Just recently I purchased the movie The Lovely Bones and couldn't get over how very much that movie coincided with Amy's case. James had commented too as to the erie way it portrayed the characters and storyline much the same way as the on going story of Amy and the history in her case. I felt as if the person that made that movie had been in the area of Bay Village and Ruggles just kicked back watching all the things unfold and writing them down as time went on. Granted there were a few things changed around, but not many. One major difference was the fact that the story The Lovely Bones had an ending. Maybe there wasn't a difference. Maybe Amy's case does have an ending and we just haven't seen it because we the people want to hang the responsible parties involved from the nearest tree! I don't know, it is a very good movie when comparing it to Amy . If you haven't seen it yet you should. What's your thoughts? Moving on........
letshearit2010@hotmail.com
66 comments:
I saw that movie and it was unbelievable! So you think something about like what happened to that girl could have happened to Amy?
Which parts do you think are different or the same?
Anonymous:
There are several places in the movie that totally match, like the way claims are made that Amy knew the man but didn't know the man. In the movie you can see how this could be possible.
Comments were made about Amy's mother drinking, in the movie it was the grandmother who done the drinking, just to mention a few.
Anyone else see things that are the same in both the movie and in Amy's case?
The parallel's I saw between Amy's life and Susie's were pretty personal but I'll share anyway.
There were so many times when I was at Holly Hill (after Amy's death) where I felt something strange. I broke out in goosebumps all the time and had that feeling like someone was watching me. Once, I thought, I saw her in a reflection in a door.
As a little kid, I imagined Amy's heaven to be like a giant farm full of horses and sun. On the day that Margaret died I had this dream that she met Amy in a gazebo (like the one in Bay) in their heaven. I'm not sure if the gazebo part is in the movie or not because I've never seen it. I've only read the book.
Wasn't there mention in James's book about a woman who rented Billy's apartment after he died? She left soon after because a "little blond girl" appeared at the foot of her bed at night. I am letting a friend borrow my book, so I couldn't verify it. I always thought that was pretty weird. It does remind me of how in the movie the murdered girl was watching the activity around her as they tried to solve the case.
Laura:
There's alot of stranges things that happen to people in a lifetime that can't be explained. I too had something strange happen to me concerning Amy and I never knew her.Over the yrs. I had mentioned it to different people and of course they always looked at me funny when I had finished. In the movie towards the end it showed how Susie's spirit had come close in the window, that really happened to me only it was Amy. It was a yr. or so after she had been found and like I said I had never met her.Because that happened to me it is one of the main reasons I have kept pushing to find her killer.I just feel there is a reason for it to have happened. Back then the only time I had heard of Bay Village was when Amy was taken. She was smiling and looked just like the picture with the side saddle ponytail.And for absolutly no reason I began to cry. It has never happened since. I have always felt a connection to her from that time on. So it is important to me to help find her killer.
The gazebo is in the movie and if you ever get the chance to see it you should.
The movie to me looks like she is stuck in between heaven and earth. When that happened she brushed by a person,( not knowing she had just been killed) so by touching the living before she went into heaven caused her to be where she was stuck. The only thing I can come up with that even come's close to anything like that is, when Amy was found my mother sister, and I had gone to the place she was found. My sister was crying and placed her favorite teddybear there in rememberance of Amy.
Thru the yrs. I've discovered that several people in that area have a close connection to Amy. They also think of her daily and question who it might have been that took her life.
Thanks for sharring.
Judi:
James did say that about the little blond girl. I have no doubt that stuff like that happens because of my experiances.
Another point was that her mother left in the movie compared to Amy's father leaving.( after the divorce he moved on and Maragret didn't).
I'm going to watch the movie again to see just how many things do match Amy's case. I know there are several.
Liz,
Do you speak to LE regularly? Do you know if there has been any movement on the case recently? Did they ever want to discuss with you the person whose name you turned in? Could you tell us more about the person you thnik fits the profile?
Liz,
Do you know if the house from where the FBI removed evidence contained carpet that matched the fibers on Amy's body?
Judi:
I don't talk with the LE regularly as I don't want to be a pain in the neck to them, I'd rather stay out of their way and let them do their job.
Yes I do know that some interesting findings concerning that house on 500 has been turned over to the FBI. I'm not at liberty to say what that was.
No they never asked me any questions about the person whos name I turned in. Probably because I gave them enough info. there wasn't a need to.
The person fits everything in the profile just like the profiler said they would.
Judi:
I'm not sure if they removed any carpet, but if you look at the pictures of the floor in the upstairs room ,where the holes are cut out of the walls it looks like they did. I didn't see the carpet before hand to be able to tell whether it was the same color or not. I was never in that house.
To All:
The picture with the holes cut out of the walls of the house on 500 is on James blog in his archives.
I was watching the movie again and noticed that the name of the girl that was gifted was also Ruth. I can't get over how many things are the same in this movie!
Liz,
In the movie, the killer was a neighbor. He had ample opportunity to observe Amy, the family, their habits, etc. The person whose name you turned in, would he have had the same proximity to Amy or opportunity to learn enough to pull off such a crime?
Judi:
At least one of the names I turned in absolutly does, yes.
Liz,
Why do you think his name never came to the attention of LE previously? It is hard to believe when so many people were questioned, according to them. Now I am really curious! You might be onto something!! I wonder how this person attracted your attention, but escaped theirs.
Judi:
I think the name did come across their desk but because they just had so many names they didn't take as much time to look into their background as they should have.
I had thought from the begining that this person was just a bit different from the rest. When other information came in on them I added it to what I already had and found that this person fit all the things in the FBI profile. I could be wrong,we'll have to wait and see I guess.
I do feel that the person/s involved in this case will be caught by October of this year. Just wishful thinking .
To All:
Just how many things are similar in this movie to Amy's case?
1. Susie,Amy= both young females
2. Coming home from school=same
3. knew the neighbor by sight,yet didn't know him=good possibility
4. Trusted a stranger=same
5. Father was obsessed with finding killer= Margaret was obsessed with finding the killer.
6. Mother left= Mark left, his life moved on. Margaret couldn't get past it.
7. Grandmother drank a lot= Margaret drank a lot
8. Other sibling= Jason
9. Ruth in the story= unknown Ruth in Amy's case.
10. Took place in the fall/winter=same
11. Detectives nationality=appears the same
12. Susie was a virgin,hence the question ,do you have a boyfriend=Amy was a child, definitely a virgin.
13. Susie missing for 11 months=Amy missing for 3 months,both less than a yr.
14 .Susie took pictures=Amy rode horses. They both shared strong feelings about one thing in their life when they went missing.
15. Susie's father made boats in a bottle= Amy lived where boats were common place every day.
16. Susie'a case had hundreds of suspects= same.
17.Susie's killer looked like the first poster man in Amy's case.
18. Susie's killer tricked her= Amy's killer tricked her.
19. A boy was at the mall and hollered Susie's name= A boy was at the shopping center and hollered Amy's name.
20. The blood was not found with either girl, yet both had a substantial amount of blood found.
21. Susie was going to the mall= Amy was talking of going to the mall.
22. Both Susie and Amy were late coming home.
23. Both girls were susposed to be attending a school function.
24. Susie was taken from a cornfield=Amy was found in a wheatfield.
25. Both Ruth's had dark hair.
26. Both girls were light haired and fair skinned.
27. Both girls lived in the suburbs.
28. Neither girl had fully developed body wise yet.
29. Both girls dressed modestly.
30. The killer went unoticed in the movie=same.
31. Susie's killer was never found alive=Amy's killer will probably be found soon.
32. Grandmother came to help=same
33. Alice Sebold wrote the book=Janet Seabold found Amy's body.
Have I missed anything?
I don't know about this - had James read The Lovely Bones before he dubbed a suspect with the last name of Harvey?
Anonymous at 9:48--
It appeared from his numerous "Seabold/Sebold" references in his book that he was familiar with The Lovely Bones.
James also notes that Kristen Balas* referenced the similarities between the novel and the case in his book.
*From my research this is not her last name anymore, hence breaking the "curse" James references in the book; Kristy Sabo (not her last name anymore either, I believe) was noted to "break the curse" in the book by having a child--the fact that all of Amy's friends postponed marriage and/or motherhood until their late 20s was considered unusual, but directly related to the trauma of the event.
Liz,
I saw that on James's site he mentioned another man in whom the FBI were interested back in 1989.
In your research, did you ever come across his name before?
Judi:
No mention of him, must not have had much on him to connect together with New London or Ruggles. Not to say they didn't have a lot on him in the northern areas. I don't recall the name.Remember there were hundreds of men turned in.
I was out and about this afternoon in the New London /Ruggles area verifing a few new things that came my way when I spotted a gentleman working in his drive. I stopped just to ask a few questions about back when Amy was found. The things this person told me were very interesting. There was an eye witness to Amy being placed on that knoll. The car was dark blue or black and had wing windows where you could just open it intead of the whole window. He went on to say more than I can tell until it's verified. This I will say his family was called into the FBI office in Cleveland about what was seen.
Now that is very interesting! I never heard before that there was an eyewitness to the disposing of her body. In a small town, you would think someone would have been able to connect that car to the owner. Was that info witheld from the public? I am assuming that the license plate was not noted because the witness didn't know a crime had taken place.
I could be mistaken, but here goes...
I recall a man seeing the car, and the person associated with it, (he was interviewed by LEO and there's a video of him on youtube,) I recall a woman being interviewed by LEO, and it was from her interview that the composite sketch was drawn.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBgrthzCSfU
Just copy and paste.
Judi:
The information was witheld.This person almost ran into the back of the car because it was dark and they were stopped and had no lights on. The claim is that it happened between 10:30 and 11:00 at nite.
So now, what throws out the theroy of the snow plow.
Curious:
Those are two different people with different scenarios. This person saw him running back across the field to get into his car.
Judi:
The plate number was mentioned in the conversation. There was no way it had not been seen. The person was coming from the direction of 224 going towards co.rd.16. The other car was doing the same. I don't know whether or not the person had turned off of 126 on either side. The person that almost hit the stopped car was coming from the direction of 224 heading north in the direction of New London.
I drove over there just to check and see if it was possible not to be able to see in that area coming from that direction, and it is very possible.
Why are we printing withheld information?
Anonymous:
After 20 yrs. if it lights a fire under someone to go back and look at the things that were done back at that time I see no harm in it. This person didn't state they had to sign an agreement about not telling. I did not post all that was said. This case isn't going to be solved by not talking about it. I refuse to sweep Amy under any rug just for the sake of some do gooder thinking that everything should be hush hush! I haven't posted anything that the family it came from hasn't whispered to everyone in sight across the land. Thanks for your comment.
If the license plate was noted, do you know what happened when the LE found the owner of the car and/or the driver? If this really happened, how could the case NOT be solved by now? Was the car stolen?
Judi:
I have no idea what the FBI findings were. There's no way for me to know. Again this could be witheld information.
Liz,
How did the man you talked to know there was an eyewitnes? Was this info passed around the neighboring area? When you say the FBI called in the family to report on what was seen, was it the family of the eyewitness, or the man you talked to? I am assuming that the man you talked to was not the eyewitness.
Judi:
It was not a story passed around. Not to say they didn't talk about it afterwards to others, after they felt safe in doing so. It was his immediate family.His whole family was there.When I talked with him it was the first time I ever heard about it.
To All:
James has some interesting stuff on his site.
Indeed he does; his post today publishes a user comment for the first time in a few weeks, and it also provides a link to the EAST side of Cleveland (a link which has been suggested on his site once before, but never expanded on much.)
If you can say, are you implying that "the man in the cabin in Mentor" may be, or may be connected to, the person you have in mind, Liz?
Anonymous:
I can't say or I would. Like I said he will be caught.
Liz,
I just read the post on James's site. I'm not sure if I understood it correctly, but was the girl attacked in a cabin on Amy's birthday? That would be December 11. Why would someone be in a cabin then? Please correct me if I didn't get the intent of the post.
Judi:
Original message: my sister was attacked by a man in a cabin in Mentor.Woke a friend by screaming'He said he killed Amy and let her go saying he only likes 12 yr. olds called crime stoppers no help.he was also running around the cabin,saying he was all upset cause it was amy's birthday'.She can't remember his last name .believes she knows someone who might.
TAKEN FROM JAMES RENNER'S site
It's hard to figure out just what was ment by it. I can't see anyone wanting to be in a cabin in December either. That's what it looks like it's saying though. I'm thinking that maybe it was someone who has been following the story and was just trying to frieghten the girl into submission for his own purpose and when she screamed he thought he better say something other than what his intent really was. How else can you explain not getting any help? That's the best I can come up with at this point.
People go camping in cabins in December all the time (even in the northernmost part of Ohio, it may not even be that cold at that time of year.)
I'm more questioning of it being in Mentor, since the city is almost completely built-out with malls and suburban houses and has very little room for cabins, and probably was even 20 years ago, although there is still some parkland in it, and there are even still farms within the city limits.
Anonymous:
I can't see anyone wanting to be in a cabin in December is what I said, not that no one is. The weather is funny in the northern parts of ohio, I've been threw there a time or two in December and it was snowing and very cold.
It's my opinion that the story just doesn't sound right to begin with. I can't comment on how Mentor looked back 20 yrs. ago. Anyone else care to chime in on this one?
Liz,
I want to make sure I have this straight. Was this girl attacked 20 years ago? Is there a police record to substantiate that a girl was attacked in a cabin on Dec. 11, 1989? Or did it happen in another year? I know there are cabins that people can rent overnight that are in wooded areas because I have a friend who works for the Metroparks. I am surprised we didn't hear about this when it supposedly occurred.
Judi:
James is the person to ask, it was his tip.
Like I said before,
I can't say or I would.
Census population of Mentor in 1990: 47358
2000: 50278
2008 estimate (latest available) is 51825
So there's been some growth, like most of the rest of Lake County, although it was already much more built out than a place like Avon or Avon Lake was 20 years ago.
Anonymous:
Thank you for your input,have a nice holiday week end.
Mentor can mean, Mentor or the city next to it, Mentor on the Lake.
Mentor sits on Lake Erie, so it has a lot of shoreline for possible cabins. However, cabin is a generic term. There are summer cabins, or the more log cabin type used year around.
In Bay, we have the community cabin called, Bay Way. This is used year round. So I would think nothing of being there in December.
While it sounds interesting someone was running around saying he killed Amy, until more is revealed I am not going to believe it. Just look at that nutty guy that walked into the Fairview church and claimed he killed Amy.
In my opinion the abduction and death of Amy was too calculated, and does not sound like something an apparently crazy man running around saying he killed Amy would have done.
Esora:
Thank you for the info. that clears up alot.
As for what was said, I agree, at this point not much has been said about it which causes me to think that there's nothing to it. At least nothing that is connected to Amy's case.
I definitely agree that the abduction and murder of Amy was calculated and committed by a "crazy" person. This man gained her trust on the phone and in person. This means he also had to "look the part" of a nice, normal guy. I don't think her murderer would run around claiming he killed her.
Laura:
I don't believe so either, looks like his actions were just for attention, same as the guy in church.
Liz,
When you say that you think the case will be solved this year, is it because you know something more than the general public knows? Sometimes you say you would say if you could. Does that mean you don't know, or you do but you've been sworn to secrecy? I hope it is the latter! Then I'd be more confident, too!
Judi:
It's a little of both!
Anonymous:
Anything is possible, it does bring up an interesting point. It could explain how the covering was removed, which was something that James questioned.
Your comment puts a different twist on things. It very well could have been just any old body passing by and got curious as to what they saw.
I don't know that a comosite was done of the person. The man stated that it was dark and the person that seen the man running from the field only saw just a split second of him before swerving to miss the parked car on the road.
Anyone else care to tackle this one?
Thanks for your input.
@ Anonymous,
That road and the roads around it aren't well traveled, you either live there or are going to someones home. So just an ordinary passer by theory is unlikely IMO. But if that was the case, what's the first thing you'd do when you find a dead body, after running away of course? And why would someone come back after dark, perhaps they already knew what it was??
@ Curious
What's your take on the reason they redressed Amy?
Do you think they knew her, or as it's said ,came to know her after being held captive, or just respect for the dead? Or maybe they thought no one would have thought she had been raped if she still had on her clothes?
@ Amomymous,
Self concern, they didn't want to have her clothes, so they put them back on her.
I don't know that she was raped, was she?
curious
what would be the reason for her to have all her clothes off if she wasn't?
I think it was because of guilt, he could have had a daughter too and felt badly for Amy if she were to be found naked. Not saying he was the killer just the person who dumped the body.
A criminal mind is difficult to assess. I'm not so sure that the killer/s feels any remorse.
Here's a few things to ponder...
1. Margaret Mihaljevic stated in a news coference, We love her more than you, just give her back. Did they have a clue as to a kidnapping?
2. There was an article in the Ashland (?) paper, right after they found Amy, of a man who said his friend had something to do with it. There was a picture of him as well. He had a scraggly little beard, and resembled a composite sketch. I vaguely recall this, but not any of the names.
Curious:
I remember that being said, at the time I thought that Margaret knew who it was but was afraid to say.
I do remember that. I found it interesting that this person had injected himself into the case just two days after they found Amy. In order for that to happen he had to have had the picture taken the day before to get into the paper, so that brings this guy even one more day closer to the finding of the body.This persons claim was that his "friend" was the one he thought done it. Some friend huh! I interviewed him sometime later and it was the strangest conversation I've ever had.
My thoughts when I looked at the notebook in the Bay Library was that someone else must have thought he done it because his picture was blown up compared to when I saw it there the first time and it was just a small picture with the article.
What happened the past 9 days--did something major happen and both Liz and James (who's been silent since May 24th) were asked by LEO to not publicize it?
Anonymous:
Don't know what happened to James, I'm still here just waiting for someone to talk to. No I haven't been asked not to say anything. I just think it's either the calm before the storm or everyone is on vacation.
And sure enough, James has a new post just as I wonder where he went.
Anonymous:
Yes, James did post what he has been up to these past few days. Sorry to hear his newspaper had to close for now but I'm pretty sure he will be up and running again in the future.
Starting anything is hard to do in this day and age. At least he tried.
Wow the post have gone quiet. I can't complain as I haven't really contributed myself. Hopefully progress some progress is being made into the case.
Yep, I will continue to support James' advertisers; every few bucks on a beer will help reaffirm that they made a worthy investment.
As I noted to him, I agree with him that his comments about people like Frank Vokoun are deserved, even if they're not the killer, since posting facts about them is fair game if they are proven creeps.
And all of the people who were saying "innocent until proven guilty" about, primarily, Runkle (even though I am leaning against his guilt now) need to keep in mind that that only applies to the 12 jurors; everyone here (we all know too much about the case to be on the jury) has the right to their own opinion.
Anonymous:
You are so right about the opinions, everybody has one. I however don't agree that Runkle has a thing to do with it.He doesn't fit any part of the FBI profile.Just because he ran the road where she was found and had family that also lived near there doesn't make him the killer. If that were the case then you could also say that the woman that found her is the killer, she ran the same road and lived near there also. People are only looking at him just because this or that, I can't see it.
We can talk about it if you like.
Rumor has it that the FBI are in Ashland and are looking into some old child cases. I'd like to know why the FBI would have anything to do with any child case unless of course it was Amy's. Anyone know?
Thanks for your comment!
I agree, hence why I said "leaning against his guilt" (although there is more of a case than what you said--James listed about 20 points, even though people's accounts of Runkle may be colored by their prejudices, and there aren't 20 similar points towards Janet Seabold.)
I was just referring to how Renner's detractors, who are often Runkle's fans, think they are one defamation lawsuit away from impoverishing James.
Using their logic, OJ should go around trying to sue everyone who has ever publicly speculated on whether he is guilty of murder, since they presume that during the trial "everyone" was supposed to consider him innocent until proven guilty.
Furthermore, it follows from their logic that since he was found "not guilty" by 12 jurors, OJ should've continued to sue people who were publicly speculating on this at least through when he lost the wrongful death lawsuit. (i.e. I'm pretty damn sure he did it, but he can't sue me for saying that, since I never sat on the jury.)
Back to Runkle, he's another example of "he's a creep, so I have no problem exposing him," so I don't have too much of a problem with James exposing stories of him.
(Although I saw one comment from the Lorain Chronicle-Telegram that said there's no evidence that he even wrote sexual letters to students until after they were of legal age. I am willing to give every opinion a fair shake, although defending Runkle for this is, in more ways than one, like trying to defend Mark Foley's actions towards pages.)
Anonymous:
tou-che'
Post a Comment