A supermini Fiat Punto alleged to have been possibly used by the kidnappers of the son of the Tempi prosecutor in Larisa has suddenly turned up abandoned in a car park close to the most likely spot where he was abducted.
3 witnesses reported seeing Roma abduct Vasilis Kalogirou in a red car with the colour matching the colour of the abandoned Fiat.
Police are reported to have inspected the vehicle which is a very visibly neglected state.
But is the report and the car a red herring? Is it designed to deflect from other people and other vehicles?
The car park where it was found beside the Open Air Theatre in Alcazar Park has only one entrance from a one way road which runs from the centre across the main bridge spanning the Pineos river and park.
The car park is pretty small with space for about 30 to 50 cars.
People going for a walk in the park constantly pass through it.
Cars constantly come and go as the parking spaces change hands.
There is a taxi rank at the enrance to the car park.
How could an allegedly run down Fiat Punto have been in the car park for so long without being noticed? I never noticed it whenever I walked through the car park. Surely others would have?
Is a mini red Fiat a car any kidnapper would use? Let alone 3 Roma?
Why would 3 men use a mini car to abduct a 39 year old healthy man? They must have reckoned that 4 people in the tiny car would have drawn attention especially if one was struggling?
Why chose a car which might break down because it is in such a neglected state?
Why, if they did abduct him, would they abandon the car in the car park so close to the crime scene?
And this, after allegedly, taking him 18 km or so outside Larisa to abandon him on a hill top? Why is there is no foreign DNA on his clothes? How did his neck injury occur if it occured after his death as police now claim with apparantly no hard evidence and against all evidence?
How can it be definitively determined that the injury occured after his death? How can it be definitively said the injuries were not the cause of his death? Is there any scientific method for backing up such a claim? Or is it all just speculation, an eccentric intrepretation of the autopsy data?
Every attempt has been made from the beginning to frame his death and disappearance as suicide due to pyschiatric problems by the police. But that hypothesis does not fit the neck injury.
How did the broken neck injuries occur if they occured after his death on a hillside without anyone around?
There appears to be no sign that he was dragged by a wild animal or animals across brush and stones with so much force that his neck bone broke at the crime scene? What animals have the strength or the motive to act like that while not eating the body as a source for food?
A broken down red Fiat Punto would have attracted attention if it had been used. It would have to have turned right on the end of the road of the most likely scene of the crime and crossed the bridge into the centre of Larisa. Surely someone would have noticed 4 men crammed into a car?
Larisa has many one way streets because the roads in its centre are so narrow. The Fiat would have had to travel all around the busy, crammed centre to get back out if it did not turn around straight away at the round about and drive back the other side of the one way street, separated by a physical barrier which cars cannot cross.
This is also the only way to enter the car park where the Fiat was found.
Why would Roma place it there when the report of 3 witnesses spotting them with a red car was all over the local Larisa media and everyone was talking about it?
Would they not have tried to hide the car or abandon it far from Larisa?
Or is the red Fiat and the witnesses report just a red herring to deflect from other kidnappers, other vehicles now that no one buys the story of a suicide due to pyschiatric reasons?
Who?
No comments:
Post a Comment