OK OK - Jamison Family; Truck, IDs and Dog Found Abandoned, 8 Oct 2009 - #11

[J. J. in Phila]

I think I read they believe the remains are theirs because of the close proximity to the truck. I brought up my theory that they are in the WPP to get some feedback. I have gotten some decent arguments against but nothing that has made me rethink my theory-yet that is.

I give the major reason why I do not suspect WSP. We are talking about the case.

No LE agency would want photos/descriptions of the Jamison's spread out over the Internet. In the 2010's, this is what happens when there is a missing person. Any LE agency has to realize this.

 

[Mitch1]

I give the major reason why I do not suspect WSP. We are talking about the case.

No LE agency would want photos/descriptions of the Jamison's spread out over the Internet. In the 2010's, this is what happens when there is a missing person. Any LE agency has to realize this.

Unless they really wanted to sell it for some reason

 

[mck16]

No problem- My theory is that they are alive and well in a WPP

That would be a wonderful outcome if it were true, but then you have to deal with the remains that were found. I guess that could be an elaborate hoax and there are no remains. I am not sure I can believe that. It will be interesting to hear the DNA report, if we are to believe that. Now I am really dazed and confused. jmo

 

[nevereverever]

Unless they really wanted to sell it for some reason

This makes no sense. WitSec doesn't want people looking for them. They don't want their faces plastered all over the internet. It is completely counterproductive to bring someone into WitSec by faking their disappearance. They don't do it that way.

 

[Mitch1]

That would be a wonderful outcome if it were true, but then you have to deal with the remains that were found. I guess that could be an elaborate hoax and there are no remains. I am not sure I can believe that. It will be interesting to hear the DNA report, if we are to believe that. Now I am really dazed and confused. jmo

I could not agree more!

 

[Mitch1]

This makes no sense. WitSec doesn't want people looking for them. They don't want their faces plastered all over the internet. It is completely counterproductive to bring someone into WitSec by faking their disappearance. They don't do it that way.

Or it could be serving a 2 fold purpose. To have there whereabouts unknown and if the person or persons they are to testify against thinks they truly disappeared who knows what those person or persons might start slipping up and saying.

If you are the criminal and your defense attorney says hey that invaluable person who was going to testify against you has disappeared and there is no account of it anywhere given today's tech you would be real skeptical!

 

[Dallen]

If I understand how a WPP works, it would make no sense to have this family communicating with locals, church members and landowners for 2 days about buying a piece of land, only to have them "disappear" in to their new life. The govt doesn't create scenarios to bring about attention and then have them vanish, leaving behind a trace to question homicide. Especially when involving a child.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Unless they really wanted to sell it for some reason

The risk is too great. There are too many people putting their photos/descriptions out there.

 

[Dallen]

They were seen on the 8th and told land owner they would return next day (the 9th). Is everyone supposing they went ahead and went to the land that day and disappeared? Or did they disappear on the 9th going back to the property like they said. If they did, why was the land owner the last to see them? Where did they stay?

I'm not clear on this either. Thanks for asking.

 

[Soulmagent]

BBM

Ah, then perhaps you also did not know that Madyson was the sole heir of her grandfather's estate? The grandfather who was in a nursing home when the Jamisons vanished and who died a few months later?

Which was rumored to be worth 850,000.

 

[Mitch1]

If I understand how a WPP works, it would make no sense to have this family communicating with locals, church members and landowners for 2 days about buying a piece of land, only to have them "disappear" in to their new life. The govt doesn't create scenarios to bring about attention and then have them vanish, leaving behind a trace to question homicide. Especially when involving a child.

I have to say I COMPLETELY disagree with that. Some would say they would be more brazen and assassinate someone in front of a crowd, but thats getting off topic

 

[Mitch1]

The risk is too great. There are too many people putting their photos/descriptions out there.

Im sure they look sufficiently different now-especially the kid. Even if they don't they don't have their ID tied to that same name.

 

[TooCurious]

"Then-Latimer County Sheriff Israel Beauchamp told The Associated Press in 2009 that a landowner in the Red Oak area last saw the family on Oct. 8." From FoxNews

So they saw him on the 8th and they told him they were coming back the next day.... Why wouldn't we assume they did not come back on the ninth? That would explain the tracks in the mud after the rain storm of the 8/9th. Am I missing something?

I'm not clear on this either. Thanks for asking.

Sorry I can't get either of us an answer!

 

[missingnotforgotten]

Sorry I can't get either of us an answer!

I would like to know this too. I thought the first day they asked the neighbor directions then came back the second day (per the disappeared show). But some of the posts here make it sound like they also talked to the neighbor on the second day. Do you know what date was the security footage from the home? That was supposedly their last day (second trip to the land) if I understand the disappeared show correctly.

 

[OkieGranny]

MTrooper, you seem to be close to this case. Could you help me figure out time frame please? If the last sighting was on the 8th, and this is the guy that gave them directions and that they told they would return the next day, does LE assume that they came back on the ninth and dissapeared or that they disappeared on the 8th?

Early news report do say the 9th, but photos of a couple of LE reports here say the 8th:

http://okmpjamisons.weebly.com/photos.html

Cell phone activity stops on the 8th:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9998873&postcount=390

 

[Soulmagent]

Early news report do say the 9th, but photos of a couple of LE reports here say the 8th:

http://okmpjamisons.weebly.com/photos.html

Cell phone activity stops on the 8th:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9998873&postcount=390

The security cam from their home has them leaving on the 8th and not returning.

 

[OkieGranny]

Oriah raises some interesting points about the chain of evidence, if it turns out that there is a crime to be solved here:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=127069&page=10

Quote:
Originally Posted by gritten2007

The pics from the inside of the truck...specifically the one showing the arch. digest mags.....is this how the truck was found or was this after things had been moved around to take pics of evidence? Reason: if that's how the truck was found that was one uncomfortable ride for the driver. Which would lead me to believe someone was digging for something....

I'm thinking it would be pretty hard to drive a vehicle that way... so probably after things had been moved around a tad.

(And further complicated by perhaps leaving the truck overnight without securing it?)

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=127069&page=19

I again wonder: HOW do we know about this particular missing .22...
because- who said so? Where was it 'not found?' Were there perhaps several other guns that were registered that were all typically kept in the same location, and this one was missing? Why is there an evidence photo from the SO's that shows a holster that would fit a .22 (automatic may I add...) that has something else in it?

Did they take the serial # when called about the report of 'she just stuck it in his ear'? If that's the case, why on earth would they return it?? Or perhaps, that wasn't accurate reporting and someone just chimed in AFTER the Jamisons went missing?

Why does the 'missing' .22 even matter in this case??

I mean, really- perhaps they just sold or gave it to someone else. Unless, you know- there's some evidence to the contrary.

MOO, but I don't like the diversion of the .22.

<same page>

Ok, another quick poll: based on some of the evidence photos from the SO.... how many people think items were staged for photo purposes? And how many people think a PD, SO, or federal LE agency should or would arrange items for evidence photos?

Is it only me, or does that kind of...defeat the purpose of evidence photos?

<same page>

Quote:
Originally Posted by C-Bar

First off I would think there should be two sets of pics. The first set should be taken the very first time when LE starts to sort through and examine the scene as they try and sort out just what has went down. The very first views of the scene should be recorded "As Is/WAS" !!
Then if LE needs to STAGE everything to get it all into perspective so be it.
In this case MY opinion is that local LE jumped into this truck like they were Dumpster Diving and had to lay everything out where pics could be taken. I can only imagine how they went about it!!! GRRRRRR!!!! MOO!!!

My opinion is that local LE were in fact dumpster diving, and knew exactly what hotdog wrapper at the bottom of which cooler they were looking for...

The question is....how did they know which dumpster, and which hotdog wrapper, and which cooler to begin with?

(Oh, and I also want to know what became of the prescription meds in the vehicle. Just for my own peace of mind.)

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=133142&page=16

In all seriousness- right up there next to the dog being in the truck for 10 days and handing it over to a random local on the mountain... I am seriously wondering how the OSBI can justify releasing everything in the truck including the truck itself to a person who has no ownership to it?!?

<same page>

Quote:
Originally Posted by JeannieC

I'm lost. Who got the truck and the cash? I thought that would remain as evidence until the case is solved. Who decided who got what?
One would think!

Starlet.
The OSBI.
Apparently the neighbor(s)/SO decided who to give the dog to temporarily- until the dog also went to Starlet.

Least- that's the best I can make of this most excellent chain of evidence.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=133142&page=17

Quote:
Originally Posted by redfish

Does anyone know what type of surveillance equip was at the house?

Oh- of course! We know that from a tv show!

We don't know it from seized evidence... cuz, like, the system is gone. :banghead:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=133142&page=19

My interest (and theory) stems from local, state, and federal government releasing evidence seized when a crime is thought to have been committed- if evidence was ever taken into custody to begin with.

Because, you see... there is no physical chain of evidence preserved in the Jamison's case.

None.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=133142&page=22

Your point about the cell calls is the same conclusion I came to.

(Course, it sure would've been nice if the phones hadn't been released from evidence, so that the stored data could be double checked. How helpful, huh? NOT.)

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=133142&page=23

Your curiosity will not like this then, curiosityscat... because I don't know there to be a blessed thing taken as evidence in the Jamison's case that has remained solely with LE.

Not the money, not the vehicle, not the phones, not the dog, not anything found inside the vehicle, not the case file, not the ICE report, not the ATF report, not the SAR reports, not the keys to the vehicle, not the chips, lol- nothing. Oh- well maybe the prescription bottles are hiding somewhere in a locker.

I think the best we've got is fingerprints.

 

[TooCurious]

OkieGranny, thanks for posting that.
So, the police report does say they saw the guy on the 8th. They could have gone missing on the 8th but I go back to the tracks in the mud. I think they went back on the ninth like they said they would and it was after the storm. There was very little rainfall until the 8/9th storm. So could they have stayed with someone local? Is that where the brown satchel/suit case went? Sorry to keep harping on the tracks but I think that time stamps them up there after the storm.

 

[Mitch1]

Oriah raises some interesting points about the chain of evidence, if it turns out that there is a crime to be solved here:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=127069&page=10



http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=127069&page=19



<same page>



<same page>



http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=133142&page=16



<same page>



http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=133142&page=17



http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=133142&page=19



http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=133142&page=22



http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=133142&page=23

WHAT????? No evidence collected, the vehicle released to just random person-what happened to impounding and combing through them, is this for real. Is this just rumor mill stuff??

 

[OkieGranny]

WHAT????? No evidence collected, the vehicle released to just random person-what happened to impounding and combing through them, is this for real. Is this just rumor mill stuff??

I took the time to go back and read through all the old threads and it makes a lot more sense in context, I promise. Try it!

ETA: It also makes a lot more sense if you're a native Oklahoman.