MS - Jessica Chambers, 19, found burned near her car, Panola County, 6 Dec 2014 - #5

[Crosby87]

When did Jessica get her driver's license and how long had she been driving?
How long did Jessica have the car she was driving the night she died and how did she acquire it?
Was the car a present or did Jessica purchase the car with her own money?
Who previously owned the car?
Was she making payments on the car? Was the car insured?

 

[Joan Friday]

Thanks for your impressions on this. I will go one further and add my :twocents: This is what we call in my office, turning on the "aw shucks, small town, country boy" charm

And you assessment of the reasons and strategic advantages behind that maneuver are dead on IMO

Got an attorney in the family. He uses it as well. I guess it might fool people that don't know him. He just seems like a 2nd rate Andy Griffith when I watch him do the "Aw Shucks" routine.

 

[IBsleuthin]

My personal reference to the crime scene being mismanaged (excluding the vehicle itself), which of course is just my personal opinion, is based on timelines. The times given by LE as well as the DA pertaining to the 911 call, the first responder/s, and the car being towed simply do not allow for a thorough investigation, in my opinion. Maybe I should have used the word 'neglected' or 'rushed' instead of 'mishandled'. In addition to that, by removing the car so quickly, evidence can be ruined, destroyed, or lost. I just do not see how a crime scene can adequately be investigated in the time frame provided, IMO.

Oh I'm in agreement with you. I wouldn't have moved one thing after she was removed from the scene that whole thing would have been on armed lock down.

 

[IBsleuthin]

great to hear your opinion. I'm an attorney in jackson. You've surely seen many more "performances" than me, but i'll throw my two cents in as well. I know lawyers who use the good ol boy routine, too. Some use it as a tactic to lull the opposing side into false confidence. i've done that with contract negotiations with northern attorneys. Others use it to distract from their...well...having less competence than they would like to have. Put simply, if the legal arguments get too complicated or don't go their way, that type will crank up the routine so as to appeal to their audience's folksy sensibilities. That effectively shifts the argument away from the letter of the law to the intent of the law, or what the law "should" be to "regular country folk." my impression is that the da falls into the latter category, especially since he is elected by a rural population.

None of this is legal advice or statements as to another attorney's competence or level of skill. All imo. Etc.

(bbm):nevermind: :stormingmad: Some of the most disgusting, underhanded, LYING behavior I've ever witnessed has been by 'professionals' in places where they were suppose to be trusted. If this thread is turning into a legal eagle thread I'm out of here.

 

[IBsleuthin]

Also? When someone is talking to you and you turn on the 'Aw shucks' routine, just because they don't acknowledge this vomitus behavior doesn't mean they have been sucked into it. They've just matured enough in their professional behavior to IGNORE IT. And move on.

 

[Lilgal]

The concern (from my standpoint) is that there was a stop made while towing the evidence (car). It doesn't matter if the tow truck stopped at the white house or the M&M convenience store. The fact that there was a stop made, period, allows for a defense attorney to argue to have the evidence (car) thrown out of court, due to the fact that it was not handled properly, therefore it could have been tainted in some way. If for some reason any evidence derived from the car was to make it into court, it could easily draw reasonable doubt from a judge or jury, as the defense could argue that anything could have been removed, planted, or altered.

What a benefit for the perps. Hmm....was the stop on purpose, perhaps?

 

[Joan Friday]

(bbm):nevermind: :stormingmad: Some of the most disgusting, underhanded, LYING behavior I've ever witnessed has been by 'professionals' in places where they were suppose to be trusted. If this thread is turning into a legal eagle thread I'm out of here.

You think attorneys are supposed to be trust worthy? My last word on subject. Promise.

 

[tlcya]

MOO it is going to be awfully hard to avoid discussing attorneys, legal tactics and strategies once someone is in custody and charged for this crime and leading up to and during trial.

 

[ZOOL]

Again, at your own leisure, look at the videos and/or screen grabs of gas jug guy, posted up thread. He doesn't look like BB to me. The guy in the video looks shorter, stockier, different hair, but of course that could all just be my poor eye sight . In the end, there were many eyes around Jessica Chambers at the station that night, probably where ever she went next too, during the following hour or so. In addition to sec cam footage, phone info, it seems impossible that more people didn't see things that would be good leads. Maybe these good folks just haven't put two and two together. A more detailed timeline from LE as to where Jessica Chambers may have gone may also inspire more specific leads. Ground truthing any information always pays off.

It seems to me, from the start of this investigation, when the fire chief and the other first responders, got Jessica help, secured the crime scene, and then LE documented it and left, they may have been cognizant, at the time; of whatever they thought they had learned from Jessica, herself, about whomever did it; that the person/s could be watching them gather evidence, to some extent, until daylight; and, that what the talk of the town would be as soon as the tow truck and as well as the deputies went by AAs that same night. However it may seem to us in terms of competence, I'm not sure you can assume anything was lost by the way things went.

FindHG, I think you are asking whether or not I still feel that StripedSweater is just one fellow?

I have seen confirmation of something I have suspected for a long time. That is, someone else out there on the internet -- with close eyes upon the white station wagon -- has recognized that there is movement within the windshield, movement of a possible POI who also may be wearing a striped sweater. If this is the case, then your eyesight is hardly poor.

I will try to explain: There are a great number of videos available. The ones which I have previously linked have been located at MyFoxMemphis and Youtube (IIRC). Somewhere as soon as Jessica arrives, the windshield of the white car in those videos has suggested either movement, or mere light-reflection of passing headlights, or some other distortion.

That distortion became much clear to me last night. That movement (at the front passenger seat) was briefly -- very briefly -- clearer, and it was obvious to me that there was someone in that seat.

I need to study the video more and more until I can raise the probability higher than a mere 60/50.

Unfortunately linking to that new video would be unacceptable WS material...but it is there -- along with a good analysis -- at ....

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

Ok....forgive me if I'm wrong about this but I watched the gas station video once at the beginning of this case & there were 2 things that bothered me.
First, when JC gets called over by a "friend" (allegedly Sandy R*dd).... Her body language is very telling. She puts her head down while walking towards the "friend" & I think is not necessarily happy about seeing this person but feels she must respond out of doing what is expected or out of being sociable. This is not a happy, or truly welcomed hello, iykwim? It was something she was supposed to do in a sense.
Second, I thought that one of the 3 men inside the gas station watching JC leaves right after her & gets in his car close by the door and he is ** on his cellphone** which means he could be calling to alert someone that she is there & which way she was heading. Can someone here review & verify this? And if so, who is this man & has he been questioned? It appears to me that 1 of the 3 men inside the gas station seemed observant of JC while she was at the register.

All moo

 

[MizStery]

:deadhorse:

I have worked in a company integrating systems. It is a large private company but development & test adheres to strict MilSpecs i.e.military standard. Perhaps that is why I am so worried about the chain of custody issue. I would be fired in a heartbeat if I deviated or ignored any procedure(protocol) Perhaps, that is why I am so detail oriented.:smile:

As I said in an earlier post-the tow truck leaving the crime scene and willynilly stoping at the M&M will likely resurface at trial. If the tow truck driver gets up on the stand-I guarantee you it will be a gift to the defense & the innuendo of tainted evidence potentially could 'poison the well'.

This is my opinion only.

 

[ZOOL]

This made me take a closer look.... Her mugshot does make her look more washed out, for sure. I was unable to find her arrest record where her ethnicity would be listed. Point taken. I'm still not thinking she's his aunt... Maybe just referred to her, as she said, 'auntie sha sha'... I'm not sure!

There's a great deal of discussion on details such as "Auntie Sha-sha" throughout Threads 1, 2, 3, 4.... These are highly recommended reading.

Charlotte Wilkerson refers to herself as "Auntie Sha-sha" in her interview with Janice Broach of Action5 News.

I am paraphrasing now: She says that Jessica and she were "close friends", and that Jessica called her "Auntie Sha-sha", and that she was listed in Jessica's cellphone directory as "Sha-sha".

There is absolutely no familial relationship.

 

[IBsleuthin]

LOL I see the exact opposite.
I don't think LE has a clue who murdered Jessica.

LE might be clueless but the silent minions are not. In my small town if some guy shaves off his mustache everyone knows about it by sundown.

 

[IBsleuthin]

it could have been an off duty cop or other employee driving their own vehicle. At this point, we don't know if that person even stopped or kept driving.

What's your point? It could have been anyone so why are you quoting my post? I don't understand.

 

[ZOOL]

Ok....forgive me if I'm wrong about this but I watched the gas station video once at the beginning of this case & there were 2 things that bothered me.
First, when JC gets called over by a "friend" (allegedly Sandy R*dd).... Her body language is very telling. She puts her head down while walking towards the "friend" & I think is not necessarily happy about seeing this person but feels she must respond out of doing what is expected or out of being sociable. This is not a happy, or truly welcomed hello, iykwim? It was something she was supposed to do in a sense.
Second, I thought that one of the 3 men inside the gas station watching JC leaves right after her & gets in his car close by the door and he is ** on his cellphone** which means he could be calling to alert someone that she is there & which way she was heading. Can someone here review & verify this? And if so, who is this man & has he been questioned? It appears to me that 1 of the 3 men inside the gas station seemed observant of JC while she was at the register.

All moo

How can you tell that he is "on his cellphone"? Do you have a link for that? If you find the link, please make a screen shot of the man "on the cellphone" before you link anyone there. There reason being: If this is in fact something which is clearly visible on some video somewhere, then there is a very high probability that that video will disappear as soon as this "cellphone issue" becomes common, public, social media information. The screen capture will be useful documentation. At the moment, there is a strong belief that the video-section of the stationwagon's windshield (which I saw last night) has been deliberately distorted.

 

[IBsleuthin]

There's a great deal of discussion on details such as "Auntie Sha-sha" throughout Threads 1, 2, 3, 4.... It is highly recommended reading.

Charlotte Wilkerson refers to herself as "Auntie Sha-sha" in her interview with Janice Broach of Action5 News.

I am paraphrasing now: She says that Jessica and she were "close friends", and that Jessica called her "Auntie Sha-sha", and that she was listed in Jessica's cellphone directory as "Sha-sha".

There is absolutely no familial relationship.

Well, on this subject I will just say that many times people will use affectionate relationship terms when there is no blood relation. I have many people call me, "Mom".

The video of her is very interesting, if you just listen to her tone without watching her face. You will hear that when she says, (paraphrasing here...) "She called me Auntie Sha Sha..." that her voice lowers to an affectionate tone.
I haven't figured out yet if that is out of true affection or if that is a way to get the listener to believe that they had a closer relationship than they really did.


Today, I was finally able to find this other video of Charlotte W. in a different interview.

Go to the 1:27 mark and watch her very closely as she says, (referring to Jessica), "There was a party going on and she was there..When THEY left,...when SHE LEFT the party, that's when it happened to her."

You watch her eyes when she says, "When they left", and at that instant she corrects herself and looks immediately off to her right.

When she is saying, "There was a party going on and she was there." she is very factual and intentional in her voice and actions. I believe there was a party going on and I believe Jessica was there.

The sad part again for me in watching this is Charlotte is just such a pretty young woman and seems to be very intelligent. She likely just never had much opportunities in this world.

 

[Gerontion]

In relation to exhibit-A (Jessica's car), it is very hard to reconcile the known fact that it sat on a flatbed outside of a local gas station enroute from the crime scene to the "lab", with the following statement:

DA John Champion: "We absolutely 100% know how the damage got there. It has got absolutely nothing to do with the case...after the car was processed by the lab...there was an attempt to get into the trunk to do the inventory of the trunk. We were unable to do it and the damage to the vehicle occurred while we were trying to get into the trunk."

The next pictures we see of exhibit-A show it then in daylight sitting on its bare rims on bare ground with persons unknown milling about. Hopefully it didn't sit outside there all night, but had just then been processed, cleared and released from the "lab".

I know I shouldn't nit-pick the above italicized statement. The DA may very well know that "something" came out of that car before that vehicle was removed from the scene. "Something" that was processed by a lab, and "something" that is all the evidence he needs. At least I hope so. JMO

 

[katydid23]

I've seen some post's about the car being towed too soon and the tow driver stopping at the convenience store. I doubt that towing the car destroyed any evidence that was left after the fire.

Is the concern about the stop at the store about planting evidence on/in the car or something else? If someone planted evidence how would they know the driver would stop there? JMO.

Maybe someone took evidence away from the towed car at the gas station. I don't believe they did necessarily, but just seems odd that the evidence in a murder case is taken to a public place before being dropped off for testing. As for who would know it was stopping there-- maybe the person that called the driver and asked him to?

 

[MyBelle]

BBM

That statement is preposterous in and of itself.

I don't claim to be an expert but, in order to conduct a proper fire investigation (back me up here @Foxfire), LE should have left the car in place until they were able to determine the origin of the fire. How can they possibly say that they figured that out in less than an hour, without taking trace evidence, photographing the scene, and collecting ILR (ignitable liquid residue) samples – all in the dark? :thinking:

Or maybe LE broke our the gas chromatography–mass spectrometer that was in their trunk. I dunno?

Considering the volume of news articles, ALL of which have quoted both LE and family as saying Jessica was doused with a flammable substance, I believe they know the origin of the fire was Jessica. The car, imo, was not handled improperly or incompetently by LE. Whether the car was moved within two hours or ten hours, it is going to be admissible as evidence.

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

jamiefind, Excellent points!

I am still confident in my position though. Since there has been no confirmation that gasoline was the accelerant, IMO a circuit court judge would have looked up from the affidavit for the search and said, "The video stays in...but bring me evidence that gasoline was used in the crime, and I'll give you your warrant."

Since the Panola County Sheriff's Department has a 28-year, Memphis fire investigator on its staff, it would be my opinion that the department knew what the accelerant was within 48 hours of the crime. By Dec 9-10, I would guess that if they had had confirmation that gasoline was used, then an affidavit for a search of the GasMan's shirt would have been granted.

Yet by this date (Dec 31), finding GasMan's shirt could prove fruitless, and I should point out that he has been "cleared" for the moment.

Thus my confidence is based upon the need for proof that gasoline was used.

Then probable cause would seem much stronger.

I agree with you and I doubt gasoline was used. The family has said Jessica ingested lighter fluid. If that's the case, I think the ME would be able to take tissue samples at autopsy and send them to a lab for analysis. I do believe it was some kind of lighter fluid used for cigarette lighters or the type used to ignite charcoal. Something that comes in a smaller can than gasoline that is squirted rather than poured.

I think they will issue subpoenas to every store in the area that sells those products such as the Batesville Walmart.

JMO