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

[Capstan07]

I agree. I see Toni as someone who was fun loving and enjoyed living on the edge as a young person. Her choices opened her up to risks, however, and now we are hoping law enforcement cares about doing the tedious work needed to determine for sure this is an accident.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thank you for helping to say what I was trying to get at. I worry some of her bad decisions will cast a certain light and attitude towards her minimizing what happened to her. Yes LE are not supposed to act that way but I think we all would agree a dead hooker or junkie (not a reference to TA in anyway) doesn't get the same level of care during an investigation as a person thought more highly of. That's why serial killers often target those marginalized in society. Etc.

I worry about this and assume it's part of the reason so much effort was made to portray her as a missing college student.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[SpaceToast]

Agreed except LE has not presented themselves as the most competent so far.

LE did state person(s) were not being entirely truthful. With limited facts some says this points to drugs but it could point to a married man having a tryst.

I keep saying this really because few are saying it but I honestly don't believe TA was a bad person. Of course, I don't know her and she certainly made some very bad decisions and lifestyle choices but many of us have at her age and turned out not to be bad people. Myself squarely included looking back on my college wild days.

I have a gut feeling she wasn't a bad person but make bad choices. Not sure that makes sense but I feel it's important to say given the subject matter.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Yeah. I saw a video from a few days ago where they were speaking with some of her friends about the upcoming memorial service. They seemed like decent people, had a lot of great things to say about her, and were obviously really broken up over her death. There have also been several people on that Facebook group that had their children coached in swimming by Toni and they all spoke very highly of her. Like you said, it seem like she was a good person that just got caught up in some unseemly lifestyle choices. Whether those choices led directly to her death is something it's starting to look like we may never know for sure.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[drjones]

Is there an MSM report of police refusing to release the scanner calls for when she was pulled over? Did anyone try to get it with a FOIA request?

The last thing I heard was just that it was unavailable on the Broadcastify Archives, which can happen for any number of reasons.

 

[StPauliGirlK]

Now think about packing up her room before any realty facts are known in the case--especially with the real possibility she might not have been deceased at that time.

What potential evidence was packed up? What potential evidence could have been removed, destroyed--inadvertently or purposely--what secrets did her father find in her belongings.

My point is seems like forensically her personal room belongings really could have been extremely valuable in providing important information in this case and now it gone, moved, contaminate etc.

Anyone know if LE searched her room? It would be standard I would think but nothing standard has happened in this case so far.

She didn't have a "room," she had an apartment that she shared with PS Jr., and which she sometimes rented out on Airbnb. Does anyone know if the apartment was searched by LE at any point before PS Jr. moved out and Toni's belongings were moved to storage?

 

[Deleted member 155000]

Is there an MSM report of police refusing to release the scanner calls for when she was pulled over? Did anyone try to get it with a FOIA request?

The last thing I heard was just that it was unavailable on the Broadcastify Archives, which can happen for any number of reasons.

I am not sure. Only that I was told it was that time segment of the archives that was missing, while other surrounding times were available.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[AceDetective]

That seems slightly more reasonable (although still highly unlikely imo, I could go into why if you want), but if that were the case she would have had to communicate with the "sugar daddy" from Seeking Arrangements via the website at some point. Surely law enforcement has gained access to that account, sought cooperation from SA, and explored any communications she had there, possibly including logs of deleted messages (and why would she delete the messages anyway). I'd imaging they've accessed the email account linked to that profile, as well. I find it hard to believe LE wouldn't have built a complete picture of all her activity on SA and vetted any leads they obtained there.

Another good point. Just so you know, her SA profile showed it was inactive since September 19.

Also, LE was able to obtain and decrypt her iCloud account. I'm sure they investigated every account of hers that they could find. LE says they have no idea why Toni was out there.

It's a bit of a problem for the meetup theorists, so they invent burner phones or clandestine apps. Occam's razor is out the window.

 

[Deleted member 155000]

Another good point. Just so you know, her SA profile showed it was inactive since September 19.

Also, LE was able to obtain and decrypt her iCloud account. I'm sure they investigated every account of hers that they could find. LE says they have no idea why Toni was out there.

It's a bit of a problem for the meetup theorists, so they invent burner phones or clandestine apps. Occam's razor is out the window.

I still agree an accident was he most likely explanation.

I just think it's difficult for the public to feel certain the police did explore every avenue before coming to his conclusion. Perhaps with some patience they will release a little more information that fills in the blanks and restores some trust. I hope so.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[perfectingpink]

Toni's obituary:

http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/kansas/obituary.aspx?n=toni-marie-anderson&pid=184578221

 

[jggordo]

She didn't have a "room," she had an apartment that she shared with PS Jr., and which she sometimes rented out on Airbnb. Does anyone know if the apartment was searched by LE at any point before PS Jr. moved out and Toni's belongings were moved to storage?

I have no doubt that when the landlord caught wind of them renting out the apartment or rooms therein without their approval that was grounds to evict Pete Jr. Especially if the rent was factored on a sliding scale of income...

JMO

 

[MaxManning]

Another good point. Just so you know, her SA profile showed it was inactive since September 19.

Also, LE was able to obtain and decrypt her iCloud account. I'm sure they investigated every account of hers that they could find. LE says they have no idea why Toni was out there.

It's a bit of a problem for the meetup theorists, so they invent burner phones or clandestine apps. Occam's razor is out the window.

It's so odd that you would say I invented burner phones and snapchat, given they are an actual thing. Not even sure how to respond to that.

Maybe again with just actual reality :


http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/lo...man-arrested-in-Tulsa-for-alleged-9186212.php

An 18-year-old fugitive wanted for murder was arrested Thursday afternoon in Tulsa for allegedly shooting three teens, killing one, during a drug deal initiated via Snapchat earlier this month in San Antonio, according to jail records and media reports.

http://wnep.com/2017/01/25/man-uses-snapchat-to-sell-weed-on-college-campus-detectives-say/

Investigators said Jahmir Mapp, 18, of Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania admitted to selling marijuana to about a dozen students per day on the campus of East Stroudsburg University. He said he used the app Snapchat to arrange the sales.

http://www.cknw.com/2016/05/26/dial-a-dope-2-0-surrey-gangsters-using-snapchat-to-sell-drugs/

In the past, the deals were done through disposable, untraceable cell phones, or ‘burners’ as they were called.

“Right now, I see law enforcement having a huge hill to climb. We’re not going to see hands-on crime as much in the future as we will see digital crime and digitally prepared crimes. So drug deals being used by Snapchat and other means is just the tip of the iceberg. We’re going to see more crimes prepared through technology than ever before. It’s just the way the world is going, with a lot more tech-savvy youth – and law enforcement needs to catch up. We do need to invest for our law enforcement agencies to have a technological department everywhere, we need to catch up to these guys.”

http://www.postandcourier.com/news/...cle_27385336-d748-11e6-ba39-e707783dae33.html

[FONT=&amp]The victim told police he agreed to buy a gram of marijuana for $20 from 19-year-old Harold Leonard Smalls Jr., who had contacted him on Snapchat. [/FONT]

I assure you that I didn't just create the concept of burner phones and snapchat. Just because you aren't aware of something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Occam's Razor should not used to disregard simple realities.

Also, we've heard a number of times about iCloud and their hope that it reveals something, yet we've never heard them say "It had nothing".

I think we have went over Occam's razor before, and it's only as good as the information you have -- garbage in, garbage out as they say.

We have very little to even point to as factual, which is why there are so many theories still on the table.

It would have been great if someone would have been around to tell parents and family how Occam's Razor worked when all this was going on :

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

I hear most here saying they believe the accident is still a possibility, just as I do , but how much can one exclude is the point? Occam's Razor is not to cut away things that you don't feel you want to explain.

Transparency is the issue. Just make it clear what is known, and that knowledge likely answers all our questions.

But it is confusing to me, that any of us would feel as if we could use Occam's Razor as we know so very little that is concrete.

I do hope people will keep an open mind until we hear everything, because that is just proper.

Hopefully soon we will have some concrete details to point to and it'll help us all understand how they ultimately reach their conclusion. I don't think anyone should be rooting for foul play or any given outcome. But rather just evaluating what we do know and assess probabilities. At the moment, the largest question is WHY was she there. Until that is concrete, I'd hope that nobody assumes any given conclusion, but rather excludes with proper evidence.

 

[tinytena]

To me it seems like if they took the scanner feed down (that section is missing), that implies there is something on it. What do you all think?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

i was leaning more toward the thought that it was taken down to hide that the officer never called it in at all IMO

 

[MaxManning]

That seems slightly more reasonable (although still highly unlikely imo, I could go into why if you want), but if that were the case she would have had to communicate with the "sugar daddy" from Seeking Arrangements via the website at some point. Surely law enforcement has gained access to that account, sought cooperation from SA, and explored any communications she had there, possibly including logs of deleted messages (and why would she delete the messages anyway). I'd imaging they've accessed the email account linked to that profile, as well. I find it hard to believe LE wouldn't have built a complete picture of all her activity on SA and vetted any leads they obtained there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I personally think the probability is lower for this sugar daddy thing, because it seems an awfully odd place to meet someone for something of this nature. Maybe it's a new world, but I'm going to trust that most of this kind of stuff goes on in hotel rooms. Had her last movements been tied to the casino/hotel or airport hotels - which is something I felt had probability early on - then something of that nature would make more sense.

Again, not saying that 1% is something that can't happen, but I'd be surprised if this was the goal that night in a dog park. I can surely post you a bevy of articles about these kinds of things that go down in hotels, homes etc, but I'd hope we can all just agree that 5:30am in a dog park is not a high probability with something of this nature.

Jmo as always

 

[MaxManning]

To me it seems like if they took the scanner feed down (that section is missing), that implies there is something on it. What do you all think?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I remember when it was checked in this thread, and just the time period in question was missing. The same time period on other days was still present, so that would seem to rule out it just not being recorded at those hours.

I think it's likely similar to the dashcam and QT surveillance. Things they didn't want to share at that time.

If we never see them, maybe it'll be Occam's Razor cited for why they should be of no interest? I am joking to some degree, but this is another example of how transparency should be required, not optional.

I think it's topics like this, that might delay the completion of the investigation as long as months from now, and these conversations will have aged to the point of it being an old topic and far less eyes.

 

[MaxManning]

Here are some examples of how a burner phone is used in a murder and also some ways that they can investigate their usage in a case : (pay close attention to the 2nd one, because he was a police officer)

http://www.chicagotribune.com/subur...melzer-trial-kane-st-1218-20161216-story.html

He was identified by the woman who sold him the phone at an AT&T store.

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/...gnant-mistress-and-then-flew-to-indonesia-813

Clark was put on paid leave days after Dean was killed. Through phone records, the many agencies involved in the investigation—which now included not only local and state departments but the FBI—learned that Clark had been communicating with three other people using burner phones in the hours leading up to the murder.

here's a four-hour window of time that is so far unaccounted for, and during that time Dean was meeting someone in that empty parking lot—cell phone towers put her phone and the burner phones that police say belonged to Clark, Watson and Fisk in the area of the crime scene around 10 PM.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1605/11/ng.01.html

The cops are sifting through right now, trying to track what we believe is a disposable cell phone that the killer may have been using.

Yes, burner phones are actually a thing. In that second case, a Texas Police Officer used his knowledge on the topic to commit murder.

 

[MaxManning]

Here's a case where the burner phone was used in a murder connected to a drug deal and for the purpose of an alibi :

http://www.crimeonline.com/2017/03/13/affluent-womans-double-life-led-to-murder/

His murder trial began on Monday, where prosecutors presented a narrative of the killing, which they believe was connected to a drug deal. The assistant state’s attorney Jason Miller said in court that Proctor arranged to meet Burgess at her home the morning of her death. Perhaps in a robbery attempt turned violent, Proctor killed the woman and her dog and fled with seven pounds of marijuana and Burgess’s iPhone.
But the suspect left behind two “burner” phones, one that Burgess used to communicate with him– and Miller claims it’s evidence Proctor killed the woman. He sent a text message the burner phone after the murder, which Miller described as a “fake alibi.”

http://www.capitalgazette.com/news/...onville-murder-trial-0314-20170313-story.html

Miller said Proctor stole Burgess' iPhone from her home following the murder, but not her two "burner" phones or inexpensive phones with pre-paid plans and no contracts.
After Proctor realized he hadn't taken the phone he'd been talking to Burgess on, Miller said he "texted Nicole a fake alibi" about another meeting.

So, I hope you all can see that I'm not just thinking/making up things that could happen, I base what I am saying on things that have happened and the logic behind them.

Hopefully LE is investigating the usage of a burner phone or snapchat as a means of communication in this case.

The big mystery in this case is the fact that her GPS gets turned off and she doesn't communicate with anyone with her iphone after she leaves QT, yet about an hour later she ends up in a odd location, and no one can explain why she went there.

So yes, I am suggesting that a very common method of communication in crimes that is used *for this very reason* (to conceal communication), is something that should be investigated. It would answer the largest question we seem to have, because if she was not alone at that park... the implications are obvious.

 

[AceDetective]

It's so odd that you would say I invented burner phones and snapchat, given they are an actual thing. Not even sure how to respond to that.

Maybe again with just actual reality [...]

You did not parse my sentence as intended. "invented" = "made up", and it is in the context of this case.

Shouldn't it be obvious that I am not saying burner phones and clandestine apps don't exist?

There is no evidence they were used in this case. Therefore, their usage is made up, or invented.

In the context of Occam's Razor, this would be referred to as an ad hoc hypothesis. As far as Occam was concerned, those are a bad thing.

 

[Capstan07]

Her last text s reported to a girlfriend as paraphrasing ..omg just pulled over again.....was that the end of their conversation? If yes, would it be common for TA to stop texting in the middle of something that naturally would cause additional communication between most people. Did her friend respond? Wouldn't most people ask...did you get a ticket...what happened ...where.....u ok??

So was there more conversation or truly was that the last text?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[MaxManning]

You did not parse my sentence as intended. "invented" = "made up", and it is in the context of this case.

Shouldn't it be obvious that I am not saying burner phones and clandestine apps don't exist?

There is no evidence they were used in this case. Therefore, their usage is made up, or invented.

In the context of Occam's Razor, this would be referred to as an ad hoc hypothesis. As far as Occam was concerned, those are a bad thing.

I understand what you meant, you are not understanding my context that these types of usage for burner phones is not invented/made up, but factually statistically relevant. If/when the case files get opened, and it doesn't get mentioned as something investigated, I'll be surprised.

There is no more evidence that she was having a psychotic break or committed suicide than anything others have mentioned. So should I say that you were inventing those in the same context? Did you use Occam's Razor to reach those hypothesis?

I do hope you can just put aside whatever aversion you have with potential foul play in this case, and just accept that many of us are not convinced of an accident, while we still understand there is significant probability of that being the case.

No one here is saying they know, this is clearly about people exchanging ideas based on probabilities.

 

[policyoftruth501]

Whenever there's a death of a young girl anywhere and even a hint of LE bungling the case, I automatically think of a case in Little Rock a little over ten years ago. The young lady was Carson Prince and she was found dead on the side of a major intrastate in Little Rock with severe head injuries. LE that recovered her from the accident scene had to have special counseling because of how horrific the scene was. Her dad is a former mayor of Little Rock and her mom is a deputy DA in Little Rock, yet despite all these factors this case was completely and utterly mishandled in the worst kind of way. The only reason her killer was caught was because he turned himself in. If a girl with a former mayor for a father and a deputy DA for a mother can't get her case properly handled, who can?

http://m.arktimes.com/arkansas/updated-carson-prince-murder-case/Content?oid=948923


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MaxManning]

"One justification of Occam's razor is a direct result of basic probability theory. By definition, all assumptions introduce possibilities for error; if an assumption does not improve the accuracy of a theory, its only effect is to increase the probability that the overall theory is wrong."

In general, that is what I believe in... probability theory. I don't want to make this a thread on that, but it is my opinion that Occam's Razor refers to the relative likelihood of different hypotheses, *given the available data*

Meaning, that as data changes, new hypotheses and corresponding probabilities can emerge and change probabilities of existing hypotheses.

For example, in the beginning of this case, we had no idea where Toni's car was, but accident and even specifically in water was statistically relevant given the circumstances. It was also the circumstances around the disappearance and details about Toni's life that brought forward probabilities of a stalker or dealings with drugs or human trafficking etc.

Thus why I say garbage in, garbage out. If you have unreliable or unconfirmed data, you are obviously not able to be confident in probability of anything.

As things evolved, we saw things that changed probability. Accident has always been a significant probability. It's the simplest one, no doubt. But If every time someone went missing and you started with just information she was in a car last late at night in bad weather and very little else, and you chose accident via Occam's Razor *given the available data* and thought that was going to be 100% accurate, you'd be wrong a statistically relevant amount of the time. But, you'd be right most of the time, just based on probability.

But probability of 99% is not an excuse to exclude everything else, that's why you investigate. Because any given detail could change probability.

I think many here will agree that Occam's Razor is one of the most misused concepts we see in these cases. The reality is that it doesn't and shouldn't get used just once in a case, but repeatedly as available data changes. This is just a natural flow for an investigation where you know less in the beginning, and a whole lot more at the end.

But I don't think it's best for us to debate Occam's Razor here, as it seems to get done every time people don't like a theory or have another theory etc. I'll respect that you have another opinion and post multiple theories and variations based on probability. I am well aware that I am a fallible individual and even 1% could be reality, regardless.


Edit -- I wanted to add that probability theory/Occam's razor are NOT magic wands, but tools that boil down to statistics imo.