Found Deceased AL - Aniah Haley Blanchard, 19, Auburn, Lee County, 23 Oct 2019 *Arrest* #6

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
That is, as her mother suggested, there is a link between IY and AB, specifically they know someone in common, and he played on this connection to win her trust temporarily?
Do you have a link where Aniah’s mother said IY and AB know someone in common? I know on Dr. Phil, she was concerned that there may be some link, and that she was set up, but I don’t recall her definitively saying they knew anyone in common.
 
Why in the world would the wording change? The only thing I can think of is the witness is changing his story. I hope this is not an indication of things to come.
I wonder if the Chevron witness is unreliable, or they are concerned that the defense could discredit him. So now that they have the other surveillance video, they are reducing their reliance on the witness. MOO
 
I wonder if the Chevron witness is unreliable, or they are concerned that the defense could discredit him. So now that they have the other surveillance video, they are reducing their reliance on the witness. MOO
I think that’s exactly what I was trying to say but you worded it better! I’m wondering if now that they found her body, they don’t have to rely on the first witness and instead will focus on the second.

But that still means her car was at another gas station after 11:20 and before 12:30.
 
Could it be at all possible that they used the word “interacting” because it would be enough for the warrant, yet in reality “interaction” meant force or fight or shove? Seems strange to use that word. It’s not even “talking”. It’s almost purposefully vague imho.

reasons for this could be :
1. To keep the defense guessing a bit longer
2. To protect the witness somewhat.
3. To allow them (prosecution) to develop their case further.
 
Do you have a link where Aniah’s mother said IY and AB know someone in common? I know on Dr. Phil, she was concerned that there may be some link, and that she was set up, but I don’t recall her definitively saying they knew anyone in common.

On the media page, see the Dr. Phil interview where AB’s mother suggests that there could be a person in common to IY and AB and that this person could have set up AB.

I’m not suggesting that AB knew IY, but that he may have known someone whom AB knows. And if he was seen in the area frequently, it’s not a far reach. I’m starting to feel uneasy again. The ‘wrong place, wrong time’ scenario was bad enough.
 
I’m kind of starting to think that as well that he possibly asked for a ride to a different gas station. Would explain her being in the car at that second gas station & not running when he got out. Would also account for a bit of time in that unknown hour plus her car seen leaving in the opposite direction of her apt. If you think about it, it could also explain the Snapchat message to her roommate if IY introduced himself as Eric (if you’re fixing to commit a crime where someone could ID you, why would you use your real name). This is totally all JMO making the bits & pieces we know fit together, but that could make total sense.


I know they said she is a kind girl but would she really give a ride to a complete stranger, a man she just met?
 
Could it be at all possible that they used the word “interacting” because it would be enough for the warrant, yet in reality “interaction” meant force or fight or shove? Seems strange to use that word. It’s not even “talking”. It’s almost purposefully vague imho.

reasons for this could be :
1. To keep the defense guessing a bit longer
2. To protect the witness somewhat.
3. To allow them (prosecution) to develop their case further.

They would probably need strong evidence of 'forcing'. Otherwise a defense attorney could dwell on that point a lot, confuse the witness, and make a jury wonder if the witness knew what he/she is talking about.

I think everything that they say and do from this point (and probably have been doing for a while now) is to ensure that this case stands up strongly in a trial.
 
DBM double post

oh I was reading that like they got surveillance from another gas station store that showed him entering and exiting her vehicle. Not that they were at another one. I have to go back to google maps. Was there another gas station across the street maybe?
not one across the street,but one about a mile a way on an Shug Jordan (i think thats the name of that street) street and one towards the interstate.
 
I know they said she is a kind girl but would she really give a ride to a complete stranger, a man she just met?
I am way too skeptical of anyone & everyone to do that lol but I could see a scenario where a nice girl is getting back in her car, a younger guy comes up to her who seems super nice, introduced himself, explains his situation (no vehicle with him, etc.), & just asks for a ride to the gas station down the road real quick bc that one didn’t have what he wanted or whatever. She doesn’t get a bad vibe from him thinking maybe he’s a student & she agrees.
 
I'm confused what is this second gas station? Any other info than what Yazeed said in court about it?
It was in the warrant for the capital murder charge that surveillance from a second gas station in Auburn shows IY getting out of the passenger side & returning to the car & getting back in. Doesn’t say a time just that the gas station was in Auburn.
 
Last edited:
It was in the warrant for the capital murder charge that surveillance from a second gas station in Auburn shows IY getting out of the passenger side & returning to the car & getting back in that side. Doesn’t say a time just that the gas station was in Auburn.
getting back in that side
It said "re-entering the vehicle". It didn't specify which side.
 
They would probably need strong evidence of 'forcing'. Otherwise a defense attorney could dwell on that point a lot, confuse the witness, and make a jury wonder if the witness knew what he/she is talking about.

I think everything that they say and do from this point (and probably have been doing for a while now) is to ensure that this case stands up strongly in a trial.
I agree. I pray that the evidence against IY Is strong and he gets exactly what he deserves. IMO he is smarter than he appeared at first. When he said Aniah grabbed the gun he was obviously trying to deflect blame from himself. I’m wondering how reliable the witness is who reported the IY told him he had shot a girl. The fact that the witness may be an associate of IY casts doubt in my mind that he’s an upstanding citizen. The small chance that IY could once again fall through the cracks makes me want to vomit.
 
If there’s one thing I’ve learned from the many hours I’ve spent on WS over the years, it’s that LE oftentimes has wayyyy more evidence than the public thinks they do. They only need to reveal enough to show there’s probable cause on the charging documents and that’s it. And — 9 times outta 10 — that’s all they give.

This vile will find out everything LE has on him soon enough. I only hate we won’t be there to watch that smirk fall right off his face when he does.
 
I also fear that IY may once again get away with it. I don’t know if DNA evidence is normally listed in a charging doc/affidavit, but I was hoping to see some concrete evidence listed in it. Perhaps they don’t have DNA results back yet. My concern is that if AF was in fact in AB’s vehicle then his DNA may be in there. If they don’t have IY fingerprints or DNA , then IY can point the finger at AF. Witness testimony isn’t enough imo. Even if you have multiple witnesses. They need actual physical evidence, whether it be in Aniah’s car or on her body or clothes. Maybe they do have that evidence , but are holding their cards close to the vest. Hopefully that’s the case. I can’t bear the thought of IY walking away from another crime.
 
I also fear that IY may once again get away with it. I don’t know if DNA evidence is normally listed in a charging doc/affidavit, but I was hoping to see some concrete evidence listed in it. Perhaps they don’t have DNA results back yet. My concern is that if AF was in fact in AB’s vehicle then his DNA may be in there. If they don’t have IY fingerprints or DNA , then IY can point the finger at AF. Witness testimony isn’t enough imo. Even if you have multiple witnesses. They need actual physical evidence, whether it be in Aniah’s car or on her body or clothes. Maybe they do have that evidence , but are holding their cards close to the vest. Hopefully that’s the case. I can’t bear the thought of IY walking away from another crime.
This is a definite cause for concern because I honestly cannot fathom how he’s managed to get some of those past charges dismissed. The only reason I have a little hope that won’t happen here is due to the high profile nature of this case. Thankfully (& also sadly), everyone involved tends to mind their p’s and q’s much more diligently when working a high profile case than they do any other time.
 
After Yazeed’s court appearance, the judge heard arguments concerning the current gag order that’s in place in this case. An attorney representing a number of news organizations across the state, including WSFA, asked the court to lift the gag order. Other attorneys for the defense and the city of Auburn objected.
The judge did not make a ruling in court, agreeing to take this issue under advisement.
Suspect in Aniah Blanchard case faces second capital murder charge
Interesting, IY is arguing with the judge about his charges. I suppose he will say someone else shot Aniah, or maybe she grabbed the gun and in the process, shot herself. This guy is vile, absolutely devoid of a conscience.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
55
Guests online
1,622
Total visitors
1,677

Forum statistics

Threads
605,337
Messages
18,185,846
Members
233,318
Latest member
AR Sleuth
Back
Top