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

[cnmccarthy]

Her body was well-preserved because of the cold water. I Interpreted the post as in surely they wouldn't have destroyed the body before a death investigation had been completed.

Cremation = case closed pending toxicology?

Yes that was my thought process! Thank you!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Deleted member 155000]

I personally think the most important point you made is that one minute isn't long enough to conduct a standard traffic stop. As you stated, he couldn't have possibly run her license or tags, which is SOP. We can all have our own opinions about everything else that happened, but I think we can all agree that running tags and DL are SOP for all traffic stops - even if you're just pulled over for a light that's out and only given a warning.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would agree with that if I hadn't been pulled over several times by officers who let me go with a verbal warning...without running my ID or plates. Especially as a young girl, I often attributed their stops to "welfare checks"...they almost seemed to wonder why I was driving late at night and were looking for any suspicious activity. When they pulled me over, realized I was a middle class white girl riding alone with nothing suspicious in the car, they let me go without any further processing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Deleted member 155000]

I believe many of us simply have 5-6 straightforward questions for the LE involved that night. If those were clearly answered with supporting proof, the issue would be dead already.

My guess is they won't ever be answered. I think if you asked some of the parents in the hundreds of cases that factually weren't investigated properly and even showed evidence of "cover up" by the KCPD in the past few years, they might just tell you that they've been made to feel cuckoo via lack of answers.

http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/crime/article101962597.html

Trust is not something that just gets granted, it gets earned. Transparency is not in action at the moment, so why should anyone trust them, given the very recent and factual past?

I still lean toward accident, but I agree about how it would help ease other possibilities if officers answered some straight forward questions.

-Release any dash cam footage of the original stop, including audio.

-Explain whether there is evidence of a meet-up or intended meet-up at the park and why foul play is ruled out if so.

-Offer details about the thoroughness of the search surrounding the park. Did officers look for alternative paths of entry?

-Offer explanation about why the car was removed from the water the way it was.

-Release the autopsy and toxicology report.

What else?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MaxManning]

I still lean toward accident, but I agree about how it would help ease other possibilities if officers answered some straight forward questions.

-Release any dash cam footage of the original stop, including audio.

-Explain whether there is evidence of a meet-up or intended meet-up at the park and why foul play is ruled out if so.

-Offer details about the thoroughness of the search surrounding the park. Did officers look for alternative paths of entry?

-Offer explanation about why the car was removed from the water the way it was.

-Release the autopsy and toxicology report.

What else?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Did officer(s) call in the pullover?
Did officer(s) run the plates?
Did officer(s) know Toni personally?
If so, how?

I apologize if some don't appreciate the direction of this questioning, but in the beginning everyone was thinking that the perpetrator would have been someone who knew her from the club. The thought would have been that she was followed by a stalker.

However... If this path through NKC was a common one for Toni, these early morning pullovers were potentially routine. Officers might even know her car by sight.

Stalking doesn't have to begin at chrome is my point.

If any of those questions reveals a closer relationship between the people that pulled her over, then a whole bunch of new questions arise.

So when I see terms like "cover up" and "gross negligence" in an article about a PD, isn't it fair to question this topic transparently as opposed to behind the scenes?

Isn't that what allowed the past behavior to perpetuate over many years?

http://godoymedical.net/physical-signssymptoms-strangulation/

There may be absolutely no outward physical sign of the strangulation. Approximately 50% of documented cases exhibit no visible injury. An additional 35% have injuries that are too minor to photograph. (Training Institute on Strangulation Prevention, 2014) Therefore the absence of physical signs of strangulation does not exclude the event.

Again, I apologize for going down a path some might not like, but this form of rendering someone dead/unconscious -- unable to swim out an open window in their car, while sinking in a river -- is actually a thing.

I think this method also could apply to a drug deal gone bad/CI/Snitch scenario, but also to the scenario of someone who last saw Toni.


Exclusion is how you explain things, and how the officers were excluded is one thing that is not clear.

I personally look at things via probability and motivation. So I haven't ruled out accident or foul play. But how can anyone here think they have the information needed to exclude either of those things? We simply don't.

 

[MaxManning]

I would agree with that if I hadn't been pulled over several times by officers who let me go with a verbal warning...without running my ID or plates. Especially as a young girl, I often attributed their stops to "welfare checks"...they almost seemed to wonder why I was driving late at night and were looking for any suspicious activity. When they pulled me over, realized I was a middle class white girl riding alone with nothing suspicious in the car, they let me go without any further processing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

SOP = Standard Operating Procedure

They exist for a reason. I agree that welfare checks are a thing, however, if you are going to do that, document that.

It's factual that officers will sometimes pullover cars with damage and run plates to see if they have insurance. Why? Money, and because it's also an opportunity to potentially run into someone with a warrant out for their arrest. I know this because I had a junker for a while and I got pulled over all the time. I had tail lights, I had headlights, I had plates etc.. what I didn't have was money to fix my car's body! They always said something like I was going too slow or asked what I was doing out at this hour (I worked a late shift). But I have a family member who is an officer and he told me that it's common to do this. Someone might not have insurance or have a warrant etc as I said before.

So just like there is a motivation there to pull me over based on profiling my car, there could also be a motivation for someone pulling Toni over. -- welfare check is one. However, lets not act like that can't/shouldn't be simply called in to document.

So, if these checks were happening and they are never documented, isn't it going to be a little worrying if this person ends up missing? Should they be worrisome?

I'm going to suggest that SOP exists for a reason. I'm going to suggest that the motivation for dismissing the need to follow SOP, is fair game to be questioned.

You find the truth, by putting everything out on the table. Not by making decisions about what is relevant via the people that ultimately would be accountable for a given action. That's never a good idea imo

 

[Deleted member 155000]

SOP = Standard Operating Procedure

They exist for a reason. I agree that welfare checks are a thing, however, if you are going to do that, document that.

It's factual that officers will sometimes pullover cars with damage and run plates to see if they have insurance. Why? Money, and because it's also an opportunity to potentially run into someone with a warrant out for their arrest. I know this because I had a junker for a while and I got pulled over all the time. I had tail lights, I had headlights, I had plates etc.. what I didn't have was money to fix my car's body! They always said something like I was going too slow or asked what I was doing out at this hour (I worked a late shift). But I have a family member who is an officer and he told me that it's common to do this. Someone might not have insurance or have a warrant etc as I said before.

So just like there is a motivation there to pull me over based on profiling my car, there could also be a motivation for someone pulling Toni over. -- welfare check is one. However, lets not act like that can't/shouldn't be simply called in to document.

So, if these checks were happening and they are never documented, isn't it going to be a little worrying if this person ends up missing? Should they be worrisome?

I'm going to suggest that SOP exists for a reason. I'm going to suggest that the motivation for dismissing the need to follow SOP, is fair game to be questioned.

You find the truth, by putting everything out on the table. Not by making decisions about what is relevant via the people that ultimately would be accountable for a given action. That's never a good idea imo

I agree that documentation--even if only documented via live dash or body cam footage--should be used to monitor such "welfare check" like stops.

For the record, I'm not suggesting such stops are good procedure, just that they happen. Even a few years ago, with my kid and a dog in the car, and while following a GPS in a rural area, a police officer pulled me over in the middle of the day because he said I was hugging the side of the road as I drove. When I told him I didn't know the area well and was following the GPS, he definitely let me go within 60 seconds.

If I had had alcohol on my breath (which I didn't), he may have prolonged the stop or had me get out etc. But if I was a bit tipsy or high (again, I wasn't), I don't feel like he questioned me thoroughly or at enough length to know that.

So to me, even if the officer was absolutely honest and conducting a welfare check (and, like some have suggested, even recognized Toni's car), he could've still missed some signs she was slightly impaired.

Edit to add: I think they need to release dash cam footage to show whether the conversation was appropriate and whether there were any other red flags the officer ignored. I try to support our LE, but I know there are negligent and abusive people in every field. If they released footage of good or at least neutral police work, they would at least bolster public trust.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Hiandmighty]

I would agree with that if I hadn't been pulled over several times by officers who let me go with a verbal warning...without running my ID or plates. Especially as a young girl, I often attributed their stops to "welfare checks"...they almost seemed to wonder why I was driving late at night and were looking for any suspicious activity. When they pulled me over, realized I was a middle class white girl riding alone with nothing suspicious in the car, they let me go without any further processing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Exactly what I was thinking. Young girl just off of work and needs gas: not an official stop.

I also went through a period of several speeding tickets in a relatively short period of time and I would text DH: OMG got pulled over again!! (Even though the last pullover was 6 months previous).

 

[Hiandmighty]

There would have been signs of strangulation at autopsy.

 

[xmsmadex]

I agree that documentation--even if only documented via live dash or body cam footage--should be used to monitor such "welfare check" like stops.

For the record, I'm not suggesting such stops are good procedure, just that they happen. Even a few years ago, with my kid and a dog in the car, and while following a GPS in a rural area, a police officer pulled me over in the middle of the day because he said I was hugging the side of the road as I drove. When I told him I didn't know the area well and was following the GPS, he definitely let me go within 60 seconds.

If I had had alcohol on my breath (which I didn't), he may have prolonged the stop or had me get out etc. But if I was a bit tipsy or high (again, I wasn't), I don't feel like he questioned me thoroughly or at enough length to know that.

So to me, even if the officer was absolutely honest and conducting a welfare check (and, like some have suggested, even recognized Toni's car), he could've still missed some signs she was slightly impaired.

Edit to add: I think they need to release dash cam footage to show whether the conversation was appropriate and whether there were any other red flags the officer ignored. I try to support our LE, but I know there are negligent and abusive people in every field. If they released footage of good or at least neutral police work, they would at least bolster public trust.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I completely agree. Hopefully LE will release more info if anything to reassure other local women.

However if TA was impaired and not enough for the cop to even notice then she certainly was impaired enough to wind up on that road lost. I still believe she had gone out there for a reason or someone took her there.

 

[Deleted member 155000]

I completely agree. Hopefully LE will release more info if anything to reassure other local women.

However if TA was impaired and not enough for the cop to even notice then she certainly was impaired enough to wind up on that road lost. I still believe she had gone out there for a reason or someone took her there.

I think she went out that direction on purpose. And it sounds like Pete believes she went there to get uppers/downers...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[xmsmadex]

After finding TA on March 10th do we know when LE confirmed there was no sign of foul play?

Do we know when LE confirmed she had drowned?

When did LE pull TA from the car?

 

[Deleted member 155000]

After finding TA on March 10th do we know when LE confirmed there was no sign of foul play?

Do we know when LE confirmed she had drowned?

When did LE pull TA from the car?

When answering question after the recovery, the female police spokesperson (don't remember her name) did not indicate they'd found any evidence of foul play but the investigation was ongoing.

It was also said they believed Toni had been in the water for several weeks.

Reporters tried to ask if Toni could've entered the water later, or been placed there (this is my paraphrase), and she said they didn't think so.

Edit to add: For those asking...At this link, there are two vids. The second one, if you scroll down, is Capt. Stacy Graves answering questions about Toni's recovery.
http://www.kctv5.com/story/34724154...-while-law-enforcementconducts-search-in-area

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MaxManning]

I agree that documentation--even if only documented via live dash or body cam footage--should be used to monitor such "welfare check" like stops.

For the record, I'm not suggesting such stops are good procedure, just that they happen. Even a few years ago, with my kid and a dog in the car, and while following a GPS in a rural area, a police officer pulled me over in the middle of the day because he said I was hugging the side of the road as I drove. When I told him I didn't know the area well and was following the GPS, he definitely let me go within 60 seconds.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't have much of a problem with welfare checks at all. I was just pointing out that motivation is what needs to be determined.

For you.. the motivation was you hugging the side of the road.
For me... motivation was that my car looked like it was prime candidate for someone without car insurance -- otherwise the damage would be fixed?
For Toni... it might have been that she was an attractive young girl they knew from Chrome and often drove through their area at 5:30am. whether it be there or near shady lady or wherever. I don't know the exact area they patrolled.

But yes, motivation is what you want to determine. So if this was a consistent thing, is that a different motivation than used for me or you?

I think there is more to the story, and there's a reason we don't know more. I'd hope it's a good reason, but can't say it feels like that at the moment. Because all of this that we are discussing is benign if this was an accident. right?

Things are sketchy often for a reason, and more often than not, it's not a good reason.

 

[Deleted member 155000]

I don't have much of a problem with welfare checks at all. I was just pointing out that motivation is what needs to be determined.

For you.. the motivation was you hugging the side of the road.
For me... motivation was that my car looked like it was prime candidate for someone without car insurance -- otherwise the damage would be fixed?
For Toni... it might have been that she was an attractive young girl they knew from Chrome and often drove through their area at 5:30am. whether it be there or near shady lady or wherever. I don't know the exact area they patrolled.

But yes, motivation is what you want to determine. So if this was a consistent thing, is that a different motivation than used for me or you?

I think there is more to the story, and there's a reason we don't know more. I'd hope it's a good reason, but can't say it feels that at the moment. Because all of this that we are discussing is benign if this was an accident. right?

Things are sketchy often for a reason, and more often than not, it's not a good reason.

I agree that the motivation is important. They've said illegal lane change...they obviously have footage of the stop though. Does if confirm illegal lane change occurred?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[xmsmadex]

I think she went out that direction on purpose. And it sounds like Pete believes she went there to get uppers/downers...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Then I dont see how it was an accident, she would have followed whoever she met there out of the park or at least seen which direction they went. And I would imagine this was a regular place they would meet, if it was the first time than ahe could have been lured out there. I dont see why this couldnt have been handled somewhere more public unless whoever she was meeting used that spot or wanted her somewhere remote.

 

[Deleted member 155000]

Then I dont see how it was an accident, she would have followed whoever she met there out of the park or at least seen which direction they went. And I would imagine this was a regular place they would meet, if it was the first time than ahe could have been lured out there. I dont see why this couldnt have been handled somewhere more public unless whoever she was meeting used that spot or wanted her somewhere remote.

At this point, police haven't said whether they can confirm anyone else met her there.

But if they did, I can see how it could be ruled an accident, particularly if she used any drugs on site and was impaired while leaving.

Obviously, if someone did meet her there and provided drugs, then this should be fully investigated to determine if a seller set it up to look like a drowning or if they even witnessed her accidentally drive into the lake, but failed to report it.

The police officer interviewed previously did say they believe a couple people aren't being fully transparent. As long as this is true, in my mind, the investigation shouldn't be closed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[StPauliGirlK]

Its also strange her father chose to pack up her room. I know everyone grieves differently but at that point they had no idea what had happened to her and armt the end of the article he states they just want their daughter back, if youre holding out hope shes alive why pack up her room so soon?

He didn't pack up her "room." She had a full apartment with rather high rent, according to what some have posted regarding the building she and PS Jr. lived in. I suspect her parents didn't want to be paying high rent for PS Jr. to live there by himself. There also may have been some issues regarding the lease. I suspect that the lease was in Toni's name, and being missing, the landlords may have considered the lease to be broken. Who knows?

 

[Hiandmighty]

There was a news article in the last few days where Pete mentioned it: something like he lost his job, apartment and girlfriend...

 

[MaxManning]

At this point, police haven't said whether they can confirm anyone else met her there.

But if they did, I can see how it could be ruled an accident, particularly if she used any drugs on site and was impaired while leaving.

Obviously, if someone did meet her there and provided drugs, then this should be fully investigated to determine if a seller set it up to look like a drowning or if they even witnessed her accidentally drive into the lake, but failed to report it.

The police officer interviewed previously did say they believe a couple people aren't being fully transparent. As long as this is true, in my mind, the investigation shouldn't be closed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If for example you knew that she had been there before for a drug deal, or that others she knew had been there for a drug deal, wouldn't that lower the probability of an accident?

This is something that I believe is a secret that many are keeping, not just a few.

If I had to put myself in the place of someone who knew about this location, and seeing that it's likely going to be ruled an accident... Would I divulge what I knew? Especially if it creates a link between myself and some drug dealer who at this point I'd likely be confident is responsible?

Likewise if there is someone that knows officers that have ties to Toni, who is going to divulge that secret if they are witnessing this being likely deemed as an accident?

I guarantee you that if these officers do have ties to Chrome/Toni, tons of people likely know about that. So if that surfaces, it's not like it would have been something numerous people couldn't have mentioned from very early on.

People have been sketchy. LE has been sketchy. I find it ironic that LE is talking about transparency, as they've not exactly been forthcoming with questions about their activity and about the last person we know to have seen Toni alive.

PS Sr seemed to say some things confidently, and while I don't take anything at face value, I'd like to understand how he can say those things so confidently. I know one person really close to Toni that might just know these things and be very confident about it, that Pete Sr might not want to mention because it connects that person to these activities. The first question for that person would be -- how do you know this?

right?

So it's about how honest you want to be at this point.

 

[PokeyMeansBusiness]

He didn't pack up her "room." She had a full apartment with rather high rent, according to what some have posted regarding the building she and PS Jr. lived in. I suspect her parents didn't want to be paying high rent for PS Jr. to live there by himself. There also may have been some issues regarding the lease. I suspect that the lease was in Toni's name, and being missing, the landlords may have considered the lease to be broken. Who knows?

I can attest to the high price of her apartment. It is relatively high compared to the cost of living in the area.