MI MI - Jessica Heeringa, 25, Norton Shores, 26 April 2013 #6

[bluenoser]

I will have to look back, but I remember something about the co-worker witness stating that she saw a van pull in the station with it's headlights out, and she thought this to be suspicious, so she (they) parked to watch. What was up with the headlights of the van being off? If this is true, then with the fact that the driver hasn't come forward, I would think that it has to be involved somehow. JMO

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

If the van is not involved...they need to look more closely at anyone she knew and perhaps had problems with, who do NOT have access to a silver/gray van, i.e maybe such people were not looked at closely before, when they were so certain about the van. But I still wonder what has made them say, several times, that they believe she knew her abductor(s). I hope that is just not a wild guess or assumption. I also doubt even more their assertion that they believe she is alive. I have doubts about everything in this case.

Based on interviews with her family, fiancé, friends, etc., I think that LE has determined Jessica's pattern of behavior and her usual routine - places she frequented on a regular basis (work, grocery store, bank), circle of friends (a few close friends or lots of friends), personality traits (friendly, helpful, outgoing), etc. LE knows that Jessica wouldn't take off with someone and leave her child and fiancé, and that she would defend herself if she thought that someone wanted to harm her. There are probably a lot of regular customers at the Exxon station, and Jessica was likely friendly and helpful while on duty but was not forward in her actions with (male)customers. Unless Jessica had told her boss that a particular customer was bothering her, LE has a good idea about Jessica's usual behaviors and how she interacts with customers. :moo:

 

[Woe.be.gone]

<respectfully snipped>

That's the point though, Even if he was borrowing someone's van; He Himself could at least come forward and said "Yea, that was me in my Aunt's van" or something. Especially "without incrimination" being the key-words.
Even if they were just trying to avoid being "involved", the realization that he was holding up the whole investigation should have sunk in by now. Her face and Z's and D's are all over the news. I mean How could he NOT know it was him? Rationalizing it away doesn't make it GO away. Someone if not the perp will have to live with it the rest of his life. Conscience weighs heavily after awhile.
As far as whomever the van belongs to..they could have been totally unaware of the situation. So I really have no "fault" to lie on them. Just because that "looks like my van" doesn't mean it "was my van." So I totally understand that.
JMHO

Maybe I misunderstood your first post, the one I linked to and replied someone may have been using a van that didn't belong to them. My reply assumed that it is the van and a possible reason why (unjustified reason) why the owner hasn't come forward.

I think there are even other reasons why someone may not be coming forward even though they are innocent. Like, what if it was someone traveling or just passing through? Or someone who lives in a city outside of this one? I know because we are tuned into websleuths we think everyone watches the news, but I think it is VERY possible to be ignorant of even high profile cases happening in the next town over or whatever. I lived near where a law student was missing and then found murdered in a horrific way and only her torso was found and some of my friends living in that city acted like I was crazy when I brought it up because they hadn't heard anything about it. Not everyone talks about that stuff or watches any type of news system.
Or, maybe he was cheating on his wife/buying drugs/something else horribly embarrassing that he doesn't want to admit and feels like his wife/friends/family/whoever else would find out if he came forward and since he didn't do anything and didn't see anything he justifies not coming forward.

Of course, none of these could be true, but I do think there are explanations for the van guy not coming forward beyond him having to be 100% guilty of this crime.

I am really hoping the van is involved though and that the sketch is accurate. What a waste of misguided resources if not. I mean, of course, their course of actions make perfect sense-they had a witness or two and multiple sightings of the same vehicle. It would just be heart-breaking if that was just some misunderstanding though and the real perp is probably celebrating somewhere that everyone is focused on a van and a sketch of not him.

It's confusing because isn't there supposedly a witness who saw the van with Jessica in it? This is what SH reported. Who told her that - about a struggle? Then there's LE who said a witness saw the van that looked like their parents' van and doubled back to take a closer look. I'm holding two stories in my head, neither of which may be true.

IMO, SH needs to tell LE who told her they saw a struggle outside or inside (I've read both) a van. Maybe she has told LE. It's confusing, right?

 

[Woe.be.gone]

I will have to look back, but I remember something about the co-worker witness stating that she saw a van pull in the station with it's headlights out, and she thought this to be suspicious, so she (they) parked to watch. What was up with the headlights of the van being off? If this is true, then with the fact that the driver hasn't come forward, I would think that it has to be involved somehow. JMO

Yes and in the beginning (not sure from where) the coworker reportedly said that Jessica didn't have the lights on in the back of the gas station like she was supposed to. So it sounded as if the coworker was saying Jessica wasn't following the safety rules set in place by the owner. Ha! Because we all know, if she had the rear lights turned on, none of this would have happened! (sarcastic)

So the lights in the back of the gas station were out, the van's headlights were out but this witness could see the driver's full face clearly as he drove by in the alley/street where she was sitting in a car as well. bs imo.
All that and we don't know when or if the witness contacted police.
Is this the person who told SH she witnessed a struggle? Why not tell LE that too? Since we don't know who this person is, we're not really pointing at anybody specific. LE knows who she is though. IMO they need to interrogate that person hard. As I type this, the situation sounds ridiculous.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

I'm furious now too. This is a bunch of crap. Are police afraid of hurting someone's feelings or what's up? Why does SH think that someone witnessed a struggle but LE hasn't been told about that? Why, why?
If someone told SH that but won't tell LE that, that's a BIG problem, no?

The blood confirms there was a struggle too. Why wouldn't LE admit a witness told them they saw a struggle? Would LE have a reason to hold that back from the public?. Is the reason the witness won't admit they saw a struggle to LE because they didn't report it at the time they witnessed it? I don't get it.

LE needs to bring the witness and SH in together and get to the truth of the matter imo.

 

[cluciano63]

I'm furious now too. This is a bunch of crap. Are police afraid of hurting someone's feelings or what's up? Why does SH think that someone witnessed a struggle but LE hasn't been told about that? Why, why?
If someone told SH that but won't tell LE that, that's a BIG problem, no?

The blood confirms there was a struggle too. Why wouldn't LE admit a witness told them they saw a struggle? Would LE have a reason to hold that back from the public?. Is the the reason the witness won't admit they saw a struggle to LE because they didn't report it at the time they witnessed it? I don't get it.

LE needs to bring the witness and SH in together and get to the truth of the matter imo.

Yes...I think the witness may have backed off saying there was a struggle, due to lots of people wondering why police were not called at the time.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - MI MI - Jessica Heeringa, 25, Norton Shores, 26 April 2013 - #5

Here's a link to when the chief said that if they get info the contradicts what the witness has told them, they'd change the direction of the investigation at that time. So, it sounds as if its come to that. They've been trusting whoever this witness is, and now they're not sure they're credible.

Can anybody offer another explanation? If not a credible witness, how are they involved then?

 

[jenstar]

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - MI MI - Jessica Heeringa, 25, Norton Shores, 26 April 2013 - #5

Here's a link to when the chief said that if they get info the contradicts what the witness has told them, they'd change the direction of the investigation at that time. So, it sounds as if its come to that. They've been trusting whoever this witness is, and now they're not sure they're credible.

Can anybody offer another explanation? If not a credible witness, how are they involved then?

Maybe he thinks they're "attention seekers" just wanting their 5 mins on camera? Which would be a crummy thing to do when someone goes missing. JMO

 

[imamaze]

I'm furious now too. This is a bunch of crap. Are police afraid of hurting someone's feelings or what's up? Why does SH think that someone witnessed a struggle but LE hasn't been told about that? Why, why?
If someone told SH that but won't tell LE that, that's a BIG problem, no?

The blood confirms there was a struggle too. Why wouldn't LE admit a witness told them they saw a struggle? Would LE have a reason to hold that back from the public?. Is the reason the witness won't admit they saw a struggle to LE because they didn't report it at the time they witnessed it? I don't get it.

LE needs to bring the witness and SH in together and get to the truth of the matter imo.

The witness as far as I know has never said they saw a struggle. If I recall it was Jessica's mother that had said the witness said they saw a struggle but that could have been a misunderstanding about what was said by the witness.

I can't imagine law enforcement not getting to the truth of this matter. The blood does show a strugger imo, but that doesn't mean anyone witnessed it.

 

[imamaze]

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - MI MI - Jessica Heeringa, 25, Norton Shores, 26 April 2013 - #5

Here's a link to when the chief said that if they get info the contradicts what the witness has told them, they'd change the direction of the investigation at that time. So, it sounds as if its come to that. They've been trusting whoever this witness is, and now they're not sure they're credible.

Can anybody offer another explanation? If not a credible witness, how are they involved then?

Woe, how does this show that they are not sure the witness is credible now? I'm not sure I understand?

 

[Woe.be.gone]

The witness as far as I know has never said they saw a struggle. If I recall it was Jessica's mother that had said the witness said they saw a struggle but that could have been a misunderstanding about what was said by the witness.

I can't imagine law enforcement not getting to the truth of this matter. The blood does show a strugger imo, but that doesn't mean anyone witnessed it.

All along I've been reminding myself and others that SH stated to the media via video that aired for the public to see, that someone told her that they witnessed a struggle - that everything seemed normal but then there was a struggle.
Not too long ago, Chief Shaw stated that he never was told by anybody that they witnessed a struggle. He added that if someone witnessed a struggle, he advises them to come and tell him that.
I'm assuming most everyone watched the same video news links that I did when the case broke and heard SH's early media accounts.

Woe, how does this show that they are not sure the witness is credible now? I'm not sure I understand?

Because Chief Shaw believes/trusts the van is involved due to a witness account. The posts I've read today (from last night) indicate that now the Chief isn't sure the van is involved, correct? Therefore, he must have decided the witness account isn't as solid as he previous thought.

For some reason, I feel as if I'm in my own little world here. What's up with that? Are we all reading the same articles as we're going along? Some of the details have been the same since day one and the Chief has always focused on the van, the sketch provided by some unknown person and has stressed the belief that J is acquainted with her abductor. I've been trying at least to stick with those assumptions since they've been put out by LE.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

Adding - I'm making an assumption that the same person who told SH they witnessed a struggle is the person who says they witnessed the van and a man talking to Jessica.

Who else would tell SH they saw a struggle take place? When did they tell her that? The person must know SH then right? I'M TRUSTING SH WAS TELLING THE TRUTH. Chief said no one told him about witnessing a struggle. Therefore, he has to get SH, the person who told her they witnessed a struggle and the witness the Chief has believed in together for a group discussion.

Maybe LE already has done this and now they don't know what to believe. Does this make sense?
Please point out the errors of my thinking.

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

Woe: Could you post the link for the interview with SH when she made the comment about the struggle? Maybe it would help for everyone to listen/watch carefully and take note of exactly what Jessica's mother said and what precipitated the comment. Thanks.

 

[goldenbear]

I hope they continue to examine the 2005 vans. (I have no idea how it was narrowed down to 2005) there can not be very many of them in the area. DNA and lie detector tests should find Jessica. Good websleuthing.

 

[Treelights]

Woe: Could you post the link for the interview with SH when she made the comment about the struggle? Maybe it would help for everyone to listen/watch carefully and take note of exactly what Jessica's mother said and what precipitated the comment. Thanks.

I found the ABC news video, but it is on someone's youtube. Is it allowed to post a link to Youtube?

 

[Woe.be.gone]

I found the ABC news video, but it is on someone's youtube. Is it allowed to post a link to Youtube?

Thanks Treelights. Not sure about the youtube. I'm going to look for the media link/interview with SH now. I hope it's still available. If not, I'll ask a mod if we can link it from youtube. They couldn't fudge a live news interview could they?

 

[imamaze]

I found the ABC news video, but it is on someone's youtube. Is it allowed to post a link to Youtube?

I don't see why it would be a problem Treelights. It is still the ABC news video right?

 

[Treelights]

Thanks Treelights. Not sure about the youtube. I'm going to look for the media link/interview with SH now. I hope it's still available. If not, I'll ask a mod if we can link it from youtube. They couldn't fudge a live news interview could they?

I found a media article with a video attached, but the video is not the one with Shelly talking, although in the article it talks about what Shelly says. I know I can post that.

The Youtube video that I am referring to I found through Yahoo videos and typed in Shelly Heeringa and it came up with a you tube video that is from ABC news, but it is on somebody's personal youtube site. That video does have Shelly talking about the struggle....

 

[imamaze]

GMA interview with Jessica's mother
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/michigan-mother-vanishes-late-night-shift-gas-station-19060413
This video is from 4/28

 

[Treelights]

I don't see why it would be a problem Treelights. It is still the ABC news video right?

Yes, it is still the ABC news video.

Michigan Mother Disappears From Late Night Shift at Gas Station - YouTube