General Discussion

[RememberTara]

I'm new to learning about this case, and after viewing the 48 Hours video and reading everything on this board, I have some questions and comments:

Did MH work for Blackwater as a contractor in Iraq? Some of these folks have seemed to believe they are above the law, according to several incidents in Iraq. Just speculating. He worked for another company.

I noticed HD wearing gloves during evidence gathering. If there is a bite mark on the latex glove found in Tara's yard (as some have speculated), it would be interesting to note whether HD had wounds. Did MH assist with the search in the early days, and if so, same question? The picture of HD collecting evidence was from an earlier case he worked. HD and MH were questioned several times by the GBI. I never heard of either having bite marks on their hands. My understanding is MH was involved until the family (AG) asked that he not be allowed at the command center. If MH had had bite marks on his hands then I'm sure it would have been noticed.

I see that LG has a specialty in geriatrics. Is it true that the glove was traced to a batch at the senior center (which served as HQ inthe search)?
The glove being tied to the Senior Center was a rumor. If the GBI has connected the glove to anything besides Tara then they are not saying.

Has the next door neighbor with a key to Tara's house been cleared of all suspicion? My understanding from what I have read in the media and seen on the 48 Hours Show is that the GBI has not cleared anyone. In my opinion from having meet the neighbors, the P's were very close to Tara. They have taken her loss very hard.

Trying to be an equal opportunity 'wonderer' -- the cast of players is intriguing and troubling.

TIA to anyone able to address these issues.

I hope this helps.

 

[searchlight]

I hope this helps.

Thanks so much, RememberTara, for clarifying these points.

This is such a tragic case; I will cease speculating for now and just continue praying that answers will eventually be found for those who loved Tara.

 

[RememberTara]

I thought the bite marks was a great point. If there were bite marks on the gloves then someone most likely had bite makes on their hand. I hope anyone connected to Tara's case would contact LE if they remember seeing someone with bite marks on their hand during the time of Tara's disappearance.
There has been so little information released that speculation is about all we have. It keeps us thinking about Tara and may someday lead us to the facts that will help bring Tara home.

 

[LillyRush]

I'd like to also ask some questions about the 48 Hrs show from last year. I re-watched it online again and was just wondering about the statement they made that the dna found in the glove did not match the dna of any of the "150 men in Tara's life" - or something to that effect. My question is, did they do any dna comparison between the gloves and any females?

I know this is not a new idea to suggest a female was involved. Personally, I am still opposed to the idea that a female acted alone. I think if a woman was involved it was definitely either as an accomplice or they were the main perp and had an accomplice. Anyway, have they really not tested the dna against any potential female suspects? Or was that just poor reporting on the part of 48 Hrs?

 

[RememberTara]

Rothwell said on either the 48 Hours Show or the call-in interview to Greta's show that the DNA was identified as male DNA. I'll see if I can find a link.

 

[RememberTara]

Just days after Tara went missing, Rothwell sent the glove to the GBI crime lab in Atlanta. Trace evidence specialist Larry Peterson wasn't optimistic. "It's my experience from past cases that latex gloves like this had a relatively low rate of success," he explains.

But in this case, investigators caught a lucky break: against all odds, investigators had recovered DNA-male profile DNA-from the glove.

And besides the DNA, Rothwell says they also got a fingerprint. But when they compared the DNA and fingerprint to the men in Tara's life, there was no match.

There was no match nationally, either. Still, investigators can't eliminate any of the men in Tara's life, since they might have had an accomplice. "We always have to consider the possibility of a third party. Either someone was involved in getting a third party to harm Tara or that Tara was harmed by accident and a third party was used to help cover up the crime," Rothwell says.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/30/48hours/main4219397_page3.shtml

 

[SeekingJana]

Sorry to just chime in here, but I watched the special last night, and IIRC they had teams from both the Kesse case and the Grinstead case meet for a couple hours to discuss a possible link. At the end of the meeting, they said there was no luck, and that with the Kesse case it seems like more of a stranger abduction, and that with Grinstead, it looks like it could have been someone she knew.

jmo

This post caught my eye when I was reading back through this thread because of the recent break in the Chandra Levy case.
Remember- she was thought by LE to have left voluntarily to meet someone nearby also, because her personal items were still in her apt... Specifically a former member of Congress was the focus for years.

Now we find out that a convicted rapist who attacked another victim in the park where Chandra was jogging attacked her and killed her at random. He didn't know her and she didn't know him.
I know it's necesary to consider the most plausible scenario and go from there, but maybe there's something to be learned from Chandra's case.. . that having tunnel vision or zeroing in on some " interesting" personal details in a missing young woman's life may help the perp, who could be unconnected to any other personal " situation" in the victim's background stay under the radar of the public and LE.
The perp should have been a suspect long before he was due to the rapes he committed in the same park.

Another case with some similar aspects of former boyfriends and " personal" intrigues- Christa Worthington's case. I was convinced her murderer was one of the main POI " male friends" for years.. until the island took the almost unheard of step of DNA swabbing every male who lived there. LE ended up doing very good work in her case and they found her killer because they undertook such a bold move.

I believe it's going to take something like fingerprinting every person living with in an X mile radius of Ocilla to check against the glove print, or doing a similar sweeping effort with DNA testing against possibly publicly unknown forensic evidence left at the scene in Tara's case for it to be solved.
Of course, LE missed golden opportunities to obtain private land search warrants early on because they didn't want to ruffle feathers of some people who consider themselves to be " important". The chance to undo that mistake has long passed, IMO.

 

[LillyRush]

Rothwell said on either the 48 Hours Show or the call-in interview to Greta's show that the DNA was identified as male DNA. I'll see if I can find a link.

Thanks for finding the CBS link where they mention only finding male dna, RT. I was responding to emails at the same time as rewatching it, so it's possible that I didn't hear it during the program.

 

[LillyRush]

...At this point we know the name of the missing person. We know someone probably "helped" her leave home. We now know that person was a male (if the meaning of the glove evidence has been interpreted correctly). What we don't know is whether she left with this male willingly or as a victim of foul play.

The glove does speak to a certain presence of mind which seems a little unusual if the whole thing were unplanned (whether unplanned runaway or unplanned crime) and I find that interesting too.

doc, Sorry for trimming your post. But while I'm on the subject of the glove/dna again, I just wanted to ask you about your post here where you are speculating whether the glove ties into an unplanned or planned missing scenario. I know that you generally follow the planned/voluntarily missing theory.

I don't really see why a person helping her to voluntarily disappear would need to wear a glove. Could you explain why you think they would? I mean, hypothetically, they wouldn't even need to go inside her house or her car. She could have just as easily waited inside or outside for someone with the things she was bringing (not much) in tow and gone in the other person's vehicle, without that person ever getting out of their car.

I agree with you that it does speak to a presence of mind that things were planned. But I think specifically using a glove speaks to someone who is clearly trying to hide any sign that they were there. Someone just giving her a ride out of town would not need to do that, IMO.

 

[docwho3]

doc, Sorry for trimming your post. But while I'm on the subject of the glove/dna again, I just wanted to ask you about your post here where you are speculating whether the glove ties into an unplanned or planned missing scenario. I know that you generally follow the planned/voluntarily missing theory.

I don't really see why a person helping her to voluntarily disappear would need to wear a glove. Could you explain why you think they would? I mean, hypothetically, they wouldn't even need to go inside her house or her car. She could have just as easily waited inside or outside for someone with the things she was bringing (not much) in tow and gone in the other person's vehicle, without that person ever getting out of their car.

I agree with you that it does speak to a presence of mind that things were planned. But I think specifically using a glove speaks to someone who is clearly trying to hide any sign that they were there. Someone just giving her a ride out of town would not need to do that, IMO.

I can offer a thought as to possibilities (bearing in mind that I am keeping one particular possibility to myself for the moment.) Even though it is not a crime to help an adult run away (so far as I know), if the person helping were to be easily identified & thus located by prints or whatever that would begin an unravelling of the runaway event because L.E. would immediately begin questioning the person whose prints were found which would in turn likely lead to information resulting in the location of the adult who ran away. So it is possible that was why the mystery person wore gloves. If I were to help some adult run away I might wear gloves too if I had to touch anything in his/her house, or any property that was left behind, even if all I did was to enter the house to see what was taking the runaway so long to get his/her stuff together.

Your post did make me ponder one question about this case again so I thank you for jogging my thoughts a bit.

 

[Trino]

I've dismissed the possibility that Tara voluntarily disappear because I believe she was more responsible and had more class than to do such a thing to her family, students, and friends. I also believe she was a good daughter who would return to see her dying mother. IMO the only "voluntarily" possibility would be that Tara had a mental breakdown, in which case I feel something would have happened by now to show she was still alive.

 

[LillyRush]

I can offer a thought as to possibilities (bearing in mind that I am keeping one particular possibility to myself for the moment.) Even though it is not a crime to help an adult run away (so far as I know), if the person helping were to be easily identified & thus located by prints or whatever that would begin an unravelling of the runaway event because L.E. would immediately begin questioning the person whose prints were found which would in turn likely lead to information resulting in the location of the adult who ran away. So it is possible that was why the mystery person wore gloves. If I were to help some adult run away I might wear gloves too if I had to touch anything in his/her house, or any property that was left behind, even if all I did was to enter the house to see what was taking the runaway so long to get his/her stuff together.

Your post did make me ponder one question about this case again so I thank you for jogging my thoughts a bit.

While I generally don't agree with your runaway theories, doc, I will say that I do appreciate you presenting them in a way that doesn't necessarily taint the victim or use rumors as a basis. I can see what you're saying, that if someone helped her they would not want their prints in the house because obviously they would then be questioned by the police. I totally get that.

That is why I countered that with the hypothetical scenario where someone would not have to go into the house at all and therefore would not have needed gloves. I would think the simplest solution would be for someone to not go in the house and just wait for her. Why put gloves on just to go in the house and tell her to hurry up? Also, if that were the case, they could have just called her from their cell phone while waiting and said hurry up.

I also think that if someone was that meticulous, meticulous enough to wear gloves in order to hide the fact that they'd even helped her...they would have been more careful making sure the glove(s) did not get lost in her yard. I think the glove points more to a struggle and that the person was too caught up doing something else to even notice that they lost a glove.

 

[docwho3]

While I generally don't agree with your runaway theories, doc, I will say that I do appreciate you presenting them in a way that doesn't necessarily taint the victim or use rumors as a basis. . .

Thank you. I do try to not pass judgement, especially when I see the possibility of a runaway. People are people and stuff happens. Besides, there is not much separating this case from being either type (runaway or crime.)

. . .I can see what you're saying, that if someone helped her they would not want their prints in the house because obviously they would then be questioned by the police. I totally get that.

That is why I countered that with the hypothetical scenario where someone would not have to go into the house at all and therefore would not have needed gloves. I would think the simplest solution would be for someone to not go in the house and just wait for her. Why put gloves on just to go in the house and tell her to hurry up? Also, if that were the case, they could have just called her from their cell phone while waiting and said hurry up. . .

I suppose the helper might not have thought of a cell phone in all the excitement or might not have been sure hers was on, might not have known the number to dial etc. We don't know that the helper would have known her well enough to know her possessing a cell or knowing its number.

I also think that if someone was that meticulous, meticulous enough to wear gloves in order to hide the fact that they'd even helped her...they would have been more careful making sure the glove(s) did not get lost in her yard.

Now here is a point that I also have been thinking about, although from the crime angle more than from the runaway. (Actually I am trying to look at sets of possibiities for both types of cases to have ended up with only one glove in the yard but I began from the crime angle set first just to be helpful.)

At first glance one could say that someone tucked the gloves in a pocket or belt and, in the darkness, simply did not realize one glove fell out to the ground. That would seem to be true at first glance for both a runaway or a crime . . . .but first glances can sometimes be misleading. I realized that whether a runaway or a crime, a person could have waited until he/she was in the getaway vehicle with the door closed before removing the gloves and so no glove would have been found. (A runaway helper might have been less careful about gloves than a crime perp but I do not know that for certain.)

So I sort of thought of "what if" types of possibilities that could reasonably account.

So why was a glove found?
That's when I begin to sit and make a list of all the reasons I can think of.
It might help to fit the reason list up with what I think might have happened and see which reasons fit best with known facts and current possible theories.

. . .I think the glove points more to a struggle and that the person was too caught up doing something else to even notice that they lost a glove.

Have you experimented with having a latex glove wearing man try to hold on to a struggling woman (who wants to get away and not just trying to stay and wrestle the man) and see what happens to the gloves? I somehow doubt the gloves would just slip off. I wonder how many times it would happen out of a ten or out of a hundred (but I can't advocate experimenting because I don't want anyone getting hurt.) I could see perhaps one being torn enough to come off but have never heard that the found glove was damaged.

So much has been said by people who seem to think her bedroom was the place a struggle took place (even though L.E. were first quoted as saying there was no sign of a struggle) that I think if that room had been the site of a struggle that she would have likely been incapacitated by the time someone had her out in the yard. Also, to my knowledge, no one has mentioned any signs of a struggle outside of the house. (Not trying to be mean or anything. Your thoughts are interesting. I just think perhaps there might be another explanation.)

There are questions about this case that I found interesting. One was why move her car? And WAS that car truly moved or not? If you drive up to someones home and invade it and make off with the victim in your vehicle then why move the victims car? Why take the time and risk? (not saying it would never happen but the "why" certainly can open things up.)

Another was why was any glove at all found? Do we have a perp. smart enough to wear gloves but stupid enough to lose one by carelessness and then leave it by not taking a last look around to be sure he left no signs behind him as he got in his vehicle to drive off? If so perhaps that helps us know a little of the type of person we are looking for as a perp.

Another question how did it come to be that only one glove was found?
I mean sure anyone can lose one glove if you take both the gloves off and stick them in your belt or in a pocket but why take off the gloves before entering your getaway vehicle? And yes you can lose one glove if you only remove one glove and then become distracted by some unforseen event or are just a bit forgetful due to the excitement of the crime you have just committed.

So then I wonder what would make one remove only one glove when moving a victim to a car to take her somewhere? To check perhaps for signs of breath and/or other signs of life more easily? To be certain the victim was dead? (Or to be certain the victim was not dead and was still alive, still breathing, to hold up an eyelid & check the eye for sign of life?)

Or did the person take the gloves off in the getaway vehicle but then at the last minute realized he needed to exit the vehicle to check on one last detail and a glove in the back pocket or in the seat beside him got dragged enough to fall to the ground? If so what could that last important detail have been?

I ask these and many more questions. Was her lipstick or saliva on the glove?

I do not yet see enough actual evidence to prove a crime did indeed happen but that does not stop me from thinking and asking all sorts of questions about all possibilites. Maybe I am over analyzing the glove angle but if so all I am wasting is my own time so I don't mind just for that one in a trillion chance I might think of something helpful.

 

[dearmont]

Here's a twist on the glove - what if it was deliberately left at the scene to throw off the investigation? If this were the case, who might be clever enough to know this would become a "red herring" ?

 

[docwho3]

Here's a twist on the glove - what if it was deliberately left at the scene to throw off the investigation? If this were the case, who might be clever enough to know this would become a "red herring" ?

Very good. I have also included this possibility in my thoughts.

 

[Mysterylover]

It's my theory, the guy used the rubber gloves to drive or move Tara's car and dropped a glove while leaving the property..

What IF Tara never made it home? The murderer had it planned to make it look like she did, in order to throw LE off the time-line?
IF Tara did get home that night, why would the killer move her car?

 

[dearmont]

The position of the driver side car seat could be explained, for example, if Tara had dropped her keys and they fell under the seat, she may have pushed the seat back to retrieve them - it was late when she returned from the BBQ and may have just not put the seat back into the normal position for her. Or, if she had been drinking at either of the events, and felt she was unable to safely drive home, perhaps someone at the BBQ drove her home and that might account for the seat being pushed back? Just thoughts....

 

[searchlight]

I've heard it mentioned that the family used one or more psychic investigators. I wonder if Noreen Renier was ever contacted. She seems to have a very professional record (only works a case if a direct request comes from LE or family, never solicits work, and has given talks at Quantico, IIRC). She has been showcased on TV multiple times. If I were, God forbid, ever to need such help, she would be my first -- and probably only -- choice for such assistance. I read her book, and it has the ring of authenticity.

Just throwing this out there to the universe on the chance it might help. Many on WS seem to be haunted by certain cases for various reasons, and Tara's case is one that stays with me.

 

[My2CentsWorth]

Searchlight,
I agree that Tara's case seems to "haunt" some of us. I do personally wish that somebody ANYBODY!!!!!!!! could shed some light or "NEW LIGHT" on all of this.

 

[Esah]

Pam Coronado is my first choice. I have just sent her an email and asked her to take a look at Tara's case. I will let you know if I hear anything.