I still go back to this: IF we believe the bike was actually found where BM claims it was found, how many scenarios actually make sense with the bike found there and the personal items found several days later in a different location? I can only come up with a few:
a) SM went on a bike ride, was abducted, and per threw her items out the window of the car on the way out of town
b) SM went on a bike ride, was abducted, and SM threw those items out the window of the car as a clue as she was being taken
c) BM staged the bike, hoping to make it look like an animal attack. LE didn't buy it, BM (or accomplish) throws items out a couple of days later hoping to change the narrative to abduction.
d) BM kills SM, and either throws items out in a panic or SM loses them/discards them as part of the attack. Bike is staged after the fact.
For the life of me, I can't come up with a good reason for BM to stage both the bike and the personal items at the same time. The initial narrative on this (almost certainly from BM) was an animal attack - the personal items in another location don't support that narrative. So, if one is to believe BM planted the bike, that leaves the personal items as a mistake or planted after the fact. Maybe someone can come up with other plausible scenarios (and I do know we haven't received confirmation from LE that there ever was a bike - though, if not, then one would have to ask why BM is lying about it) that can explain both? JMO, MOO.
