Not exactly true. In kidnapping cases the FBI can step in and take over. And if there is evidence that it crossed state lines they certainly will. But each state has their own kidnapping laws and the FBI is happy to let them handle it, depending on the circumstances.
A grandmother who will no doubt dote on her (if she doesn’t already), since her mother and brother were taken. Will anyone be surprised if that girls sees most of that money sooner or later?
Roddy
I haven’t really been following the case, except for this thread.
Has anyone done a DNA test? Maybe the guy is really her father and the trips and all weren’t some perverted sex thing, but really just father/daughter bonding time. Maybe the mother made some threat to cut them off from each other. And the insurance money was because he trusted grandma to take care of his daughter if anything happened to him.
I know, I’ve been watching too much TV.
Yeah… I’m going to stick with “stupid theory” as my final answer.
Stockholm Syndrome (Stockholm syndrome - Wikipedia), or at least the start of if would seem most likely to me to describe her behavior that the retired sheriff saw in the woods. However, a young teen running off with a grossly inappropriate man is sadly not unheard of. A girl in Connecticut recently ended up in California with 28 year old, passing through an airport in New York to get there.
The extent of voluntary versus coercion is difficult to determine in these cases due to the severely lopsided power balance. Perpetrators manipulate young victims, telling them that they will get in trouble for running off (even though it could be wholly an involuntary abduction). This is why statutory rape laws exists, because mature adults have a distinct advantage over impressionable teenagers or children.
For instance, most plausible scenarios point to coercions of the young girls in these cases. In the Connecticut case, the girl could have been fearful the TSA at the airport would arrest her, her capture might harm her, or she could have gone willingly. Two out of three are motivated by fear! Similar odds would be at play for Hannah and her capture. The chances that she was fully willing are small compared to her being purely a victim.
On forums such as this, a few mumblings that something is not quite right can quickly turn into a consensus that [[conspiracy theory X]] occurred. Let us be realistic, that people act strangely under duress, and their behavior does not always make sense.
This is not evidence of guilt.
Latest twist: James DiMaggio’s family wants paternity tests, believes he is father of Hannah and Ethan Anderson
That would explain why dad was living & working separately in Tennessee and the Life Insurance benefits for Hannah’s grandmother. Also explains why their dear family friend stuck so close to this family for all these years.
I just hope that the kidnapping wasn’t sexual. There’s always a chance he just wanted to take off with his daughter. The option is just eww!
Right now it’s all speculation and nothing more. The truth will slowly come out.
correction stinking edit time out got me.
I just hope that the kidnapping wasn’t sexual. There’s always a chance he just wanted to take off with his daughter. The other option is just eww!
Very interesting.
I’m a bit surprised people are making the fact that she showed up for a fund raiser for her Mother’s and Brother’s funeral expenses like it is such a horrible thing. They didn’t let the media inside… it was her grandparents, and her cousins, and her friends, and people from the small town where she lives coming together to support her remaining family and let her know that life can carry on. Oh, and it was at a restaurant… she may want to eat sometime.
Or, I suppose she could lock herself alone in a dark room away from any support and just cry for the next three months.
Some people think getting back on the horse that threw you is a good thing.
Why did he kill the little boy? That doesn’t make any sense.
Tell me how killing the mother made any more sense?
So, they can just demand a paternity test? How does that work?
Right here is the first place I’m confused. What is the expected turn of events with all this? It appears he took Hannah first after cheerleading practice, then got to their house, murdered the mother and brother, set the house to burn and THEN leaves with Hannah?? Did he restrain her the whole time while he was doing these vile things? And now there’s these phone records of calls between the two and all kinds of crap.
Was she helping Uncle Jim?? I doubt that. But if DiMaggio really was her father then that explains-- ah, shit. Okay, maybe it explains the camaraderie with Uncle and the fam? The frustration within those involved? Still, I just don’t get why DiMaggio would want to torture and murder mom and brother in the first place.
If one is assuming he is/believes himself to be the father of the kids, killing the mother makes more sense than killing one of his kids too. (Especially if torture was involved.)
Life is not a made-for-TV movie. Motives are not always clear or sensible. People under stress do not always react as other people think they should. Certainly, none of us have all the facts.
At this point we’d all probably be better off if the media coverage ceased for awhile and we let the investigators do their job. On the other hand speculation seems to be a hobby for many.
No, it wasn’t THEIR house that was set on fire. It was HIS house that was set on fire. The bodies were found in his house.
Hannah and DiMaggio had previously spent time together. There is no reason to suppose she was being restrained. She could have been waiting in the car some place else thinking they were going on a camping trip together.