Carli Brucia

Posted onNovember 13, 2011 - 6:09 pm by Admin | 0 Comments

There are many possibilities and many possible theories with this case. Of course, just about anything is possible, but you also have to consider what is a likely possibility and what is less likely or less probable.

What makes the case so difficult is that it just does not fit the "normal" definitions or categories. At least not as I can tell based on press releases and stories.

The most common type of disappearance or missing case occurs when a child simply runs away or fails to state where he/she is going. About 90 percent of those cases resolve themselves within 48 hours or so. It is Possible the Kate and Sheila simply decided to run away. But the fact that they have never turned up after 34 years would tend to argue against that theory. Unless what may have started as a "runaway" caper turned into an abduction. Again, the facts tend to argue against this scenario as well. The girls were considered very obedient and reliable, and one eyewitness even claimed to have seen them walking from the mall in the direction of their home. There was no evidence that they had made preparations to run away. They had less than four dollars between them when they left home for the mall. And there was no evidence of any kind of family strife preceeding their disappearance.

Another scenario, which was checked out very thoroughly by investigators, was the possibility of the girls somehow falling into a drainage ditch or pond on their walk home. Some disappearances have in fact been resolved weeks or years later when a body is found in a ditch, cave, woods, etc. But this particular case did not involve a lot of wilderness hiking. The walk home for the girls would have taken only about 15 minutes, past about 40 houses, mostly on sidewalks and only part of the way through a wooded area surrounded by houses. There was a swimming pool (not open in March) and a garden pond near their route, but divers very throughly searched it.

The most likely theories, in my opinion, would be those involving abduction. Here, again, we are faced with some difficult facts. First, there were no eyewitnesses to any abduction, and second it was a somewhat rare double abduction, aparently in the middle of the day, and no physical evidence or trace of the girls has ever been found. These factors make this a very unique - and frustrating case.

When forming a theory regarding abduction, there are a number of factors to consider. You have the known or generally accepted facts. Then you have the statements of various eyewitnesses and family members. You have the setting or scene of 1975 Wheaton Plaza, and the area surrounding it, including the parking lot, the adjacent residential area of Kensington, and the road system in the area.

It is possible that the girls were abducted by someone living in one of the houses lining their route. This would have involved a great deal of risk on the part of the abductor. Police went door to door and conducted thorough interviews and even searches of those houses. No trace of the girls was found. While possible, this scenario appears less likely than a stranger abduction. The residents were checked out carefully, as were all known pedophiles in the area. No connections were made and no suspects were developed.

Most of the above factors, when analyzed, would tend to point to the probability that the abductor (or abductors) used a motor vehicle in commiting the crime. One could consider all the possible types of vehicle and which would be the best, but in the end, almost any vehicle would do.

If a motor vehicle is to be part of the theory, then one must consider a number of possible scenarios as to how to get the victims into the vehicle. Abduction or even approaching the victims inside the mall would be very risky because of the possibility of eyewitnesses seeing the act.

It would be most likely that the abductor would attempt to get the girls as close to his vehicle as possible. This could have been attempted and achieved in a number of ways.

Consider first the possibility of the girls getting into the vehicle in the mall parking lot;

- If the abductor wanted to trick the girls into going with him to his car, he could have approached them inside the mall with a request, or an offer of some sort. It is not likely that he would have attempted to grab/coerce them in the mall and it is also not likely that he would have shouted anything to them about an emergency INSIDE the mall. But, he might have asked them to help him pick out a present of some sort for "his daughter" or "his neice" and then he could have offered them some money to help him get it to his car. Or he could have asked them to meet him outside for some special treat. To pull this off, he would have to be very engaging and friendly and also believable - to the victims. The problems or risks with this scenario would be that the girls could easily walk away from him and report him. Also, someone might see him with the girls and either interfere, or remember him.

- Another scenario involves the abductor or an accomplice making contact with the potential victims inside the mall, then making a second contact with them outside the mall and closer to his vehicle. The girls' guard would be down if they had contact with him earlier. This second contact could simply be a friendly greeting, or could be the second part of a more elaborate plan with the initial meeting being the set-up, and the second being the sting. For example: The first meeting inside the mall, the girls are approached by a well dressed, nice man who asks them their opinion on what pet he should buy for his daughter. The second "chance" meeting in the parking lot, he says "Oh, hi girls, say would you like to see the puppy I picked out?"

- Of course, it is also possible that the abductor had watched children coming and going and simply waited his chance and grabbed the girls when they walked near his vehicle. In this case, he simply takes the chance of someone seeing him, but he calculates the risk and acts quickly. An accomplice could have been involved if this was the way it happened, one to drive and one to grab/subdue the girls.

The grab/coerce scenario could have been the same if the girls were abducted on a residential street. But the risks of being seen (in this particular case) could potentially have been greater. A grab on the street would involve a moving target and would require the abductor to exit his vehicle. The possibility of the girls running to a nearby house for shelter/help would have been greater than if they were approached in the mall parking lot. So the street scenario would have involved more risk of being seen and greater risk of failure.

The more likely street scenario would involve the abductor using some sort of scare or trick to get the girls to enter his vehicle voluntarily. He could have parked in a strategic spot and waited for the girls. Then, when they approached, he could have said that he was lost and did they know how to get to Jennings Road? When the girls would try to give directions, he would feign misunderstanding, finally inviting them to get in and show him the way.

Another possibility would have the abductor driving by the girls and saying that their parents had been in a bad accident and that they had asked him to pick them up and take them to the hospital.

Of course, there is also the possibility of an acquaintance offering them a ride...

→ 0 Comments

Posted in cambridge home healthcare