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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
I do not see any connection between Jessica's case and Rosalind's, except that they both happened in Michigan. Why would they be related?
 
cluciano63 said:
I do not see any connection between Jessica's case and Rosalind's, except that they both happened in Michigan. Why would they be related?
Click to expand...

I agree. Totally different communities (Norton Shores probably mostly white, Pontiac primarily African-American like Detroit). Pontiac is a high crime area (like Detroit); probably very little crime in Norton Shores. Rosaline was 32 years old, African-American, raising three children on her own. I see no connection between the cases. :moo:
 
This is starting to remind me of Mickey Shunick's disappearance. After she went missing, LE released stills from surveillance videos of three cars seen in the area Mickey was last seen on video and asked for the drivers to come forward. The public said all came forward and were cleared for the vehicles except for one - a white Chevy Z71. After a while didn't say whether it had been cleared or not cleared and we had the same discussions on her WS threads that people are having about the van in Jessica's case here. Is it even involved? Should we focus on it? Etc, etc.

In Mickey's case, we found out later that truck was 100% involved. The driver, Brandon Scott Lavergne, never came forward to be cleared because he was guilty. In fact, he was so freaked out by the pictures of his truck that he drove it from Louisiana to a rural area in Texas, set it on fire, and reported it stolen (he then went on to commit insurance fraud & get a new truck). There was also a violent struggle in the truck between Lavergne and Mickey, who was fighting for her life after he abducted her. Both of their blood had to be all over that truck from what we know of the struggle (he stabbed her multiple times, she got the knife away from him & stabbed him multiple times, and then he shot her in the head...she almost killed him & probably would have if he hadn't had the gun). If some of Jessica's blood was found at the scene of the abduction, I'd think that there might also be blood in this van...a reason not come forward and a reason to go to extremes to try to clean or do away with the van. I hope people have been paying attention to reports of similar vans being "stolen" or extreme measures taken to clean or hide such vans, even outside of the immediate area.


Hard to say until more comes out (and hopefully there will be some kind of break in Jessica's case & it will soon) as to whether or not it was involved. But I think until LE comes out and says definitively that the van isn't involved or has been cleared, it's still something to keep in mind (and keep on the lookout for if you're local or within a few hours drive of Norton Shores, just in case).
 
Just finished reading Rosaline's thread. I'm not sensing a connection to Jessica's case either. It's been several days and still no arrest made in R's case either. Hope LE solves that case considering they had a body within two days. The body was removed from the crime site though. With every removal or change in location that takes place, the possiblility of LE solving the case becomes harder/less likey.
 
jenstar said:
But wouldn't you think that if this person (who owned the van) cared enough to "flirt" with Jess; that he would just step forward and say. "Hey, yea, I'm that guy, we talk on a regular basis..check my van, gimme some coffee while I wait." You know; whatever he could do to clear himself of the case and get it to move forward?
Instead, no word from the guy seems suspicious. Sometimes, it's what's NOT said or done that would mean the most. JMO
Click to expand...

Maybe not especially if he was in a borrowed van. What I mean is, if someone was using a relative's van, the van owner may not come forward even if they suspect their person may be involved. They could rationalize their inaction because it wasn't them driving the van and/or be afraid to point fingers at the relative knowing what he's capable of doing in retaliation.

This is one reason I consider witnesses important but not necessarily involved with J's abduction directly. For instance, one of the witnesses said they know what kind of van it is because it looks like one their parents own (or owned). Did they consider it could be someone (a brother, a cousin, an uncle) driving their parents' van? One of the witnesses may have more information than what we've been told but that doesn't mean they're directly involved. Maybe they haven't revealed all their suspicions to LE. LE has even suggested this when asking whoever to not fear personal incrimination if they come forward with more information.
 
Woe.be.gone said:
Maybe not especially if he was in a borrowed van. What I mean is, if someone was using a relative's van, the van owner may not come forward even if they suspect their person may be involved. They could rationalize their inaction because it wasn't them driving the van and/or be afraid to point fingers at the relative knowing what he's capable of doing in retaliation.

LE has even suggested this when asking whoever to not fear personal incrimination if they come forward with more information.
Click to expand...

<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
 
If anyone loaned their van out, or it was out of their possession for any reason that night, they need to call police, even if their perfect son, who would never hurt a fly had it or their beloved brother the pastor, etc...assuming their van resembles the video.
 
I can't believe Jessica is still missing and the case doesn't seem to be moving forward. Little Zevyn must be so worried and confused about what has happened to his mum as will the rest of Jessica's family and friends.

I am praying that law enforcement keep going as best they can and don't become too despondent about the lack of progress being made. They want to find Jessica ASAP and I am sure they are doing everything they can.

If anyone who knows Jessica is reading here please know Jessica is in our thoughts and prayers and has not been forgotten.
 
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.
 
Heartbreaking. Poor little guy.
 
A child's bond with his mother is such an important thing. He probably felt how sad his Daddy was and tried to comfort him. This hurts me too. :(
 
SteveP said:
It seems the sheriff is at least publicly leaving the door open that the van may have no involvement in Jessica's disappearance, but I don't think he really believes that, for the simple reason that to this day, no one has yet contacted police and said "that was was my van and I am not involved". Surely every person remotely close to Norton Shores has seen that video or still pics of it.

Having said that, it really seems that LE has nothing reliable to lead them to Jessica or her abductor(s). Starting over at square one and re-interviewing everyone already spoken to is about the best thing they can do, but short of someone suddenly getting a conscience and confessing (unlikely), someone stumbling upon her remains somewhere or the abductor(s) getting caught trying to abduct someone else, I fear this case may never be solved. JMO.
Click to expand...

this just makes me so angry. just 2 weeks ago Shaw was adamant the van was THE VAN and didn't want any tips not related to the van as it was wasting their time. All along I thought the van was only possibly connected but LE was convinced. Now they don't know? amateur hour. they wasted time and lost tips and public help by insisting the van was involved. people wouldn't be reporting anything not related to the van when it could have been relevant.
Shaw will not find JH.
 
Treelights said:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/30/jessica-heeringa-abduction-update_n_3354505.html


"Mitchell said Heeringa's fiance, Dakota Quail-Dyer, recently decided it was time to tell the couple's 3-year-old son that his mom is missing."

" "They worked with a counselor to tell him in the appropriate way and he just keeps saying, 'We'll find her.' He does not comprehend what's going on, but he does know mommy is missing," Mitchell said. "
Click to expand...

I'm glad they told him. kids know. it's only confusing to them when they aren't told what they feel, not validated. So smart to do it with a counselor.
I hope that little boy is right and they find her. soon!
 
absentia said:
this just makes me so angry. just 2 weeks ago Shaw was adamant the van was THE VAN and didn't want any tips not related to the van as it was wasting their time. All along I thought the van was only possibly connected but LE was convinced. Now they don't know? amateur hour. they wasted time and lost tips and public help by insisting the van was involved. people wouldn't be reporting anything not related to the van when it could have been relevant.
Shaw will not find JH.
Click to expand...

If the van is not directly connected with her abduction, what are we left with ?

1. A dark sedan seen in the video leaving the crime scene behind the silver mini-van.

2. The co-worker parked across the street in the strip mall parking lot near the time of the abduction. Whom by the way, did not investigate the suspicious activity she saw at the time, and didn't report what she witnessed until the next day after the story broke in public.
 
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.
 
vega said:
If the van is not directly connected with her abduction, what are we left with ?

1. A dark sedan seen in the video leaving the crime scene behind the silver mini-van.

2. The co-worker parked across the street in the strip mall parking lot near the time of the abduction. Whom by the way, did not investigate the suspicious activity she saw at the time, and didn't report what she witnessed until the next day after the story broke in public.
Click to expand...

I pick door number 2
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 157 more.
Total: 2,340 (members: 158, guests: 2,182)

Online statistics

Members online
158
Guests online
2,182
Total visitors
2,340
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
602,033
Messages
18,133,645
Members
231,215
Latest member
Karmalicious478
Back
Top