Found Deceased MO - Toni Anderson, 20, North Kansas City, 15 Jan 2017 #5

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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
heartgoesout said:
I think the mystery affair was just me rambling that then took a life of it's own with comments there after. I still think it is plausible though.

By the way,s I wonder what time police shifts are for that specific police department.

Does anyone remember or know why the first police department said there was no traffic stop? And then there was confusion and it ended up being a different department that pulled her over. Does anyone remember why there was confusion?
Click to expand...


I think it's quality ramblings. :) It does get insinuated in the video from my recollection in the phrasing. I will watch it again, but I got that feeling it was being floated as a potential scenario -- secret life I believe is what was used. I know that it gets used for her hiding her job/bf from parents, but I got the feeling that even the idea that no one knew where she was truly going was insinuating a "secret life".

so, in that sense, i truly think they were saying it without saying it, if you read between the lines. I think it makes sense and is very plausible that it was indeed the case. She did remove the gps.
 
MaxManning said:
Well, didn't that video say that? maybe I misunderstood it. But I want to say the reason they were talking about the 9 corridor was parkville.

Do I know this factually? haha. Nope, like so many other things. But unless I misunderstood the video, I believe that they KNEW she was going west. So that seems to line up with parkville?

am i wrong about that? I'll have to watch the video again and see if they literally say parkville or not.
Click to expand...

Sorry I wrote that wrong. I meant I haven't seen anyone figure out or really even speculate why she would be there. (other than us) and police commented she was in an area unfamiliar to her. How they know that is beyond me.
 
Is anyone able to access the CWD video?

Looks like they pulled it.
 
So apparently the crime watch daily show is nowhere to be found. Taken down. Sigh, another oddity.
 
heartgoesout said:
So apparently the chrome watch daily show is nowhere to be found. Taken down. Sigh, another oddity.
Click to expand...

yep, I can't find it.


If you had to think about who it painted in a bad light -- giving motivation to remove it - Who would you all suspect would want to have it removed?


bf?
coworker/secret lover?
police?


In watching the video, those are the 3 entities that I think everyone would be looking at with suspicion. I was somewhat surprised that the police guy was a big portion of the video, yet he actually made the officer look more suspicious imo!

I don't think it was editing to achieve that either. It was just literally him not saying something that definitively excluded that officer. It basically amounted to - we believe he's telling us the truth. Which most people who have watched any kind of real crime tv show are gonna be like... um, just explain how you know! :) haha

I guess both 1&2 could suggest that it's slanderous if they have not been named suspects or persons of interest.
Police... they might have after the airing noticed that it revealed something inaccurate or... accurate, but not something they wanted included, haha.

so bizarre.
 
Who would have the power to remove a television show???
I need to watch it again.
Kudos to the person who video'ed it.
 
heartgoesout said:
Who would have the power to remove a television show???
I need to watch it again.
Kudos to the person who video'ed it.
Click to expand...

You would think that the police could request that it be removed if it revealed something.

The bf/coworker could potentially threaten legal action to have it removed if it was seen as slanderous. I'd say if people come away suspecting someone who has been cleared as a suspect, you'd have a good case. right?
 
Ok, watched the video again.

I'm starting to solidify in my head that Toni turned off both her phone and removed her gps when leaving QT.

Because the officer says that the last ping was on that 9 corridor. However, in this video they don't specify the time of that ping, however we have heard it as being that evening initially and then later it was said to be at 5:56 am.

So that's roughly an hour after she was at the QT. What about from when she left the QT up until 5:56am?? Were the pings going westerly or were there no pings at all during that time span? From the way they talked about it in this video, it seems like they believe she turned the phone off when she left QT along with removing gps. If that's the case, accident goes down in probability again imo.

So again, we are getting all this sketchiness.

But this definitely suggest to me that someone turned on her cellphone at 5:56 am for a reason. Maybe even to delete iCloud data? Change the password?

I believe that at this point, Toni was no longer in control of the situation. I wan to understand specifically why people believe she was in parkville. Was it just that the ping was off a tower in parkville??

I also want to understand why English Landing Park was chosen as a search location. It's south of Parkville. But is their some reason why that location would be of interest? ie is it possible that someone has been to that park with her before? or someone knew she often went there?
 
The only part that is questionable at all imo is when the officer very hesitantly answers the reporters question.

from the show
(narrator) Police would find something else in her texts and phone records that would reveal that Toni was actually on her way to meet another man, a co worker at chrome.


Cut to reporter and officer
Q. Were you able to identify that friend?
A. we were, we were
Q. and is he cooperative?
A. yes
Q. was he forthcoming with information?
A. yes he was
Q. did he yield anymore clues for you?
A. no
Q. Do you know for certain that she never made it to this to this friend?

** he hesitates and watches his words carefully and then answers,
A. Based upon what the investigation has revealed yes, i can say with the upmost certainty she did not go to that location.

He doesn't not answer the question about meeting the friend, but rather he answers only about the location. Which was not the question.

The reporter goes on..
Q. Is there anyone not being transparent with you?
A. I think there's probably a couple of people in the investigation that may have some secrets of their own that they don't want to share yet. I wouldn't say they aren't being transparent but they're not showing everything.
 
heartgoesout said:
The only part that is questionable at all imo is when the officer very hesitantly answers the reporters question.

from the show
(narrator) Police would find something else in her texts and phone records that would reveal that Toni was actually on her way to meet another man, a co worker at chrome.


Cut to reporter and officer
Q. Were you able to identify that friend?
A. we were, we were
Q. and is he cooperative?
A. yes
Q. was he forthcoming with information?
A. yes he was
Q. did he yield anymore clues for you?
A. no
Q. Do you know for certain that she never made it to this to this friend?

** he hesitates and watches his words carefully and then answers,
A. Based upon what the investigation has revealed yes, i can say with the upmost certainty she did not go to that location.

He doesn't not answer the question about meeting the friend, but rather he answers only about the location. Which was not the question.

The reporter goes on..
Q. Is there anyone not being transparent with you?
A. I think there's probably a couple of people in the investigation that may have some secrets of their own that they don't want to share yet. I wouldn't say they aren't being transparent but they're not showing everything.
Click to expand...

I find it funny that he said that he didn't think they weren't being transparent, and then went on to say they were instead not showing everything, which is kind of a textbook definition of not being transparent. haha

I agree, the officer clearly was being deliberate with his words.
 
Thinking back to Toni's moms interview she says something to the effect of, let her go let her go live her life. Almost as if she is speaking to someone directly.
I need to go back and watch those interviews. Maybe we missed some telling words.
 
I'm wondering since Pete started the GMF but turned it over to the parents If it is tied up in legalities? Technically his name is on the account.
 
heartgoesout said:
So apparently the crime watch daily show is nowhere to be found. Taken down. Sigh, another oddity.
Click to expand...
Does my link above to the Crime Watch video not work for anyone?

I often feel like I and my posts are invisible on these threads!

Sent from my SM-G928T using Tapatalk
 
IllinoisMissing said:
Does my link above to the Crime Watch video not work for anyone?

I often feel like I and my posts are invisible on these threads!

Sent from my SM-G928T using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I don't see a post above from you. Maybe you posted prior to CWD pulling the video (last night).
 
It was marked private but has since been put back up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 63 more.
Total: 1,685 (members: 64, guests: 1,621)

Online statistics

Members online
64
Guests online
1,621
Total visitors
1,685
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
605,546
Messages
18,188,513
Members
233,431
Latest member
Crunchy Riff
Back
Top