Found Deceased MO - Toni Anderson, 20, North Kansas City, 15 Jan 2017 #6

[marsyao]

It was also reported LE were 99% sure that Toni did not have an accident.

I followed this case closely, pretty sure LE never said that, on the contrary, they said repeatedly that they did not think there was foul play involved, and according to her family, LE told them they believe Toni had a car accident

 

[marsyao]

The QT is a 15-20 min drive from that boat landing. How and why did it take her so long to wind up with a dead cellphone and in the river? That timeline makes no sense.

This is a good question, just like why she decided to go to the park at all in the first place, we do not know, and may never know. I could only guess she was going somewhere to meet someone to do something, and somehow she ended up in the park

 

[MrX]

To clarify, from my perspective.

LE indeed has said they do not suspect foul play but their story has changed repeatedly and more than anyone else's over and over. Actually LE is the only story that has changed. To date LE says the case is not closed.

The media has reported that after her body was found, the parents believe it was an accident, but her mother strongly believed she was a victim of sex trafficking a week ago. We do not know if their public statements are what they truly believe. From what we see the parents are also not communicating with other "insiders" and have not participated in much. Friends are urging an independent autopsy but so far the parents will not oblige.

There have been some names thrown around that people question could be involved. LE has said they do not believe a few people in the investigation have been totally upfront.

Many feel the handling of her car after being found was sloppy and nonchalant.

Although different theories are out there, including suicide, informant, rogue cop, drug deal gone bad, sexual assault, etc.. we are at a place where I think we all agree an accident is plausible. Some believe the answer.
The majority of people do not believe it was an accident based on the inconsistencies and oddities of that night and some shady behavior beforehand.
And here we are...

That is a perfect post - totally sums up entire case to this point. Well done!

 

[HelpingHeart]

So she couldn't have wrecked off a bridge at all? They know for sure that she got into the water via the ramp? Whether accident or not? Thanks for any info!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[n_6CC]

I think we all agree that an accident on the boat ramp could scientifically be plausible. It's now just going in circles.
It is the before that is being questioned.

If the person she was supposed to meet was asleep in a drive-way, and that is what he is sticking with, someone is going to have to break in order to change the momentum that seemed to have halted. No doubt in my gut, I know they know what happened to Toni. Proving it is another thing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[n_6CC]

This is a good question, just like why she decided to go to the park at all in the first place, we do not know, and may never know. I could only guess she was going somewhere to meet someone to do something, and somehow she ended up in the park

Xmsmadex- my thoughts as well- if you look at the original timeline things make more sense. I will post a time board later tonight when I get back to my computer. (Is there an easier tech method going between computer and phone?). I think I need everything on the cloud?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MaxManning]

This is a good question, just like why she decided to go to the park at all in the first place, we do not know, and may never know. I could only guess she was going somewhere to meet someone to do something, and somehow she ended up in the park

So you could only guess that she was going somewhere else and ended up in the park somehow?


That is higher probability to you than her just simply going to the park to meet someone in the park and waiting for instance?


I have said before that I think there is a chance that another form of communication was used to redirect her to that park. Maybe using something like snapchat? a burner phone?

A burner phone is a prepaid cheap older model phone that is not connected to a specific person, that is used very often in drug dealing, where someone can communicate for a short period of time and then just destroy the phone. So if we were to just entertain the idea that this was a drug deal gone bad, the fact that there was no communication to be found as to why Toni was there, this aspect actually fits the profile of using a burner phone.

It's a very common practice in that world. But sure, people can choose to ignore that and how much sense it makes. But... it's still a thing and consistent with what we see here.

This case right here, is an exact example of why someone would use a burner phone. They might even do regular interaction with her on their smartphone BEFORE she went missing, calling her to another location, and then say she didn't show up. Giving them the ability to say they were somewhere else.

gee... hey, didn't that happen in this case?

Hell, possibly even left their smartphone at that location with someone fiddling with it to give an alibi. Would be interesting if that is the alibi right?

food for thought.

 

[heartgoesout]

I followed this case closely, pretty sure LE never said that, on the contrary, they said repeatedly that they did not think there was foul play involved, and according to her family, LE told them they believe Toni had a car accident

One of many links that can be found.

http://fox4kc.com/2017/02/25/family...think-she-may-be-victim-of-human-trafficking/

Toni's family revealed to FOX 4 that police are 99 percent sure this was not a car accident. Her family believes she has been taken and possibly sold into human trafficking.

 

[MaxManning]

I hope that I am not offending anyone with my last post, but this topic of another form of communication such as a burner phone is crime 101.

I've eluded to this in the past on earlier posts, and had thought that most understood this was likely the case. But since I keep seeing all this faith in the idea that her lack of usage of her iphone from the time she left the QT until it went dead was indicative of schizophrenia, a psychotic break, drug usage... etc etc. There truly is a very simple explanation for that, if you for a moment even just entertain the idea that this is a drug deal and think about what one might do in that situation.

I still see an accident as a possibility, but I just don't think it's wise to exclude drug deal etc, when we see things like this that make sense with a drug deal.

I know that the police have never mentioned this possibility even once as realistic, but I think if we ever see the actual evidence they have in the light of day... you might come back to my post and make even more sense of it. How does one prove that someone was using a burner phone? That's kind of the reason a criminal uses one. So should it be excluded because there is no specific evidence of a burner phone?

 

[heartgoesout]

One of many links that can be found.

http://fox4kc.com/2017/02/25/family...think-she-may-be-victim-of-human-trafficking/

Toni's family revealed to FOX 4 that police are 99 percent sure this was not a car accident. Her family believes she has been taken and possibly sold into human trafficking.

And just food for thought. As we see, the parents seem to trust and be following LE direction. They have used the word "amazing" to work with. If LE told them it was an accident from the start and no foul play, why would her mother do a 180 from her m.o. and pull out sex trafficking??

 

[heartgoesout]

So she couldn't have wrecked off a bridge at all? They know for sure that she got into the water via the ramp? Whether accident or not? Thanks for any info!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not impossible, but at the rate her car would have sunk it is unlikely. There are no close bridges.

 

[marsyao]

One of many links that can be found.

http://fox4kc.com/2017/02/25/family...think-she-may-be-victim-of-human-trafficking/

Toni's family revealed to FOX 4 that police are 99 percent sure this was not a car accident. Her family believes she has been taken and possibly sold into human trafficking.

You ought to read later articles

 

[marsyao]

So you could only guess that she was going somewhere else and ended up in the park somehow?


.

'
Yes, if you have better idea, I am all ears

 

[heartgoesout]

You ought to read later articles

No need to get snippy. I have read all the articles. I too have been following this from the beginning.
Your post said you did not remember this being said and I posted the link showing it did.

One of the many things that have changed from LE.

We are all here for the same reason and that is too seek the truth for Toni, not to post snarky messages. No one deserves that.

 

[Hiandmighty]

They couldn't rule out sex trafficing at the time of that report. Now they can rule it out.

 

[heartgoesout]

They couldn't rule out sex trafficing at the time of that report. Now they can rule it out.

I dont think anything can be ruled out. Her and her car were thankfully found. That's it.

 

[Hiandmighty]

Rape would be ruled out at autopsy; no sex trafficking...

 

[MaxManning]

'
Yes, if you have better idea, I am all ears

Did you read what came after what you quoted?

I just replaced the "somehow" with a logical explanation.

 

[heartgoesout]

ok hear me out on this and give me your thoughts. I just rewatched a crime watch daily snip.
Caldwell says (in referring to the traffic stop and what the officer said...

Caldwell "he said, she said, something to the effect she needed to get gas"

ok wait a minute. Would the dash cam pick up the conversation? I'm trying to think if when watching dash cams in the past if audio can be heard and I think yes. Sometimes they put up the subtitles.

So does it seem like Caldwell is just repeating what he has been told? Wouldn't and rather he confidently say something more to the effect of, Toni told the officer that she needed gas. period. confident.
Not, "he said she said something to the effect of"... and not seeming like he's to sure about that.
I dont know. It just caught my attention. What'd ya think?

 

[GeeButtersnaps]

ok hear me out on this and give me your thoughts. I just rewatched a crime watch daily snip.
Caldwell says (in referring to the traffic stop the and what the officer said...

Caldwell "he said, she said, something to the effect she needed to get gas"

ok wait a minute. Would the dash cam pick up the conversation? I'm trying to think if when watching dash cams in the past if audio can be heard and I think yes. Sometimes they put up the subtitles.

So does it seem like Caldwell is just repeating what he has been told? Wouldn't and rather should he confidently say something more to the effect of, Toni told the officer that she needed gas. period. confident.
Not, "he said she said something to the effect of"... and not seeming like he's to sure about that.
I dont know. It just caught my attention. What'd ya think?

Makes sense-I know in every dashcam I've seen you do hear the audio when the officer is at the window of who they pulled over etc so I'm sure it records somehow audio as well so I'm sure he would have seen that since they inevitably reviewed the footage..good question.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk