Woman missing after reporting seeing a toddler on the highway

[Anonymous]

LE had notified Crimestoppers that they would not be making a request for a payout. I interpret that to mean they are not going to be arresting a kidnapper bc there was not one.

What do others think?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:LE had notified Crimestoppers that they would not be making a request for a payout. I interpret that to mean they are not going to be arresting a kidnapper bc there was not one.

What do others think?

Not making a request for a payout because she has returned or been returned. The payout was for a “tip” to help with the investigation. That id no longer needed now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LE had notified Crimestoppers that they would not be making a request for a payout. I interpret that to mean they are not going to be arresting a kidnapper bc there was not one.

What do others think?

Not making a request for a payout because she has returned or been returned. The payout was for a “tip” to help with the investigation. That id no longer needed now.

They would still want tips to ID the perpetrator of the crime…unless they didn’t believe there actually was one, which clearly they don’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LE had notified Crimestoppers that they would not be making a request for a payout. I interpret that to mean they are not going to be arresting a kidnapper bc there was not one.

What do others think?

Not making a request for a payout because she has returned or been returned. The payout was for a “tip” to help with the investigation. That id no longer needed now.

They would still want tips to ID the perpetrator of the crime…unless they didn’t believe there actually was one, which clearly they don’t.

In theory, they could have the abductor in custody AND have a completely airtight case without any use for more this, but I don't think that could actually happen in practice.

I think this pretty clearly means both no abductor and there is a full accounting of what happened.

[Anonymous]

If someone had been arrested there would be an arrest affidavit which is public information. Those websleuthers would absolutely have found it because they do any time there is an arrest in a crime they are following.

No one has been arrested.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LE had notified Crimestoppers that they would not be making a request for a payout. I interpret that to mean they are not going to be arresting a kidnapper bc there was not one.

What do others think?

Not making a request for a payout because she has returned or been returned. The payout was for a “tip” to help with the investigation. That id no longer needed now.

They would still want tips to ID the perpetrator of the crime…unless they didn’t believe there actually was one, which clearly they don’t.

Agree.

[Anonymous]

https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/9743-histrionic-personality-disorder

[Anonymous]

That she was describing herself as a nurse 3 years ago is really weird. Just NOW she is taking community college courses in preparation for studying nursing. She seems to be dramatic and an unreliable narrator.

If this was a planned hoax she should be charged with something to deter others, imo, like Shari Pappini was. So many details, including the Apple watch just do not seem spontaneous, never mind the work of a kidnapper.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The money is being returned.
https://www.al.com/news/2023/07/more-than-63000-raised-in-carlee-russell-search-being-returned-to-donors.html

Updated at 4:18 p.m. to add new statement from Crime Stoppers saying it is not refunding reward money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The money is being returned.
https://www.al.com/news/2023/07/more-than-63000-raised-in-carlee-russell-search-being-returned-to-donors.html

Updated at 4:18 p.m. to add new statement from Crime Stoppers saying it is not refunding reward money.

Oh wow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:it really makes no sense that a bad person would use a child to trap a random female passerbye. The odds are overwhelming that a man or even an police officer would have been the one to stop help the kid. What would the bad person do then? Ah, "nothing going on here officer. Just lost my toddler in the woods adjacent to a freeway"

I've read elsewhere that maybe she just unfortunately stumbled upon a trafficked child or some other criminal activity and thus had to be "removed" because she was a witness.

This is such a freaky case.

I was buying the trap theory, but you’re right, PP. It doesn’t seem logical.

I guess she ran into something bad and was attacked as a result. I still think she saw a child, so was a child being abused or something?

I agree this makes more sense.

Eh but no other motorists reported a child. No traffic cams picked up movement other than cars and, allegedly, her car on the shoulder. (and not the perpetrators car either).

So no perpetrator's car? Are there houses nearby? A deep culvert or drainage area for someone creepy to hide/live in?

No other motorists reported a child, but her family member on the phone said they heard Carlee ask “are you okay?” Assuming she wasn’t on drugs/hallucinating, it seems like there really was a child she was talking to.

It’s possible a child escaped a trafficking endeavor and she came across it. That would be my best guess. It’s not completely unbelievable that no one else saw the child since it was a highway at night. I know I’m not always paying attention to the side of the roadway. Other drivers could have been paying attention to all the cars around them, their passengers, the radio, etc. and at night a small child on the side of the road isn’t necessarily going to be super easy to spot. Ugh my stomach is in knots over this, I cannot imagine what her friends and family are going through. She looks like a sweet girl. Nursing student willing to stop for a child, so she’s likely a caring person. This is so unfair.

I can’t figure drugs into the timeline she’s leaving work, getting dinner, doing hallucinatory drugs and driving home one exit away from her own? It wouldn’t make sense to do the drugs before getting home. Are people thinking she was doing hallucinogenic drugs at work? It was in her food?

Her being one exit away, with her exit visible makes me think she was that close to home.

Not PP, but when I first heard the details I thought one possible explanation could be that she was having a mental break and imagined/hallucinated that she saw a child, then went off into the woods on her own. I think the only other possibilities are that she stumbled onto a dangerous situation and was abducted, or that this is staged. Of those three possibilities it seems most likely she was abducted.

I didn't see that anyone else has been this blunt, but I've wondered this, too. The items she usually wore being neatly tucked away in her purse, even moreso than the happenstance of being on the phone. I don't know. I actually hope it was staged, because that would mean she was safe.

Why would anyone stage this? Not saying it’s out of the question (and it would make sense as to how she was able to pull over vs. driving past and needing to turn around). But I don’t know why anyone would do this? Fake abduction to get money? Attention? Maybe. But it seems so out there. This whole thing is weird.

I don't know. I also don't want to speculate about why the person making the police statement refused to comment on her mental and physical health status, not even a passing comment that she was "perfectly healthy" or something.

But a lot of this doesn't make sense. The tight timeline with police arrival just 3 minutes later but with the wig off, the watch in the purse, no visible signs of her present, etc., doesn't make sense. The timeline but with the trucker eyewitness story doesn't make sense. It's all extraordinarily shocking to hear about at first, but the details don't add up in any parsable way.

I don't know. People will have to wait and see. I hope she's okay, apart from how it happened. Whatever happened, if she is safe somewhere, then the rest can be sorted out with whatever justice to anyone that harmed her.

I don’t understand you people who think she staged this. How in the hell would she have gotten away? On foot? No one’s seen her since?

This was not staged, FFS.

Still so sure, PP?

Oh, get a life.

(not PP)

I take it you agree things are obviously fishy at this point. Took some people a long time, but oh well.

You are like a dog with a bone. You are far too overinvested in this. Go outside and get some fresh air.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The last few pages are mostly people making stuff up and in a mean spirited way - jumping to conclusions with a clear bias.

It's more than the last few pages. It happens on every single thread like this. Disgusting people.

And yet here you are, you wannabe Internet White Knight, you.

So if we care about a missing black woman, we’re “white knights” and if we didn’t care about this we’d be racist. Got it. You have all the maturity of a 17 year old racist and you’re a troll.

Nice straw main. Too bad you failed with it. Try again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The last few pages are mostly people making stuff up and in a mean spirited way - jumping to conclusions with a clear bias.

It's more than the last few pages. It happens on every single thread like this. Disgusting people.

And yet here you are, you wannabe Internet White Knight, you.

So if we care about a missing black woman, we’re “white knights” and if we didn’t care about this we’d be racist. Got it. You have all the maturity of a 17 year old racist and you’re a troll.

Nice straw main. Too bad you failed with it. Try again.

*man, obviously

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The money is being returned.
https://www.al.com/news/2023/07/more-than-63000-raised-in-carlee-russell-search-being-returned-to-donors.html

Updated at 4:18 p.m. to add new statement from Crime Stoppers saying it is not refunding reward money.

Oh wow.

Well hopefully this will help to calm some people down as they wait for answers.

“This investigation is still ongoing, and accordingly, there is no basis to refund any contributions at this time. Furthermore, the Hoover Police Department has not requested for any donor contributions to be released or refunded,” the afternoon announcement stated.

[Anonymous]

Oh and just FYI…the original pp was correct. The article has since been updated.

Crime Stoppers of Central Alabama on Monday reversed course hours after announcing that more than $60,000 raised in reward money for information that led to the safe return of Carlee Russell would be returned to donors.

On Monday morning, the organization said they would refund $63,378 donated in the 48-plus hours the 25-year-old nursing student was missing.

However, on Monday afternoon, they announced that was no longer the case.