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

[MaxManning]

Bolding by me.

Above is an excerpt from the snapchat guide for law enforcement. When LE was trying to figure out what Toni was doing in Parkville, surely they would have served a warrant on snapchat, since Toni used it. So if Toni used snapchat that fateful Sunday morning, LE would know about it.

Correct, if they have a snapchat username, email, phone number.

Would they know about it without access to her phone? Again, I haven't seen where they have confirmed they have been able to find anything in her iCloud data.

iCloud data is also optional, you don't have to use it. Even when you enable it, each app used is optional as if you want to allow storing data on the cloud.

So just because you KNOW she had a snapchat, doesn't mean you know what phone number or email or username she used. This is just a reality. Some people use a google voice number or a "burner" number from apps that provide burner numbers so you don't have to use your own. Even that is traceable theoretically, but you have to know about that phone number, email, username to start. If you don't... You might even think she doesn't have snapchat.

We haven't heard anything about snapchat, so maybe she did, maybe she didn't. Same with a burner phone. But as I said, i'd be very surprised if this avenue wasn't pursued. I just gave two commonly used methods, there are certainly more. Such as someone going to a location like a QT and someone saying -- meet so and so here. Good ole face to face communication. Maybe even tell her to turn off her cellphone/gps.

So do I want to know if there was interaction with her inside the QT? Sure. Could even be the person behind the counter. In the bathroom. etc. I'm sure police were all over that too. But we don't have anything to verify that.

For all we know, the communication happened before she ever left chrome, which would make sense, since she headed NW and not to either location noted. I personally believe that if she was meeting someone, the communication quite possibly happened beforehand for this reason.

Lastly this communication with this mystery person that they can't prove is connected in any way. We don't have any concrete data on that, but if we did, that would allow us to talk about that here on WS. A lot of rumors, so not something we can even trust imo.

 

[AceDetective]

Snapchat got a mention or two on her twitter.

If she was a user, her friends would have the account details. Easy.

 

[MaxManning]

http://fox4kc.com/2017/03/17/police...-at-tow-lot-after-owner-refuses-to-cooperate/

This is a way that you would go about tracking down how that SUV got in the river, right near where Toni's car was found.

The tow yard is 1.3 miles from chrome.

 

[BigRedTomato]

Two minutes before posting this she retweeted a picture of two Bassnectar pins. The ravers depicted are wearing scarves.

Thanks to you and the others that have responded. That helps.

 

[MaxManning]

Snapchat got a mention or two on her twitter.

If she was a user, her friends would have the account details. Easy.

You know that people can have multiple SnapChat accounts, right? People have multiple emails... Google voice numbers... There's even an app that is called "burner" that allows you to use different phone numbers and connect via the app.

Hell, you can learn this kind of stuff just by watching that Catfish TV show.

Just like the burner phones, they aren't calling up their friends on them. The point of it all is that they are used to create separation between their normal communication and the criminal stuff.

 

[StPauliGirlK]

It's just a cool rave scarf . Unsure why she tweeted it. My guess a rave was happening soon.

I suspect that some stuff she had ordered had arrived.

 

[AceDetective]

You know that people can have multiple SnapChat accounts, right? People have multiple emails... Google voice numbers... There's even an app that is called "burner" that allows you to use different phone numbers and connect via the app.

Hell, you can learn this kind of stuff just by watching that Catfish TV show.

Just like the burner phones, they aren't calling up their friends on them. The point of it all is that they are used to create separation between their normal communication and the criminal stuff.

I've seen the Catfish show.

Yeah, Max, and the bolded sentence there is what's known in Occam's world as a "saving hypothesis." I just call them 'saves.' The more of them you have to make up for your theory, the less likely your theory becomes. You are making William of Ockham cry.

Now there's criminal activity involved. Another assumption. I'm sure if that were the case, her boyfriend would know the tricks of the trade. There's an interesting post about that in the group, actually. (Boyfriend allegedly told LE everything.)

 

[AceDetective]

<modsnip>

I'm not meaning that you're making up the concept of multiple snapchat accounts. <modsnip> You are making an assumption with no evidence to support it. You are adding complexity to your theory.

I refer to problems with the theory as difficulties.

eg.
difficulty: Toni texted with the guy in Kansas City. How come she didn't text with the person in Parkville?

the save: because it was super secret, so she used snapchat.

difficulty: Okay, then why don't police know about it then, since snapchat is logged?

the save: because she had some super secret snapchat account that nobody knew about to keep it from LE.

difficulty: Okay, then, why didn't her partner know about this super secret snapchat account?

the save: ...

There is always an ad hoc theory that can save the original hypothesis. But at what point do you throw in the towel and start to admit, okay, this is starting to seem unlikely.

Quote from the Occam's Razor wikipedia page:
"This endless supply of elaborate competing explanations, called saving hypotheses, cannot be ruled out&#8212;except by using Occam's razor."

Anyway, I'm just trying to explain how I was applying Occam's Razor when I said it was out the window regarding this point, since it didn't seem to get across.

 

[MaxManning]

<modsnip>

I'm not meaning that you're making up the concept of multiple snapchat accounts. <modsnip>There is no evidence to support this. You are adding complexity to your theory.

I refer to problems with the theory as difficulties.

eg.
difficulty: Toni texted with the guy in Kansas City. How come she didn't text with the person in Parkville?

the save: because it was super secret, so she used snapchat.

difficulty: Okay, then why don't police know about it then, since snapchat is logged?

the save: because she had some super secret snapchat account that nobody knew about to keep it from LE.

difficulty: Okay, then, why didn't her partner know about this super secret snapchat account?

the save: ...

There is always an ad hoc theory that can save the original hypothesis. But at what point do you throw in the towel and start to admit, okay, this is starting to seem unlikely.

Quote from the Occam's Razor wikipedia page:
"This endless supply of elaborate competing explanations, called saving hypotheses, cannot be ruled out&#8212;except by using Occam's razor."

Anyway, I'm just trying to explain how I was applying Occam's Razor when I said it was out the window regarding this point, since it didn't seem to get across.

<modsnip> I'm simply saying that people who use snapchat and burner phones, do it for a specific reason -- creating separation between normal communication and crime related.

How is me saying that any different than you speculating she was a schizophrenic or had committed suicide? I'm confused as to why you are having trouble with me just pointing out common ways of communication related to crime.



--difficulty: Toni texted with the guy in Kansas City. How come she didn't text with the person in Parkville?
So? why does that matter? If she was headed to a location that was communicated either earlier face to face, in the QT, via a burner, or via snapchat or via any number of other ways. Why would she need to? Fact is that she headed NW and NOBODY knows why. So you and I can speculate all we want, and that's what we are doing. You chose psychotic break, I chose another form of communication that led her to that location. Why am I the one you see as being without evidence to support this? where is yours?


difficulty: Okay, then why don't police know about it then, since snapchat is logged?

I'm unclear on how you have decided that they would know she has a given snapchat account, if they don't have the username, phone #, or email for that account. Your assumption was that you can only have 1 acct and that someone can't have multiple emails, fake #'s , and a username that is unknown. That is the starting point for even finding a snapchat log. If you don't have one of those 3 things for that account, you'll never see the log. I'm confused by why you think that someone who would use snapchat or burner phone would use their account that they use for normal communication. It's like you are missing the point that they do these things to *hide* their activity.

But sure, let me ask you how you believe she committed suicide? or had a psychotic break?

I gave you the reasons why I thought both were less probable, I didn't say you were wrong. You can indeed disagree, I won't be offended.

I just said simply that 1.1% of suicides are via drownings. I'm again unclear on why those statistics wouldn't be acceptable to you. Same with the psychotic break. I even said, that was possible, but that it just didn't seem as probable as simply going to meet someone at a location. That's extremely simple, even if I can't prove someone communicated with her. Seems way more simple than a conveniently timed psychotic break.

But again, you don't have to agree with my assessments of probability. But if you want to call me out as you do above, just simply answer how you believe psychotic break and/or suicide were the causations. Then I'll ask you for what evidence that supports it beyond you saying you don't understand why she did what she did, so it must be psychotic break/schizoprhenia.

maybe you can help me understand the difference between what you suggested and what I suggested in that context. I say that respectfully.

 

[MaxManning]

I've seen the Catfish show.

Yeah, Max, and the bolded sentence there is what's known in Occam's world as a "saving hypothesis." I just call them 'saves.' The more of them you have to make up for your theory, the less likely your theory becomes. You are making William of Ockham cry.

Now there's criminal activity involved. Another assumption. I'm sure if that were the case, her boyfriend would know the tricks of the trade. There's an interesting post about that in the group, actually. (Boyfriend allegedly told LE everything.)

Again, I am confused by your mischaracterization. I have never said that this can't be an accident and quite the contrary I keep mentioning it's still a decent probability that it is. Just because there is no criminal activity proven at this point, doesn't mean that it's off the table. you get that right?

It's just like when they said she was missing. Was there proof she was in the river before they found her in the river? Of course not. It was a probability that people used to speculate. Just like what we are doing now with the potential criminal involvement.

No one is claiming they know. But you seem to be characterizing this as somehow different than you speculating about psychotic breaks or schizophrenia.

I am again, trying to be respectful here, just unclear on why you see a difference in my speculation and yours? In my opinion, both are valid speculations, and you investigate to see if you can exclude them or prove them. That's how investigations work.

So, if possible, help me out with your distinction on what I am speculating and what you are speculating are not both something not supported by concrete evidence at this point.

 

[MaxManning]

Yeah, Max, and the bolded sentence there is what's known in Occam's world as a "saving hypothesis." I just call them 'saves.' The more of them you have to make up for your theory, the less likely your theory becomes. You are making William of Ockham cry.

I understand what you are characterizing it as, but you only see it as a saving hypothesis because you don't seem to understand what burner phones and snapchat are, and how they are used in crime. I do assume to some degree that I can say something as simple as "another form of communication" and many would understand I meant burner phones, snapchat, even a face to face conversation before she left chrome or at QT etc. Why? because it's so common. Just scroll up and look at all the articles I posted where they were used.

So if you want to ask questions of me about how burners and snapchat are used, that's fine. But to characterize it as I'm just filling holes as they appear, that's just simply incorrect.

I have put a fair amount of research into this case and other cases and this is not a new topic - burners and snapchat and other methods of trying to *hide* communication that can be traced back to someone. The only reason I even clarified is because I noticed that some people, maybe even you, were posting things that seemed to exclude the possibility of communication occurring without her personal phone. So I clarified what I meant.

You chose to explain it as a psychotic break. I chose something that is extremely common in crime nowadays. So again, I'm confused as to why you take issue with me doing that?

I posted this earlier :

There are some criticisms of Occam's razor. For example, it may not always be possible to determine which of a number of conflicting theories is correct, without the benefit of hindsight.
At the turn of the century, Einstein's supporters, and believers in ether, could not have known the simplest theory for the nature of light. Both hypotheses fitted the observed data, and only the Michelson-Morley experiment swung opinion towards Special Relativity.
In addition, it is difficult to pare away information without risk of throwing out something crucial to the theory. Occam's razor should be a guide and not a rule.

Mr Ockham is no more crying right now than when the above was happening ^^^

It's a tool, but you want it to just slice away probabilities that might be crucial to the overall theory. What LE is doing right now, is trying to determine if this is foul play or not. You have already used the razor to exclude it. I'm confused by what you think the role of investigation and theorizing based on probability is? It seems like you are saying that they should just rule out foul play right now and get on with it. True or false?

 

[AceDetective]

Max, your 1.1% figure is meaningless by itself. It's a misapplication of statistics to just put it out there. You need to compare it to something. In what percentage of murders is the victim sent into the river in a car? Is it even 0.1%? Does that make murder less likely? In what percentage of murders is the victim sent into the river in a 2014 Ford Focus? Does that prove that murder is almost impossible?

You can't just take arbitrary facts, assign a probability, and claim they somehow make a certain theory more or less probable in relation to other theories.

--

I am not "taking issue with you doing that." I am simply pointing out that you are adding complexity to your theory. We will simply have to agree to disagree on this point, apparently.

--

"because you don't seem to understand what burner phones and snapchat are"

And you're accusing me of disrespect?

 

[MaxManning]

Max, your 1.1% figure is meaningless by itself. It's a misapplication of statistics to just put it out there. You need to compare it to something. In what percentage of murders is the victim sent into the river in a car? Is it even 0.1%? Does that make murder less likely? In what percentage of murders is the victim sent into the river in a 2014 Ford Focus? Does that prove that murder is almost impossible?

You can't just take arbitrary facts, assign a probability, and claim they somehow make a certain theory more or less probable in relation to other theories.

--

I am not "taking issue with you doing that." I am simply pointing out that you are adding complexity to your theory. We will simply have to agree to disagree on this point, apparently.

--

"because you don't seem to understand what burner phones and snapchat are"

And you're accusing me of disrespect?

So help me out here on how a figure as to how the probability of method of suicide is meaningless, but you saying it is suicide is supported by what? Do you even have an arbitrary fact?

 

[MaxManning]

"because you don't seem to understand what burner phones and snapchat are"

And you're accusing me of disrespect?

No, I'm not being disrespectful. I am just pointing out that we seem to be going through a question and answer, where I am telling you how it works. I am not making anything up, as I said, this is not a new thing.

I could have explained to you 5 years ago what a burner phone was and all the details on how that's used.

I could have told you 2 years ago about how snapchat is used. I've followed several cases with this involved.

I am assuming you don't know, if you are posting things that don't acknowledge how they are used and ask questions.

I apologize if it's being perceived as disrespectful.

I was just saying that typically when I mention something like another form of communication that many on these forums, understand what that means. Even moreso when I mentioned a burner phone.

But it feels like you are leading me down this path of explaining point by point, how they use these things. Then after all your questions were answered, you characterized it as just coming up with "saves". That part is confusing to me, because you would have had no questions if I had taken 15 minutes to explain the full process of using a burner phone or snapchat from start to finish. The very reason it's used in crimes is to hide someones identity and make it harder to trace.

This is by no means the first time this conversation has come up, so I apologize if the details on these kinds of communication were something you were unaware of. I was not trying to disrespect you, was just making an observation.

Do you use snapchat? Are you aware of how criminals use burner phones?

Again, no disrespect, but just trying to understand the disconnect here that led to a mischaracterization.

 

[MaxManning]

Max, your 1.1% figure is meaningless by itself. It's a misapplication of statistics to just put it out there. You need to compare it to something. In what percentage of murders is the victim sent into the river in a car? Is it even 0.1%? Does that make murder less likely? In what percentage of murders is the victim sent into the river in a 2014 Ford Focus? Does that prove that murder is almost impossible?

Let me help you out here. Before someone ever decides to commit suicide, they choose a method. 1.1% of the time that is via drowning.

So if you want to figure in the % of suicides vs murder using a 2014 ford focus going into a river etc etc, I'm trying to even decide if you are just joking here You must be.

We have a death here. What % of people found in a river are via accident or murder? Are you saying it's .1% are murder?? I am going to suggest to you that Accident and Murder are the #1 and #2 reasons a dead body are in a river in that order. I'd also venture to say that suicide drowning is likely a distant 3rd place (or lower) maybe even 1%.

But if you want to present statistics otherwise, please do so. I am overly confident at the moment that #1 and #2 are by far the most probable causes of death, regardless of a car or not.

Now, here's another article :

http://listverse.com/2015/10/28/10-popular-places-murderers-dump-dead-bodies-in-the-us/

I say this respectfully again, I'm not sure exactly what you want from me. I honestly don't think that any probabilities that I have proposed even needed to be backed up. I find them somewhat common sense. Not trying to be condescending, but I do honestly feel this way. Each time in our conversation, I present you with articles and statistics, just to illustrate. But when you proposed a psychotic break or suicide or schizophrenia, you have no basis for the claim at all... but have a problem with mine? i'm confused.

I didn't need source material to come to the conclusion the boat ramp was a high probability for how the car got in the water either, once given the possibilities. Yet I saw people proposing cars going upstream and traveling downstream 8 miles with no supporting facts. I actually researched and posted data pertaining to that, to see how likely it was. So I don't feel as if I trust my own assessments beyond reproach, even when I am confident.


I think this is enough, I question if you are even serious or just arguing for the sake of argument.

I do think when case files are released, many things will become more clear for us all. I always have interest in how investigations are conducted, so I do hope this one is released.

cheers

 

[Capstan07]

No, I'm not being disrespectful. I am just pointing out that we seem to be going through a question and answer, where I am telling you how it works. I am not making anything up, as I said, this is not a new thing.

I could have explained to you 5 years ago what a burner phone was and all the details on how that's used.

I could have told you 2 years ago about how snapchat is used. I've followed several cases with this involved.

I am assuming you don't know, if you are posting things that don't acknowledge how they are used and ask questions.

I apologize if it's being perceived as disrespectful.

I was just saying that typically when I mention something like another form of communication that many on these forums, understand what that means. Even moreso when I mentioned a burner phone.

But it feels like you are leading me down this path of explaining point by point, how they use these things. Then after all your questions were answered, you characterized it as just coming up with "saves". That part is confusing to me, because you would have had no questions if I had taken 15 minutes to explain the full process of using a burner phone or snapchat from start to finish. The very reason it's used in crimes is to hide someones identity and make it harder to trace.

This is by no means the first time this conversation has come up, so I apologize if the details on these kinds of communication were something you were unaware of. I was not trying to disrespect you, was just making an observation.

Do you use snapchat? Are you aware of how criminals use burner phones?

Again, no disrespect, but just trying to understand the disconnect here that led to a mischaracterization.

The burner phone hypothesis and / or secondary accounts / burner type apps all seem plausible and common.

I do think many known things in TAs life would make it likely she made use of burner phones or apps. Simply being on Seeking Arrangements would make that likely for obvious reasons.

Her age and all of her use of SM shows she was tech savvy so increases the probabilities.

Even everyday people--like myself--have burner phones today. Mine is for innocuous reasons but thinking about this I know others use them commonly.

A biz associate has one for his mistress he met of Seeking Arrangement and his mistress has one to contact him.






Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[n_6CC]

The burner phone hypothesis and / or secondary accounts / burner type apps all seem plausible and common.

I do think many known things in TAs life would make it likely she made use of burner phones or apps. Simply being on Seeking Arrangements would make that likely for obvious reasons.

Her age and all of her use of SM shows she was tech savvy so increases the probabilities.

Even everyday people--like myself--have burner phones today. Mine is for innocuous reasons but thinking about this I know others use them commonly.

A biz associate has one for his mistress he met of Seeking Arrangement and his mistress has one to contact him.






Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I was just going to say that with Toni's activities, burner phone, and even more so, Snapchat (among other apps), would be a given. All of us here, found a lot of activity on SM about her activities, imagine what we might not know! Illegal Behavior was a known thing with Toni and her friends. In today's society, technology is used to support these behaviors without leaving traces everywhere. In my day you used a telephone (landline), heck, in my day dealers used beepers! Technology is growing as fast as they can figure out how to trace it. But, there is always a trail when you use tech. I think the likelihood of her using these apps or having a burner is way more likely than her committing suicide by drowning (no offense).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Capstan07]

I was just going to say that with Toni's activities, burner phone, and even more so, Snapchat (among other apps), would be a given. All of us here, found a lot of activity on SM about her activities, imagine what we might not know! Illegal Behavior was a known thing with Toni and her friends. In today's society, technology is used to support these behaviors without leaving traces everywhere. In my day you used a telephone (landline), heck, in my day dealers used beepers! Technology is growing as fast as they can figure out how to trace it. But, there is always a trail when you use tech. I think the likelihood of her using these apps or having a burner is way more likely than her committing suicide by drowning (no offense).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Of all of the theories presented, I do not believe she committed suicide and personally have dismissed suicide as even possible.

I have stated I believe an accident is most probable.

Having said that I am open to additional possibilities because there are clearly facts that don't make sense and many unknowns.

That's where I am at. At some point we have to dismiss some possibilities as being so unlikely as not to be pursued further. LE investigators do this as well.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[n_6CC]

Of all of the theories presented, I do not believe she committed suicide and personally have dismissed suicide as even possible.

I have stated I believe an accident is most probable.

Having said that I am open to additional possibilities because there are clearly facts that don't make sense and many unknowns.

That's where I am at. At some point we have to dismiss some possibilities as being so unlikely as not to be pursued further. LE investigators do this as well.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I didn't mean you personally had the suicide theory- I accidentally quoted you on that! Thanks!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[AceDetective]

Out of respect for the families I am no longer arguing suicide.