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

[heartgoesout]

It seems like about two years ago that a young lady in Indiana was found in her submerged car not far from her home. It happens. I believe it happened to an older woman in Orlando a few years ago, too. I don't know much about her car. But someone in a stick shift can knock it into neutral very easily. And that can cause the vehicle to roll.

No one is debating that her death could have been an accident... if the circumstances surrounding the entire evening didn't exist.
But the circumstances DO exist. Circumstances that can't be ignore.
Did these other cases of drownings by a car accidentally submerging have similar circumstances?

If we listen to everything we are told without asking questions where would we be as a species?
Toni's death has questions that need answers. Transparency is a must.
When and if things make sense is when closure and acceptance can begin. Until then do not let anyone question why you're questioning. To me there is no other option. To me why would anyone settle for anything less??

 

[cnmccarthy]

No one is debating that her death could have been an accident... if the circumstances surrounding the entire evening didn't exist.
But the circumstances DO exist. Circumstances that can't be ignore.
Did these other cases of drownings by a car accidentally submerging have similar circumstances?

If we listen to everything we are told without asking questions where would we be as a species?
Toni's death has questions that need answers. Transparency is a must.
When and if things make sense is when closure and acceptance can begin. Until then do not let anyone question why you're questioning. To me there is no other option. To me why would anyone settle for anything less??

This 100%. I don't understand why there are people putting others down on this forum simply because they're questioning the oddness of the circumstances surrounding her death. We can all agree to disagree, respectfully, like we do in other cases can't we? IMO [emoji173]that's what I love about websleuths. We question, we explore theories, and we don't accept the easy answer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[thekarmabus]

A very informative link to forensics on drowning victims. Autopsy would reveal all the details necessary to state accident vs foul play.

http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/400990/drowning_investigations/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[heartgoesout]

If you believe this was an accident, it's case closed right?
I am respectfully curious why someone who thinks this is a case closed accident would still be on this thread?

 

[Dr.Strangelove]

If you believe this was an accident, it's case closed right?
I am respectfully curious why someone who thinks this is a case closed accident would still be on this thread?

Because if it's not i want to know, and I like reading other people's ideas. I don't KNOW it was an accident, that's just my belief and it may change.

 

[heartgoesout]

So if I hear you correct, you are part of the majority that isn't 100% sold on the accident. ; )

 

[AceDetective]

I'm trying to wait patiently for the medical examiner to release their findings.

I would also like to hear LE's final verdict.

So far I agree with LE. There is no sign of foul play. None.

 

[Dr.Strangelove]

So if I hear you correct, you are part of the majority that isn't 100% sold on the accident. ; )

Haha i guess so. Just 90% sold or so. I don't disagree some things look odd, i just tend to lean toward an accident with some police mishandling as aposed to murder or cover up [emoji14]

 

[policyoftruth501]

They don't issue search warrants for improper paperwork.

Even if that's true for every city, county, and state in the country if a case goes to trial and goes through discovery everything related to the case, including paperwork, must be produced by the prosecution at that time. That includes any improper paperwork or any details that contradict the prosecution's case. A failure to do so can result in a dismissal. Depending on whether the judge dismisses with or without prejudice, the prosecution may not be able to bring the case to trial again.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MaxManning]

If you believe this was an accident, it's case closed right?
I am respectfully curious why someone who thinks this is a case closed accident would still be on this thread?

This is a fair point.

I see most people here questioning accident/foul play, not proclaiming foul play. There is a distinction there, that can be missed. I'd be surprised if there is anyone leaning 90% foul play, but I do think there's a 100% leaning towards -- we got questions that need answering. So why not answer them and stomp out suspicions?

I always point to KC's very recent history as proper reason for scrutiny :

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

The department’s own memos describe 148 “severely mishandled” cases, “gross negligence,” “incompetence” and evidence of attempts to “cover up.”

That is NOT evidence of foul play in this case, but it is evidence that it's fair to question results, ask questions, and expect transparency. If questions aren't answered and transparency is resisted, how can anyone exclude practices mentioned in that article as potentially also being an issue here?

 

[MaxManning]

Accident makes the most sense. I had a feeling (at least) her car was under water in the beginning. It seems difficult to put a person and their car in a lake and not be seen or videotaped, etc.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The car was in a river, and not off a road, but in a park. The probability of someone seeing a car w/ person being dumped or an accident where a car goes into river at this location being seen or videotaped is exactly the same.

If there was a video camera, it'd make a horrible place to dump a car/body.

I think the main issue that people have is that there is a SUV in the same exact location as Toni's car was found, leading one to believe that this isn't the first time someone chose to dump a car there. So of course, speculating that maybe the same person dumped both vehicles has a basis in logic. right?

So suppose it was discovered who dumped that SUV there? Would you ask them a few questions about the Toni Anderson case? Or would you just assume that the cars are in the same location near a boat ramp, one by accident and one for means of ditching a stolen car?

I'm pretty sure that most of us are able to acknowledge that it could be purely unconnected. But, is it a fair question as to if there is indeed a connection?

It seems like a fair question.

 

[MaxManning]

I keep saying this but the tow lot in question has nothing to do most likely with TA. I would be shocked. Red herring.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Consider for a moment if any tow yard, not specifically this one, had record of towing the SUV found next to TA's car to their lot, but no record of where that car was now... and the car based on paperwork should be in their lot?

If that were the case, would it be fair to investigate a bit further as to how the SUV got from their possession to just a short distance from a boat ramp in a river and right next to TA's car?

I agree this could be a red herring, and I think most are willing to acknowledge that. However, is that what should happen in an investigation? Should it be assumed there is no connection if you have gone 1 step and found another question worth getting an answer to?

I think that's all anyone is saying, is that finding a connection between the vehicle and a person -- whether that be someone at the tow yard or someone who the tow yard has records of giving the vehicle to -- could lead to a person who used the boat ramp for purpose of dumping a SUV.

If you find the person that dumped that SUV, why would it be improper to question if they'd used that boat ramp at another point? Or maybe even ask them how they discovered that boat ramp and chose it as a means of dumping a car. Did someone tell them about the location?

Just seems like a proper investigative path imo

 

[policyoftruth501]

There are two very valid points made in MaxManning's recent posts and I think the facts stated in those posts point to a serious need for further investigation.

For example, "the department's own memos describe 148 'seriously mishandled' cases, 'gross negligence', ' incompetence', and evidence of attempts to 'cover up'." Why this hasn't prompted an IA investigation or an investigation from the State's AG's office is a serious issue and something I honestly can't begin to understand. There should be some serious concern at very high levels that problems of this nature and degree exist and nothing is apparently being done to resolve and eliminate the issues.

Also, on the matter of TA's car and the SUV being found in the same place as if this is some type of under water parking lot should be under deeper scrutiny, IMO. In Little Rock we had this "HUGE" breaking story in the news about 10 years ago that the LRPD had discovered an under water dumping location for stolen cars. Luckily, there weren't any bodies found in any of the cars they recovered, but this "discovery" by the LRPD was a joke. It was a well known fact by a large percentage of the general population that these locations were used to dispose of stolen vehicles and had been for decades - not just months or years, but decades. It just took LE about 30 years or more to catch on. So I can't help but wonder what the KCPD hasn't caught on to yet. If the SUV was put there at a much earlier date, it's quite plausible that someone thought they had found the perfect dumping spot.

I'm not convinced either way on accident or intentional death. However, there is enough bad police work (in general, not just on TA's case) and weird events going on (just think of the number of bodies and cars that were found while looking for TA) that I'm not convinced, based on what we know, that a thorough investigation has been conducted. Hopefully, once TA's toxicology comes back local LE will give a statement that fills in al the missing pieces.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[AceDetective]

Here are the 4 leading causes of death for 20-year-old white females in the United States over the ten year period from 2006-2015.

1. Unintentional Injury 3,191

2. Suicide 707

3. Malignant Neoplasms 455

4. Homicide 356

Just food for thought for those who reject the accident theory...

source: https://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcaus10_us.html

 

[Jerrod]

Here are the 4 leading causes of death for 20-year-old white females in the United States over the ten year period from 2006-2015.

1. Unintentional Injury 3,191

2. Suicide 707

3. Malignant Neoplasms 455

4. Homicide 356

Just food for thought for those who reject the accident theory...

source: https://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcaus10_us.html

This is rather generic data. I wonder how it would change if it was broken down further into "20-year-old white female exotic dancers known to be dealers/users of illegal drugs in a top 10-ranked city for violent crime".

Incidentally, you neglected to mention that 843 of your "unintentional injuries" are from accidental poisonings, not traffic accidents.

https://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/bro...mt=custom&ethnicty=0&ranking=5&deathtle=Death

 

[AceDetective]

Jerrod, it's actually kind of humorous, from a debate perspective, that you chose 'accidental poisonings,' since the majority of those are actually overdoses. So you kind of shot down your own argument. If one were a drug user, then that would increase their odds of having a deadly accident.

How would all your additional factors affect the numbers? I don't know. But probably not how you think.

In fact, you got me thinking. Lots of food for thought on this page. (In the comments from actual strippers.)
https://realdoctorstu.com/2012/03/12/the-psychological-cost-of-being-a-stripper/

By the way, my point in citing that data was that rejecting the accident theory doesn't prove homicide.

 

[sophie taylor]

If I were going to stage it, I would put the seatbelt on and leave the window rolled up.

If anything, they're evidence it wasn't staged.

Very few people think this was a homicide at this point. Probably just dozens, not thousands. Certainly not a 'majority.' They just seem like a lot because they're vocal about it.

That would be direct evidence of suicide. You nor anyone can explain why she could not have made it out of the car if she was able to. That's where intoxication comes in. We know she was not greatly impaired when the cop spoke to her. We've only heard suggestions and assumptions the whole time regarding how she got in the water.

 

[Pistolerpete247]

We feel this is not an accident. We feel Toni's death is due to foul play. We strongly feel whoever did this to Toni had to be the last person who was with her Sunday morning. So far, the last person we know to have interacted with Toni, that morning, are the police officers from the North Kansas Police Department. The lies KCPD have released to the public started on day one of the investigation and continue to this day. When I say "we" I mean my family and I.
Pete J Sanchez Sr

 

[Tssiemer]

Can we get a summary of the kcpd's lies?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[sophie taylor]

We feel this is not an accident. We feel Toni's death is due to foul play. We strongly feel whoever did this to Toni had to be the last person who was with her Sunday morning. So far, the last person we know to have interacted with Toni, that morning, are the police officers from the North Kansas Police Department. The lies KCPD have released to the public started on day one of the investigation and continue to this day. When I say "we" I mean my family and I.
Pete J Sanchez Sr

Did you guys ever consider that Toni did drive by the 31st QT, but that person wasn't there. So, she continued north before being pulled over.