Found Deceased MT - Rita Maze, 47, Wolf Creek, 6 Sept 2016 #1

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
6'5" came from a family member. Rita did not say it. She said 'large like her brother' or something like that.

I doubt she knew this Bigman fellow, plus he JUST abducted the woman in Billings and is still at large. This after Rita had already died. I think his name is coincidental. However, he's been out abducting women in the area so he should be looked into for Rita's case once they catch him.
But, DB has a criminal history. In other places, if it's the same man, his surname is one name rather than 2 as appears in the GF Tribune. He has a history of violence particularly toward women and looks like he could be a meth user. Here is an article from 2009 where he assaulted 3 women, hitting 2 of them on the head:

http://billingsgazette.com/news/loc...cle_26e4a224-ea77-11de-985b-001cc4c03286.html

http://billingsgazette.com/news/loc...cle_2a375c6c-82f9-11df-a520-001cc4c002e0.html


2015 jail escape:

http://www.bighorncountynews.com/news/escaped-violent-offender-captured-after-two-day-pursuit


ETA: If DB is an infamous criminal in the region, it wouldn't be much of a grasp to believe Rita would recognize him. MOO
 
I thought the comment about was their urine etc in the trunk would clear this up.

But surely any urine in the bladder would leak from the body almost as soon as she was dead. Unless they are referring to the quantity of urine, ie whether there was enough to suggest she had been in the boot for 12 hours or so.
 
But surely any urine in the bladder would leak from the body almost as soon as she was dead. Unless they are referring to the quantity of urine, ie whether there was enough to suggest she had been in the boot for 12 hours or so.

Good point - it struck me like if in the trunk, for 12 hours, their would be more than one occurance.

So if the only "items" found were from death then that would have to mean she was not held hostage in the trunk for 12 hours.

No mention of a head wound, IMO only, really kinda tells us a lot....................
 
Good point - it struck me like if in the trunk, for 12 hours, their would be more than one occurance.

So if the only "items" found were from death then that would have to mean she was not held hostage in the trunk for 12 hours.

No mention of a head wound, IMO only, really kinda tells us a lot....................
I could hold my urine for 12 hours if I had to. Especially if I had only one drink in the morning, and nothing throughout the remainder of the day. I've had more than a few work days that this has been the case.

Where is it stated she didn't have a head wound?
 
Has any official confirmed any head injury??

Something akin to: The ME did find contusions on her skull that do indicate she suffered from blunt force trauma correbrating her cell phone report.

That is not comprising a investigation I dont think?

I am asking - could not find it in me to go back and read 1200 posts!!!

Same with the financial angle - what was that about? TIA

As much as they've told us it seems like adding "an apparent head wound" wouldn't be a big deal. Even though there's a lot we don't know they have given us what seems like everything they've learned. But still no mention of a head wound.
 
Right. I think we are all on the same page. The lack of mention of a head wound doesn't mean there wasn't one. It doesn't mean there was one. We don't have a full autopsy report. IMO, the ME only released what he had to put on the death certificate in order to release her body to the family for the funeral. To us, it seems like no big deal if the ME had mentioned a head wound but the ME is looking at the case objectively (or should be). He didn't need to mention a head wound to the public/on the death certificate if it didn't cause her death just as he wouldn't need to mention other things he observed--were her nails broken or were there scratches or bruises on her body anywhere, for example? Those things will be mentioned in a full report but since they didn't cause her death, the ME may not have felt the need to release it one way or the other. The ME simply gave the cause of death and nothing else. :moo:
 
I could hold my urine for 12 hours if I had to. Especially if I had only one drink in the morning, and nothing throughout the remainder of the day. I've had more than a few work days that this has been the case.

It's not really about whether she could hold the urine for 12 hours. It's about the quantity (and concentration) of the urine that would leak from her body once the muscles relaxed in death.

If she had been in the boot for 12 hours there would probably be a fair amount of urine whether it was released periodically during a lengthy incarceration in the boot or "held" and then released at death. On the other hand, if there was very little or diluted urine in the vehicle it might indicate that she had stopped once or more times during the day to empty her bladder and/or have a drink.

Alternatively, if there was only a small quantity of concentrated urine, it might suggest that she had been in the boot for 12 hours but not had access to a drink during that time.

The forensics people would be able to establish the quantity and concentration of the urine found.

Of course it might well be possible to hold urine for many hours, but that may not be the case if you're in fear of your life.

(Sorry if this was rather graphic)
 
But surely any urine in the bladder would leak from the body almost as soon as she was dead. Unless they are referring to the quantity of urine, ie whether there was enough to suggest she had been in the boot for 12 hours or so.

Stomach contents would be more helpful in this situation. If they find undigested food, that would most likely point to the fact that she had been eating at some point that day. As far as I know, she never told anyone that the kidnapper fed her, so it's assumed she was riding around all that time in the trunk without food. If they find evidence of recent food consumption, I think that makes a kidnapping a lot less likely.

I do agree that urine amount could be significant. If there was only a little, it MIGHT seem to suggest that she was out of the trunk and regularly using the bathroom. However, if she was in the trunk all day and not drinking, then the volume might not be large anyways. I would think instead that perhaps the concentration/color of the urine in the bladder would be more useful. I.E., is the urine dark, like she was on the verge of dehydration and had nothing to drink all day? Or was it a regular color? I'm not doctor, but, I think that some urine would remain in the bladder even after death. Traces anyways, and perhaps enough to check color and concentration?
 
I'm not doctor, but, I think that some urine would remain in the bladder even after death. Traces anyways, and perhaps enough to check color and concentration?

I suspect they would be able to swab enough for their purposes from the boot of the car.

I take your point about the stomach contents. It really would be useful to know approximately when she last ate. In theory that should have been breakfast or no later than mid-morning.
 
If you were the perpetrator in this instance, and you had decided for your own crazy reasons to kill Rita, would a shot to the stomach be the way you would do it? Maybe a shot to the torso would be first, but then wouldn't you also verify with a shot to some place more decisively terminal? Seems a bit sloppy to 1/2 finish a job...
 
If you were the perpetrator in this instance, and you had decided for your own crazy reasons to kill Rita, would a shot to the stomach be the way you would do it? Maybe a shot to the torso would be first, but then wouldn't you also verify with a shot to some place more decisively terminal? Seems a bit sloppy to 1/2 finish a job...

Especially from close range and with her trapped in the trunk.
 
If you were the perpetrator in this instance, and you had decided for your own crazy reasons to kill Rita, would a shot to the stomach be the way you would do it? Maybe a shot to the torso would be first, but then wouldn't you also verify with a shot to some place more decisively terminal? Seems a bit sloppy to 1/2 finish a job...

I've heard all sorts of unconfirmed claims with regards to the gunshot wound, including that it was a shot to the heart which either deflected or traveled around due to the angle of the shot entering her body and affected the stomach as well. I've never seen any confirmation that she was shot directly in the stomach.

If it was in fact a shot to the stomach, I don't think that would discount either murder or suicide. There are still vital organs in that area. And, if it was a murderer, I can see him taking whatever shot he could get based on the fact that she would likely be trying to fight back or trying to curl into a ball out of fear.

For the sake of argument -- and even though I am leaning towards suicide -- let's say the killer opens the trunk and aims the gun at Rita. She grabs the gun and the first shot goes off, missing her completely. The second shot hits the chest, stomach or whatever. It may not be ideal placement, but at that point, 2 gunshots have gone off and the police are on the phone. Gunshots will attract attention in the area, and the police are already on the way. So, at that point, toss the gun in the trunk, slam it shut and take off. No time to waste putting more bullets in her to insure a fatality. Odds are she will die before the police get there anyways, which she did. Or, if it's a stranger, she probably won't be able to give a good description because, allegedly, she didn't get a good look since he bashed her over the head and she spent the whole day in the trunk, until he opened it after dark and shot her. Even if she survived, I don't think there'd be a great chance that she could ID him.

Of course, while the first shot could have come from a struggle with an assailant and a misfired bullet, I think it could also come from someone staging a suicide. It would make sense that if you want to appear to have been murdered, that 2 bullets found in the trunk would make most people think it was a murder instead. Most people who commit suicide only take one shot. Two bullets fired would muddy the waters. So it's possible that she purposely fired the gun at something else before shooting herself. Or maybe she was nervous and shaky hands made her shot off the mark. For the second shot, she could have then placed the gun directly against her chest to assure the second bullet would find its mark.

ETA: Keep in mind, too, that this could have been a staged kidnapping and that suicide was never meant to be carried out. If you were looking to start up a go fund me account to raise money for financial troubles, a dream wedding, etc., a case where a woman was abducted and shot but saved by the police could most certainly generate a lot of donations for her recovery. She may have never intended to actually kill herself, but wound herself enough for donations to start pouring in. Unfortunately in this day and age, plenty of people have run scams to collect donations, up to and including things like faking cancer. So it's possible that if she did shoot herself she believed the wound to be of a non-fatal variety and that the police would show up in time to save her.
 
I've heard all sorts of unconfirmed claims with regards to the gunshot wound, including that it was a shot to the heart which either deflected or traveled around due to the angle of the shot entering her body and affected the stomach as well. I've never seen any confirmation that she was shot directly in the stomach.

If it was in fact a shot to the stomach, I don't think that would discount either murder or suicide. There are still vital organs in that area. And, if it was a murderer, I can see him taking whatever shot he could get based on the fact that she would likely be trying to fight back or trying to curl into a ball out of fear.

For the sake of argument -- and even though I am leaning towards suicide -- let's say the killer opens the trunk and aims the gun at Rita. She grabs the gun and the first shot goes off, missing her completely. The second shot hits the chest, stomach or whatever. It may not be ideal placement, but at that point, 2 gunshots have gone off and the police are on the phone. Gunshots will attract attention in the area, and the police are already on the way. So, at that point, toss the gun in the trunk, slam it shut and take off. No time to waste putting more bullets in her to insure a fatality. Odds are she will die before the police get there anyways, which she did. Or, if it's a stranger, she probably won't be able to give a good description because, allegedly, she didn't get a good look since he bashed her over the head and she spent the whole day in the trunk, until he opened it after dark and shot her. Even if she survived, I don't think there'd be a great chance that she could ID him.

Of course, while the first shot could have come from a struggle with an assailant and a misfired bullet, I think it could also come from someone staging a suicide. It would make sense that if you want to appear to have been murdered, that 2 bullets found in the trunk would make most people think it was a murder instead. Most people who commit suicide only take one shot. Two bullets fired would muddy the waters. So it's possible that she purposely fired the gun at something else before shooting herself. Or maybe she was nervous and shaky hands made her shot off the mark. For the second shot, she could have then placed the gun directly against her chest to assure the second bullet would find its mark.

ETA: Keep in mind, too, that this could have been a staged kidnapping and that suicide was never meant to be carried out. If you were looking to start up a go fund me account to raise money for financial troubles, a dream wedding, etc., a case where a woman was abducted and shot but saved by the police could most certainly generate a lot of donations for her recovery. She may have never intended to actually kill herself, but wound herself enough for donations to start pouring in. Unfortunately in this day and age, plenty of people have run scams to collect donations, up to and including things like faking cancer. So it's possible that if she did shoot herself she believed the wound to be of a non-fatal variety and that the police would show up in time to save her.

I have been wondering about the staged abduction theory too. I wish I knew more about her life to know if she was capable of that kind of thinking/planning.
 
Nowhere has it been stated that Rita was shot in the stomach. In fact, the reports specifically state she was shot in the chest through her heart and down to the abdomen.

The abdomen is a large area of the torso that spans from the chest area to the hips, and also includes the stomach. Do not assume the bullet went that far down. I think their point was that the shot that took Rita's life was a single shot, and it went in a downward direction. Just below the heart area is the beginning of the abdomen region.
attachment.php


So so let's talk about that. Imagine you are shooting yourself in the heart. You are in the fetal position. I will assume laying on your side, but could also be in your back I guess. Anyway, make a faux gun and pretend you'll aim so the trajectory goes from your heart towards your stomach. Where is your elbow? What is the angle of your arm? You're inside a trunk of a car. How big is the trunk... How deep, how wide, how far in does it go? How much moving around room do you have to angle your arm like that AND take multiple loud, deafening shots. Is your face facing the front of the car, or the back?

Multiple shots were heard through the phone by police officers. Where did the other bullets go if they didn't penetrate Rita? They never indicated how many shots they heard or how far apart they occurred. What if they heard more than 2 shots? Where are those casings? Maybe someone picked them up and threw them into the trunk, maybe the shots came from inside the trunk, as has been speculated.

Bullet casings were found next to each arm. Those suckers had to have shot out of the top of the gun then landed there after bouncing off the inside of the trunk door. If she was on her side, one arm was not even on the floor of the trunk. If she was on her back, she was tucked since they said she was in the fetal position.

There's a lot we don't know about this case, especially the state of Rita's body. While I suppose it's possible that she committed suicide, there are so many reasons why I don't think she did.
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    122.7 KB · Views: 220
snipped by me...
ETA: Keep in mind, too, that this could have been a staged kidnapping and that suicide was never meant to be carried out. If you were looking to start up a go fund me account to raise money for financial troubles, a dream wedding, etc., a case where a woman was abducted and shot but saved by the police could most certainly generate a lot of donations for her recovery. She may have never intended to actually kill herself, but wound herself enough for donations to start pouring in. Unfortunately in this day and age, plenty of people have run scams to collect donations, up to and including things like faking cancer. So it's possible that if she did shoot herself she believed the wound to be of a non-fatal variety and that the police would show up in time to save her.
This line of thought has occurred to me also. I thought maybe the wound was supposed to be non fatal. She was on the phone with the police when shots were fired...and apparently the police were at that point tracking the call location...perhaps the plan was to give herself a non-leathal shot, the police and medics would arrive, "courageous woman saved by good cops", win-win, but please help us recover from this incident ($)
The problem was, that when LE arrived at the car, apparently soon after the shots were fired, they waited for what seemed a very, long time before accessing the trunk and it is possible that Rita actually passed during that wait. There have been reports that police were waiting for the dogs to arrive, other reports detail warrants for probable cause as a source of the delays. I wonder what sort of dogs were being waited on? If it was tracking dogs, I think they are often able to trace scents even after LE have been through a scene, so I wonder if they were actually waiting on sniffer dogs to detect if the trunk was not rigged with explosives etc. Perhaps LE had become skeptical about the narrative and thought they were being sold a line. I think with the events of the last year, police have to be super-careful to check that they are not walking in to traps/ambushes.
 
This line of thought has occurred to me also. I thought maybe the wound was supposed to be non fatal. She was on the phone with the police when shots were fired...and apparently the police were at that point tracking the call location...perhaps the plan was to give herself a non-leathal shot, the police and medics would arrive, "courageous woman saved by good cops", win-win, but please help us recover from this incident ($)
The problem was, that when LE arrived at the car, apparently soon after the shots were fired, they waited for what seemed a very, long time before accessing the trunk and it is possible that Rita actually passed during that wait. There have been reports that police were waiting for the dogs to arrive, other reports detail warrants for probable cause as a source of the delays. I wonder what sort of dogs were being waited on? If it was tracking dogs, I think they are often able to trace scents even after LE have been through a scene, so I wonder if they were waiting on sniffer dogs to detect if the trunk was not rigged with explosives etc. I think with the events of the last year, police have to be super-careful to check that they are not walking in to traps/ambushes.

I'm just curious, how do you think a person could accidentally shot themselves in the chest/stomach while trying to inflect a non fatal wound? If she wanted to go for a non fatal wound she could have shot her leg or arm and claimed the guy ran off after she struggled with him for the gun. Shooting yourself anywhere center mass and hoping the police get there in time seems pretty risky. She owned a gun and had enough ammo to indicate she may be a regular practice shooter at a gun range. IMO, Rita would know you only shoot center mass to kill.
 
This line of thought has occurred to me also. I thought maybe the wound was supposed to be non fatal. She was on the phone with the police when shots were fired...and apparently the police were at that point tracking the call location...perhaps the plan was to give herself a non-leathal shot, the police and medics would arrive, "courageous woman saved by good cops", win-win, but please help us recover from this incident ($)
The problem was, that when LE arrived at the car, apparently soon after the shots were fired, they waited for what seemed a very, long time before accessing the trunk and it is possible that Rita actually passed during that wait. There have been reports that police were waiting for the dogs to arrive, other reports detail warrants for probable cause as a source of the delays. I wonder what sort of dogs were being waited on? If it was tracking dogs, I think they are often able to trace scents even after LE have been through a scene, so I wonder if they were actually waiting on sniffer dogs to detect if the trunk was not rigged with explosives etc. Perhaps LE had become skeptical about the narrative and thought they were being sold a line. I think with the events of the last year, police have to be super-careful to check that they are not walking in to traps/ambushes.

Another problem with this line of thinking (IMO) about the go-fund me plan is that the part about money for the daughters wedding was not added until after the amount they hoped to raise had already exceeded the stated goal. They had a set goal to cover funeral expenses and, from my understanding of Go-fund me, the funds cannot be used for anything else unless it is stated in the Go-fund me description. So they made it more broad and threw in the part about the "dream wedding". I really don't see this as evidence the family had some money-grabbing plot--they got over and above what they asked for and the daughter wanted to use it for her wedding--the relative probably should have worded it differently like saying "Rita's Daughter would like to use the extra to honor her mother at her wedding, since her mother won't be able to be there..." Then anything she wanted to do--"Oh mom would have loved for me to have that more expensive dress but I already had the bargain dress bought" she could easily claim it was for her mother and her memory. But they are not social media savvy, IMO, and I don't think anyone thought how it would look when they changed the purpose of the extra go-fund me money.
 
If you do a google search on 'suicide shot to the chest' you will find that "most" times the person committing suicide would move away clothing from the area they are choosing to shoot themselves at. Also, torso is the least likely, but not unlikely. Gruesome and graphic and nightmare inducing, so don't go reading that stuff unless you have the stomach for it.
 
I totally agree.
Right! How horrible for that man. And isn't the only legitimate factor pointing towards homicide him using her cards? After that being debunked, what else? 2 shells in the trunk could easily be explained as a practice shot.
 
So, I guess there's no way Rita could have peed in the trunk as part of her ruse, or the kidnapper could have let her out to pee?

I mean, come no. Absence or presence of urine means nothing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
76
Guests online
3,331
Total visitors
3,407

Forum statistics

Threads
604,346
Messages
18,170,955
Members
232,420
Latest member
Txwoman
Back
Top