Outlandish? Really? It seems some people liked it. Well, let me give it another shot . . .
You're exactly right that some people may not come forward--and you gave some various reasons why they might not. But adding up all those types of people, what percentage is that of the entire population? 5%? 6%? It's exactly the reason I said "almost 100%" and not "absolutely 100%". Because it seems to me that police usually get A LOT of help from the general public when it comes to solving cases--what did they see? what did they hear? Where were they? Etc. And most people are more than happy to help. In fact, despite what we think about DNA, fingerprints, etc., it's usually thru witnesses and a concerned public that criminals get caught. I mean, how many criminals end up getting turned in by their gf/mother/ex-wife? MANY.
Also, as far as cops railroading people, there are more criminals walking the streets who've never been caught than innocent people in jail. Yep, mistakes are made--some big time ones, in fact. But I think our perception of that is overblown because so much is made of innocent people in jail, not because there are many of them.
Even given all that, all these theories that it wasn't really a minivan, and the mgr and her husband picked out a random vehicle, etc. Does anybody realize how outlandish that is? Granted, I'll give you this: Whoever made Jessica disappear has gotten away with it to this point. But, that person or people would've NEVER planned to perpetrate a crime this way.
-What happens if no cars happen to be on that street that night? Then how would they have picked out a random car?
-What happens if the random car they pick happens to be the car of the mayor or a prosecutor or a community organizer or a newcaster? You know, someone who keeps up on crime in that city? And immediately knows about Jessica's disappearance. Wouldn't the mgr and her husband look like total idiots?
In fact, as I type this, and I follow disappearances and unsolved mysteries pretty well, I don't know of one case where a criminal or co-conspirator picked out a REAL car to blame the crime on (but I suppose there is at least one case that contradicts the rule). However, I do know plenty of cases where criminals tried to blame the crime on a PHANTOM car and a phantom person, i.e. fake identifications. Why? Because every criminal knows that when you start pointing the finger at real people and real cars, the odds that the cops will track down those people and figure out they had nothing to do with it are quite high.
But that van wasn't a phantom--it's on those video tapes.
As far as possibly a lot of people not knowing about the case, I live in FL, I know about it. I'm sure there are people in HA, ME, CA, and everywhere else that know about it. In fact, given that more and more people get their news from Facebook--as you say, I think it's more likely they know about Jessica's case because I explicitly remember it being on one of those sidebars of my homepage on Facebook when she disappeared.
I think the trap too many people fall into--including myself--regarding cases like this is we forget to look at it through the criminal's eyes, trying to get into his/her head as they planned to commit the crime. Instead, we look at it like Monday Morning qb's, which skews our perception.
Here's what I mean . . .
Let's just say, to keep it as simple as possible, that some relative of the mgr or her husband abducted Jessica. (I hope that doesn't get this post edited by the Moderator) Let's call this relative, Zeke. If Zeke wants to abduct Jessica for whatever reason, he has two choices--doing it himself or getting others to help him.
So, let's say he wants to do this crime on his own. Why? The most likely answer is because he knows it's a crime and he doesn't think anyone else will assist him, right? I mean, one slip of the tongue and somebody is likely to alert police. So, he plans, he schemes, he readies himself. He pulls into that parking lot, seizes Jessica, and I don't think I wanna detail the rest.
Well, doing it on his own, there is NO way he could predict that a relative--who just happened to be driving by at that very second--would lie for him, create a false lead, and virtually get him off the hook. Could he have predicted that? Not in a million years. Remember: He chose to do this crime by himself for the most likely reason that he thought others might not go along with it. Instead, in the preceding scenario, others--his relatives--involve themselves in it VOLUNTARILY, without one request from Zeke, the true criminal. So, in the plalnning Zeke rejects the idea of involving others, including relatives. But for some reason, those relatives couldn't wait to be involved in the kidnapping of someone. Doesn't that seem outrageous? Furthermore, if the mgr and her husband did involve themselves after the fact, why on Earth would they identify a vehicle that Zeke may have access to (since it turns out a relative does have a silver/gold Town & Country)? Once again: Outrageous.
Second scenario: The manager and her husband are involved from the outset with Zeke. They get together to plan Jessica's abduction. Now, I ask all of you fair-minded people here: Who in their right mind, with all the time in the world to concoct a story for that night, would come up with the story the manager and her husband tell about what they did and what they saw that night? It makes them look like idiots. And keep in mind, in the days before Jessica's abduction, they'd be knowing they'd have to have a story that would be solid enough to keep them out of jail. I maintain nobody would come up with the story the manager and her husband have told if, in fact, they were involved beforehand in the disappearance of Jessica.
Sure, if the two were in fact involved, their story has worked to this point. But they never could've predicted that beforehand. All the riding around, seeing a car from 1000ft away, following the van but not getting the license plate, etc. It's all too twisty and turn-y for it to be a planned, canned, concocted story.
Now, as you all now know, I think the timeline regarding Jessica's disappearance is off. I wish the police would correct it because it does make the mgr and her husband look suspicious. Why? Because the times don't match up with what they claim they did. But that doesn't mean they didn't do what they did (wow, that's a bad sentence).
I guess what I'm saying is when you start to de-grade the police and the concerned citizens of MI, and instead start to come up with theories that are at the fringe of possibility and probability, I have to draw a line. That's when I go back to the facts of crime history and bank on the ideas, though they are not quite 100%, that citizens want criminals in jail even if that means citizens may expose themselves in the process, the police want guilty people in jail even though there are a few bad police apples out there, and people don't voluntarily make themselves co-conspirators in crimes even if it's a relative who is the main criminal.
