Sure looks like the trunk is open and the trunk lining is flopped partially over the opening.
I notice this, and I figured that they'd open the trunk to look for evidence. I didn't actually see the car come out of the water, was the trunk open before it came out of the water? Not that it couldn't open from impact etc.
Another question would be where in the car Toni was found. Did she have a seat belt on? Did airbags deploy if she had them?
I personally think we can all speculate about many different theories about the car damage etc, but my belief is that whoever examines the car is going to have a great idea of how the damage was inflicted. A car striking another car leaves a different type of dent than hitting a tree, or a rock.
My probability list has begun focusing on how the car gets in the water, and like many I do think an accident is possible and even likely, even if you don't disregard the sketchiness. So to some degree I am still evaluating the probability of why she had an accident in that location. I would hope we all could agree that an accident on 9 would make alot more sense because her speed would likely be greater.
So the question for me now, is whether she was meeting someone there or was she there alone?
I am going to assume that if she didn't make a wrong turn into this park and wander around looking for a way out, that her destination was indeed the dog park. Why? because it's where the road along the river leads to. There is no other destination beyond that.
Here are some thoughts/questions on the topic :
Can we determine when that SUV would have entered the river. I know we can't get an exact date, but via science can we tell if it's been in there 6 months or more? Can we tell if it was in there extremely recently, ie under 2 months. How? I don't know much about this kind of thing, but I think science could play a part if for example some kind of growth on the vehicle's seats would take at least 2 months to reach a certain growth. -- I'm assuming that's the kind of thing that both cars will be evaluated via.
Where was Toni in the car and if she is seatbelted. If seatbelted, we know where she was in the car when it hit the water.
Can there be paint or something of that nature on the rocks on the slope.. debris such as glass or say a rear view mirror or side mirror or even hubcap that can be found on the shore? Any item on the slope from her car, can solidify her route to the water. Even a cigarette, joint, lipstick, etc could potentially be found and have dna that matches to her or be consistent with her preference.
Trees on the shoreline - any damage or sign of being hit? Any other barriers between the road and the slope could yield that kind of evidence.
If none of these things are found, it doesn't exclude that she went down the slope, but it does make it more probable she entered via the boat ramp.
If things are found, obviously you exclude the boat ramp.
A SUV in the same location in relation to a boat ramp and even just the dog park as a potential meeting place for illegal activity is worth noting and increases probability of foul play imo. Not conclusive, but don't discard that. right?
Who owned the SUV? connections?
autopsy should reveal quit a bit and could completely exclude either accident or foul play extremely quickly. They will be able to tell if she drowned. If she was bound. If she had non-accident related injuries or accident related injuries.
I know that all of the above is nothing that is exclusive to my mind, and I am sure many have the exact same kind of list.
Here is my probability list for how the car got in the water. no %, just in order of probability.
1- Car went off slope while going east or west on road leading to dog park
2- Car went off the boat ramp into the water
3- Car went off the road near 9&435 8 miles or more away and current carried it downstream to that location.
4- Car went off road on 9 east of the park and swam upstream or was transported by aliens to the park area -- 0% in my opinion. I believe in physics. aliens... I'm still open to being convinced!
So after that list, each one of those items has a different level of probability as to whether foul play was involved.
1- More likely an accident. Doesn't rule out foul play, but certainly far less probable if this was the case.
2- More likely foul play. But still doesn't rule out accident either, just less probable than if down the slope.
3- Most likely an accident. Higher speed would have likely been a larger factor.
4- Most likely failed alien abduction attempt.
Now... I do believe forensics and those things listed up above will rule out one or the other very quickly.
If accident.. it's an accident, and that's a wrap.
But, if not. Then you have to go back to motivations again. Why was she there?
Meeting someone and that person was the one that did harm to her?
Chased by someone? You can certainly just follow the road in front of you all the way back into that location if being chased and fly off the boat ramp or down the slope.
Went there to chill and smoke, watch the sunrise etc. -- harm happened upon her? someone tracked her there? -- who would know she was there?
Was lured there by someone she trusted for the purpose of a 3rd party doing harm to her?
Several of those could point to stalker. Several of those could point to someone she trusts. Several of those could point to someone who she just recently came into contact with near QT - i'll just *wink* here, because I am a skeptic always until I get concrete explanations
I do have a probability list going on those, based on IF evidence points to foul play. But still listening to others ideas and researching a few things about HOW they actually chose this location to look, in hopes of gleaning something from it.
Lastly, I hope we can all just respect each other and allow everyone to give opinions and theories without the friction I think was starting to brew last night. I do hope the police are not just discarding foul play at this point, but lets be honest, and say that accident is something they were pointing to, and it's still a highly probable theory imo. I think that many of us are indeed affected more by the sketchiness of this case, that everyone agrees with. The more skeptical will need more convincing to discard foul play. Everyone is different and of course that's why we aren't all saying the exact same thing.
