Post by billthom56 on Jun 4, 2019 17:44:21 GMT
Cleo, the Ranger said he thought the kids went skinny dipping, yet he removed their clothes? He removed the personal property & clothing before any crime had been known to have happened or reported.
When the clothes were removed from the car isn't the issue here, it makes no difference to the fact that a Ranger admitted to removing the clothes & personal items, having them in his squad car, taking them to the police station, then he admits to the FBI two days later, his returning the items to Keith's car.
IMHO the clothes were never in the car and Keith's dad verifies this to the police. The clothes & personal items were in the possession of the Ranger, no one else. Once it was known to the Ranger and his co-workers that the clothes belonged to the missing kids no one should've touched them again yet this Ranger saw it fit to return the clothes to the vehicle, why, for what purpose?
Removing personal property from a private vehicle is against the law, because no crime had been witnessed or reported to this Ranger.
"skinny dipping" was the original theory of the rangers, but was it the ranger who took the clothes that first made that suggestion? Or, was it another ranger?
Adding to the hypothetical scenario above, of why the ranger would have said he removed the clothes between 7:15-7:30 A.M. He couldn't have told his fellow rangers he took the clothes PRIOR to 7 A.M., because Mr. Call reported that the door was unlocked and slightly ajar. The ranger would have had to explain why he took everything except for the gray jacket and three beers, then left the door unlocked and slightly ajar, leaving the car unsecured. However, seeing that he took the clothing between 7:15-7:30, why didn't he go right back to the station? He didn't get to the station with all those things until 9:30 A.M. Why did he think it was o.k. to drive around patrolling for 2 hours before investigating?
.
I know Mr. Call looked in the car and didn't see all the items the ranger saw then took. Mr. Call gave that car to Keith as a graduation present. There's no way Mr. Call would see Keith's WALLET, GOLD WATCH, A LADIES PURSE AND BRA, then just continue on to work leaving the door unlocked. Mr. Call would have grabbed the wallet and purse, at the very least. Maybe hid the keys under the seat for when Keith came back. That bra would have made an impression on Mr. Call. He would have been thinking about it all the way to work. Mr. Call wouldn't have been just slightly perturbed at Keith. He would have been *ed-off big time. He'd have called home the minute he got to work (if he saw all those items in the unlocked, slightly ajar car), looking for Keith, and with Keith not home, he would have told his wife about the car.
I still wish we knew who it was that first suggested "skinny dipping". Maybe it was the ranger who took the clothes. However, as I've said before, if the ranger believed the couple went skinny dipping, why'd he take their clothes? What did he expect them to wear when they returned to the car? And, why didn't he call search & rescue to look for the skinny dippers, in case they drowned? And, why didn't the ranger call in the plate number when he first came upon the car and observed a wide open door with the keys in ignition (or lying on driver's seat), a purse on the front seat, a watch on the dashboard, a man's wallet on back seat, etc..., to see if the car had been reported stolen or if any suspicious reports were called in about the car?
Once again, NPS rangers are highly trained - they had to have worked in lower level capacities with NPS before becoming a ranger, and they are required to take lots of special courses, including criminal investigation courses. This incident was not the result of sloppy work. There's more to this than meets the eye, IMO.
Bill