar reward please send any tips by phone or email. (Please do not discuss them here. Thank you)

Anyone with information on the case is encouraged to call Evansdale police at 319-232-6682, email the Iowa Division of Criminal Investigations at ourmissingiowagirls@dps.state.ia.us or call Cedar Valley Crime Stoppers at 855-300-8477.
 
Considering said:
Tomorrow would have been Elizabeth’s 16th birthday.
Click to expand...
Happy Sweet 16 in Heaven Elizabeth. It is sad to think of everything you are missing out on as a teenager. Lyric's birthday is also coming up in October; she would be 18 and graduating in 2020. I pray that someday this case will be solved and the families can have real closure. For the longest time I believed it was drug related because of Lyric's parents. However, I believe LE would of had that figured out by now. I still wonder about the man I mentioned on here about a year or so ago that traveled around Iowa for his job and was arrested in various counties for child abuse and kidnapping. He was in the Grundy county area which is the neighboring county to Evansdale. I don't remember his name or have a link right now. I'm not sure if E and L were ever mentioned in the article anyway. ETA-here is an article that mentions the girls along with his name. Wow! The one article shows a great map of where they think he has all attempted to kidnap. It is more than I knew about. A stranger with $100 bills: How an Iowa man tried to kidnap at least 19 kids across the state There is also another good link in this article about Elizabeth and Lyric.
 
Last edited:
Drew Collins says, “we’re not going away. If anything, it’s we’re kind of gaining strength and we’re gonna get you.”

These are words from a dad who is still trying to find the person or people who murdered his daughter. Today, Elizabeth would have turned 16.

“We have to have a 16th birthday party for my daughter who is not here,” Collins says.

UPDATE: Anonymous donation is why reward money doubled for Lyric and Elizabeth case

My thoughts and prayers continue to be with Elizabeth and Lyric’s families everyday. I really hope the reward increase brings the one tip they need.
 
Kell1 said:
In almost all of these cases, the killer is in the area of the abduction for legitimate reasons, they usually live , work, or travel through the area with some regularity.

Its only slightly more common that the killer is a complete unkown (stranger) 44.4% to the victim(s), than an aquaintence 41.9% of the time.

So its highly likely this was someone from the area, that they possibly knew of , though the numbers would tend to lean more toward a stranger being involved.

Not too much should be made of the fact that both girls left their bikes that could indicate either someone they knew or a complete stranger, who talked them out of the area or someone who threatened to hurt them if they didnt come along .

The killer usually has the most familiarity with the body recovery site this is where he stands the greatest risk of discovery.

The murder scene is usually within 200 feet of where the bodies are recovered .
Click to expand...
Kell1 - I really like your post and wanted to say that your comment, "The killer usually has the most familiarity with the body recovery site..." makes a lot of sense. I could see a killer coming across a victim in a variety of places that they may not be that familiar with, but they have a quick opportunity to remove the victim from that area. It makes sense that the body recovery site is more likely to be an area that the killer is more familiar/comfortable with since they probably spend more time here - for the crime itself and maybe even to return to after the crime.

I was curious about your statement that "the murder scene is usually within 200 feet if where the bodies are recovered". I'm not questioning or doubting your comment, but I'm just curious as to what criteria are included in this statistic and how that could potentially skew the result. For example, does the result look only at murders where the body was removed from the "kill location" or did it look at all murders? Does it look only at murders where the killer was known to have moved the body or does it also look at cases where a body may have ended up a distance from the kill scene for "other" reasons - such as a body that was placed in water and carried by currents or a crime where the victim lived long enough to try to flee from the scene before they succumbed to their injuries?

I'm just wondering if the "200 ft" could be falsely skewed on the lower side of the spectrum if it looks at all murders since many murders do not result in a body having been moved from the scene. I would be interested in seeing what the statistic might be when looking only at the distance between an abduction site and a recovery site where it is known that the killer placed the body.

I would also be curious to see if the distance between the abduction site and the recovery site is affected by how old and/or experienced a killer is? I would think that a "newer" killer may be more likely to panic and therefore "dump" a body more quickly than a more experienced killer.

I would love to hear what others think of this. I think that if there are studies about this, the information could be very helpful to LE in evaluating the distance between the two sites and looking at possible suspects and their familiarity/proximity to both abduction and recovery sites while keeping in mind a possible suspects "experience".

Sorry if this is rambling, but sometimes I read someone else's post(s) and it makes me brainstorm.
 
I was curious about your statement that "the murder scene is usually within 200 feet if where the bodies are recovered". I'm not questioning or doubting your comment, but I'm just curious as to what criteria are included in this statistic and how that could potentially skew the result. For example, does the result look only at murders where the body was removed from the "kill location" or did it look at all murders? Does it look only at murders where the killer was known to have moved the body or does it also look at cases where a body may have ended up a distance from the kill scene for "other" reasons - such as a body that was placed in water and carried by currents or a crime where the victim lived long enough to try to flee from the scene before they succumbed to their injuries?

I'm just wondering if the "200 ft" could be falsely skewed on the lower side of the spectrum if it looks at all murders since many murders do not result in a body having been moved from the scene. I would be interested in seeing what the statistic might be when looking only at the distance between an abduction site and a recovery site where it is known that the killer placed the body.
Click to expand...

Its really not as complicated as it sounds, it is riskier to move a deceased victim great distances, for fear of discovery, usually after the murder they want to get rid of the victim as quickly and quietly as possible (remember murder is usually secondary component to sexual assault which is overwhelmingly the driving factor in these crimes) therfore its a much smaller risk to move a living (probably compliant out of fear or con) to an area where they can not be seen committing the actual murder, in many cases, the victims are killed where they are found, in most the killer then hides the body and leaves quickly once they are cetian the victim is deceased. In a study done by the State of Washington Attorney Genrals office they found that in the majority of these cases, there was a spaital ralationship of between 1-199 feet between the actual murder scene and the spot where the victims body was recovered. This can also be due to animal activity and or post mortem movement by the offender himself (they often return)

I would also be curious to see if the distance between the abduction site and the recovery site is affected by how old and/or experienced a killer is? I would think that a "newer" killer may be more likely to panic and therefore "dump" a body more quickly than a more experienced killer.
Click to expand...

The distance between the abduction site and recovery site is often greater than 5 miles, regardless of criminal experience remember the mean age of the offender at the time of abduction is around 27 (27.8 ) yo and they usually have a pretty diverse, and in many cases, extensive criminal background by the time they work up to abducting a victim.

The Key figures to keep in mind with these cases,
1) In Most child abduction murdes the victim is deceased within 1- 3 hours
2) In most Child abduction murders the victim isnt even been discovered/reported as missing for 2 hours after they have already been abducted ,

therefore in many cases, the victim is already deceased, before it has been discovered they were even missing

Thats why its so important to move fast in these cases,
 
Kell1 said:
Its really not as complicated as it sounds, it is riskier to move a deceased victim great distances, for fear of discovery, usually after the murder they want to get rid of the victim as quickly and quietly as possible (remember murder is usually secondary component to sexual assault which is overwhelmingly the driving factor in these crimes) therfore its a much smaller risk to move a living (probably compliant out of fear or con) to an area where they can not be seen committing the actual murder, in many cases, the victims are killed where they are found, in most the killer then hides the body and leaves quickly once they are cetian the victim is deceased. In a study done by the State of Washington Attorney Genrals office they found that in the majority of these cases, there was a spaital ralationship of between 1-199 feet between the actual murder scene and the spot where the victims body was recovered. This can also be due to animal activity and or post mortem movement by the offender himself (they often return)



The distance between the abduction site and recovery site is often greater than 5 miles, regardless of criminal experience remember the mean age of the offender at the time of abduction is around 27 (27.8 ) yo and they usually have a pretty diverse, and in many cases, extensive criminal background by the time they work up to abducting a victim.

The Key figures to keep in mind with these cases,
1) In Most child abduction murdes the victim is deceased within 1- 3 hours
2) In most Child abduction murders the victim isnt even been discovered/reported as missing for 2 hours after they have already been abducted ,

therefore in many cases, the victim is already deceased, before it has been discovered they were even missing

Thats why its so important to move fast in these cases,
Click to expand...
Thanks for your detailed and informative response. It is greatly appreciated!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 69 more.
Total: 3,807 (members: 70, guests: 3,737)

Online statistics

Members online
70
Guests online
3,737
Total visitors
3,807
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,110
Messages
17,963,372
Members
228,686
Latest member
Pabo1998
Back
Top