Kidnapped teen Hannah Anderson was rescued way out in the Idaho wilderness and the guy with her shot.
This is just the weirdest story imaginable. A family friend before she’s even born gets infatuated with Hannah. Takes her on a trip to Hollywood last year. This year he lures mom and little brother to his California home, and tortures/kills them. Sets his house on fire, burns up the bodies, and takes off with Hannah.
Theres stuff being revealed that seems off. 13 Cell phone calls between Hannah and this guy on the day of the crime.
Weirdest of all is her matter of fact, social media Q&A two days ago on ask.fm An account that has been verified as hers before the crime. Heres just part of the Q&A. I can’t find the whole thing. Does this sound like someone that just got rescued and learned that her mom/brother were killed?
**This is one of those things that no one wants to believe might be true. I hope she really is an innocent victim.
This thread is similar to the python killing kids thread.
Neither tragedy adds up.
Why kill Hannah’s mom and little brother? The family let him take her on a trip to Hollywood last year. He had access to Hannah and could have easily taken off with her anytime. There was no need to harm his oldest and dearest friends. He knew these people for over 20 years. Way before Hannah was even born.
I read about her post-kidnapping social media interactions and came away feeling like she was less victim and more accomplice, but I don’t have all the facts at hand, am not a trained psychologist, have never experienced anything remotely similar, and do not personally know any of the people involved, so what do I know?
I’m confidant that the cops will investigate thoroughly. There’s too many weird things in this case that needs inquiry. Hopefully that will clear Hannah but either way they need to make sure this guy acted alone.
Yeah, when they said that there had been a dozen or so phone calls made to her cell phone the day of the crime, I thought that that was very odd. Then they said he’d recently taken her to Disneyland and Malibu. Another red flag. And then the horseback rider said that when they talked to them, Hannah wouldn’t look them in the eye and muttered, “Looks like we’re all in trouble now.”
It’s still possible that she was a victim in all this. Clearly it was an inappropriate relationship, whether she was a willing participant or not. It’s also possible that she wanted to run away with him, but was in the dark about the murders of her family members. But, sad to say, it’s also possible that she was a willing participant in both the relationship and the murders. I’m sure we’ll know all about it soon enough, but it’s certainly not looking as cut and dried as it seemed at first.
From what has been made public, I gather that the home fire source was on some sort of time delay, that it wasn’t burning at the time the two left the home but actually ignited some time later.
That leaves the issue of the mom and brother already being dead, but it’s conceivable that Hannah was already in the vehicle, Jerkhole says “I forgot something” and then goes back inside and kills the two, then comes out and says “OK, let’s go.”
She could have been a willing participant in the relationship without being a participant, or even aware of, the murders. A girl that young could well be influenced in a relationship with an older man, particularly if her family is tolerating that relationship. There are also issues involving sympathy for an abuser or kidnapper, see Stockholm Syndrome.
The FBI said that it was very clear that she wasn’t party to the murders. Even if she was complicit with her abduction that could still be very true. I think in the end we’ll find out more, but right now, with an investigation underway, I’m not surprised we don’t have the whole story.
Yeah, she either killed them herself and called him for help escaping or she told him to do it for sex or something. Get ready for non stop media coverage by Nancy Grace. Perfect timing to now that Zimmerman is old news.
This girl went to a fundraiser for herself today I think. She’s guilty of something IMHO.
So this is a repeat [sort of] of Charlie Starkweather and Caril Fugate … without the extra spree killing after he offed her family. Well and an age difference.
It could very well be that they agreed to run off, and he decided to kill her family when she thought they would just stay tied up for a while so they could make their escape - and he decided to go ahead and get rid of any pursuit by killing the rest of the family.
Sheesh, if they had just waited a couple more years, they could have legally gotten together.
Statements like that, early in the investigation, startle me and make me suspicious.
Try to imagine HOW it would be “very clear.” I mean, what if they have video of him doing the killings while she’s in school? She could still have TOLD the guy a month ago to do the killings.
Or say she’s an FBI agent. Well, they kill people too, sometimes.
Or say she was at the doctor getting her DNA taken, conclusively establishing an alibi. That’s too neat, the timing is suspicious.
I’m NOT saying she’s guilty. I am just saying that aggressively ruling it out before you’ve had time to look at everything always makes me suspect some ulterior motive. It’s a dumb thing to say (if it’s not an outright lie for some purpose or other).
Out here in NorCal the story is getting a lot of airplay. Seeing the news on this story the last couple days does have that familiar odor that something is not right. Yesterday, she appears at a fundraiser for her and her family and appears very much in public. The day before she takes to social media and corresponds with a bunch of strangers for a few hours. I do not know yet what is wrong with this story, or can even speculate, but something is off, I agree. Wouldn’t an active investigation require that the key witness lay low?
The dad is also appearing in the media more than I would have though for someone whose spouse and son met a violent end (he is speaking daily). That, and what also appears as a cult-like following (friends and neighbors wearing “Hannah Strong” t-shirts). What gives?
I’m glad to know that I am not the only one who thinks it sounds fishy. When I first heard about the case, I wondered if she might have gone with him willingly. If so, she might or might not have known about (or even participated in) the murders.
(Of course, I may just be prejudiced because she does the duckface in all her selfies. )
In her defense, the FBI and horseback riders both indicate that she seemed in real fear for her life. But her subsequent behavior is truly odd. Maybe I need to quit thinking that teenagers make any sense, but I wouldn’t think that after such an ordeal, I’d go on social media and answer questions about my favorite color. Nor would I take a photo of myself smiling broadly. That shows a true lack of empathy.
And DiMaggio is truly the stupidest criminal I’ve ever heard of. From what I gather, his plan was to invite the family over to his home, kill the brother and mother (and dog), and then incinerate the house. Maybe he thought that the heat would be so intense that it would incinerate everyone and the investigators would assume that they all died in the fire. Because no other scenario makes sense. What criminal lures his victims to his own home? He was organized enough to lure them to his home, but not organized enough to have a getaway car. Hell, he didn’t even have any food packed. But, the thing that really doesn’t make sense to me is the torture. Why?
When I see statements like this from law enforcement, I suspect the target audience is actually the girl. The police making this statement has the effect of Hannah letting down her guard and provide more information, unintentional incriminating herself if that is the case.
When this info came out the police were very clear that regardless of her closeness to DiMaggio, they were certain she had been taken against her will and that their previous relationship had been a platonic one.