The Van

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

I'm not going to beat the horse but we have another family member who can't ask a simple question. Who drove the van she was in charge? Sheeeesh! 5 weeks after the fact and she is saying she doesn't know? What's wrong with these people? Her car is moved and damaged and she doesn't ask who moved the car and who put the scratch on it?

Lindsey calls her and asks, "please tell me it was you who damaged my van"...what does that imply?.... It implies to me she is scared to think who could have been driving it...

And why is Chelsea doing the interview instead of Lindsey who owns the vehicle? The car was returned 5 weeks later and Chelsea hasn't got an answer to who drove the car she borrowed...hinky!

.............and why is Chelsea crying when she tells her "It wasn't me"?.....please..the drama of these people is off the wall!
 
I agree whisperer. I just can't understand how this van would have been a non-issue, since Misty herself stated that her blankets were in the van. Let's hope there is some devil in the details of the van that we are not privy to.

1. Does LE know who was driving the van that night and when or why it was moved?
2. Did they swab for DNA?
3. gouge in the side of the van that neither of the usual drivers can account for?

Not for nothing but I have watched enough of forensic files to know that there are ways to go about testing the scratch, my thing is.....was it done? My husband tells me not to believe everything I see on tv, but, is it too much to hope that it's possible...
 
I would like to know who really owns the van. We have been told it is Lindsey's van who lives on Tyler near Misty and rc. We have Chelsea driving it last (she says) and parked in Crescent City.

Then the van is seized and taken to FDLE and returned to Satsuma (where the reporter is) and Chelsea is out there doing the interview as if the van belongs to her and she doesn't even live in Satsuma.

Why wasn't the owner(Lindsey) of the van questioned for the interview? Why have somebody who doesn't even own it talking and explaining about what LE has done to it?

But most of all why wouldn't any of these people know who has keys to the van and simply ASK them if they took it during the night? Strange that once again Chelsea and Misty have chosen the same side and implied JO is the one.

Keep in mind this interview was a month later. You think the family would have figured out who had the van and not just be suspicious. If JO drove the van that night, he would be in Putnam County with a cot and some not so understanding LE talking with him.

.....another family member who just REALLY doesn't want to know the answer..
 
After Lindsy sees damage to the van, she calls Chelsa and says, "Please tell me it was you who damaged the car". Chelsea cries and tells her it wasn't her.

1. Wouldn't there be a follow up question after that?
2. Her phrasing lead a reasonable person to assume she is scared and wants to comfort herself that only Chelsea drove the car.
3. Since Chelsea denies damage and is crying about it...they both have likley figured out who really had the car.
4. Since these two have keys for sure. Was there an extra set? did Misty also have a set since she usually had the car during the week to pick up her brothers' kids....possible.
5. I don't understand why the car was in CC anyway when it is used in Satsuma for transporting children.

.....was it taken there to hide it for the night?
.....Had it been in Satsuma all day?
.....Did M have keys?
 
Whisperer said:
I would like to know who really owns the van. We have been told it is Lindsey's van who lives on Tyler near Misty and rc. We have Chelsea driving it last (she says) and parked in Crescent City.

Then the van is seized and taken to FDLE and returned to Satsuma (where the reporter is) and Chelsea is out there doing the interview as if the van belongs to her and she doesn't even live in Satsuma.

Why wasn't the owner(Lindsey) of the van questioned for the interview? Why have somebody who doesn't even own it talking and explaining about what LE has done to it?

But most of all why wouldn't any of these people know who has keys to the van and simply ASK them if they took it during the night? Strange that once again Chelsea and Misty have chosen the same side and implied JO is the one.

Keep in mind this interview was a month later. You think the family would have figured out who had the van and not just be suspicious. If JO drove the van that night, he would be in Putnam County with a cot and some not so understanding LE talking with him.

.....another family member who just REALLY doesn't want to know the answer..
Click to expand...

Either that or.....

YouTube - Putnam County
 
Emeralgem said:
Either that or.....

YouTube - Putnam County
Click to expand...


Omg somebody has WAY too much time on their hands!

I think the fact that the LE in Putnam County has kept quiet and not had any leaks about this case speaks volumes about their integrity. Instead of assuming they are inept, perhaps we should appreciate how dedicated they are to their jobs and keeping everything in line with this case until they are ready to BUST whoever is responsible.

Leaks to the media and the community have destroyed more than one case, I think this agency has learned from the mistakes of others and are doing this by the book so they are SURE they have a solid case built.
 
imikant said:
Omg somebody has WAY too much time on their hands!

I think the fact that the LE in Putnam County has kept quiet and not had any leaks about this case speaks volumes about their integrity. Instead of assuming they are inept, perhaps we should appreciate how dedicated they are to their jobs and keeping everything in line with this case until they are ready to BUST whoever is responsible.

Leaks to the media and the community have destroyed more than one case, I think this agency has learned from the mistakes of others and are doing this by the book so they are SURE they have a solid case built.
Click to expand...


I couldn't DISAGREE more. JMO
 
elle1919 said:
I was just going back over the van thread yesterday. That is what I do when I am feeling helpless, go back and read old threads. This is another thread that baffles me. a new scratch on the van, Misty pointing out the scratch and telling her sis to please tell her she was the one who scratched it. Also read in the old thread that a neighbor heard hollering from RC's home area in the middle of the night Haleigh went missing and Misty's sister stating the van wasn't where she parked it. How many more red flags need to wave.
Click to expand...

I don't think it was Misty asking about the scratch but Lindsey to whom the van belonged
 
imikant said:
ie. IMHO continuing to discuss the van at this point is beating a dead horse.
Click to expand...

Noted, however, if this van proves to be not important in the disappearance of Haleigh Cummings I will eat a worm.(I won't but I think you get my drift....lol)
 
Busylady said:
Captain Dick Schauland with the Putnam County Sheriff's Office said the technicians at the FDLE lab did not find any information on the van that is linked to the Haliegh Cummings' case.

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/amberalerts/news-article.aspx?storyid=134179&catid=295
Click to expand...

"On the van" not "IN the van..." curious and curiouser. These statements being put out, if I were to hazard a guess, are being made by someone with a much more specialized LE function than a sheriff's captain. Like, oh, I don't know...someone from the Feds. It could mean nothing, but it is an interesting choice of prepositions (to me. IMO, MOO, etc etc etc)
 
debs said:
"On the van" not "IN the van..." curious and curiouser. These statements being put out, if I were to hazard a guess, are being made by someone with a much more specialized LE function than a sheriff's captain. Like, oh, I don't know...someone from the Feds. It could mean nothing, but it is an interesting choice of prepositions (to me. IMO, MOO, etc etc etc)
Click to expand...

I agree with you debs...I to am very curious and don't feel that anything that has to do with this case is beating an old horse. The way everything is worded is like LE is just giving bits and pieces. The FBI is also involved in this case and they don't have to say anything, that is where my curiosity lays...what all do they know? I am sure it's a lot.

On 3/26/2009 Captain Dick Schauland with the Putnam County Sheriff's Office said the technicians at the FDLE lab did not find any information on the van that is linked to the Haliegh Cummings' case.
http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/a...4179&catid=295


However, the article from Friday, 27 Mar 2009 updated the next day says different.
"Snip"All police would say about the van being impounded is that it was taken to the FDLE’s crime lab in Jacksonville, analyzed, then released. They would not comment on any specifics of what was searched, or if anything was found in the van.
Van taken into evidence in missing girl case
Updated: Friday, 27 Mar 2009, 12:31 PM EDT http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news..._van_questions

I had asked about why they would of given the van back if they found anything of interest in another thread and the reply was if they did find something they would have to tie it to the crime in order to keep the van.
I would assume if they found something inside they would just keep what was found if it were to be an item? Just guessing. But I agree, they way LE has worded everything makes it hard to really understand what it is that they do and don't have regarding Haleigh's case. I to wonder if they re-coved the blanket Misty was talking about and still wonder if the noise they were referring to would of been a car door left open?
 
We really have nothing on any of this. We don't know when they took it. We don't know when she put the blanket in it or if she really did. We don't know who drove it that day and we don't know when it was finally parked at chelsea's in crescent city. BTW does anyone have the location in crescent city of where she and timmy lived?
 
There is really nothing to discuss regarding the van.

1. Misty would have to state she drove the van; she has not.
2. Misty would have to clarify that THIS van is the 'van that they took.'
3. Misty would have to clarify who 'they' are who 'took the van'.
4. LE had THIS van for several weeks and returned it to the Croslin family, never releasing whether there was any information which would prove Haleigh was "in the van that they took."

For all these reasons, there isn't much to discuss on the 'van that they took' because we're not even sure THIS is the van that THEY took.
 
Hi Debs...I hear ya..

We have no idea if Chelsea is telling the truth about the damage to the vehicle or when it occurred. Chelsea does not even know if JO borrowed the van.

Misty tells us that their was blood in the van; then she adds but that is because she had seen a deer in that van before...A DEER IN THE FAMILY VAN?..Oh, Lordy, either this girl is delusional or this family is a bunch of hillbillies driving around in a blue van instead of the Jed Clampett jealopy.
 
Nothing new to discuss in regards to the van. Wow maybe someone wouldn't mind explaining to me why they consider the van so unimportant? I think it is very important.

The van was being shared by numerous members of the Croslin family because Timmy and Chelsea's van that they had recently purchased was involved in a car accident.

I will post this interview here because I feel it gives us a very accurate view of why the van is important.

Link: http://www.artharris.com/2009/10/05/exclusive-inside-the-haleigh-cummings-family-feud/

snip~Two days before Haleigh turned up missing last February, a drunk driver with no insurance smashed into the used car Timmy and Chelsea had just bought days earlier. Hank, Sr., her father in law wound up in the hospital in Gainesville, Fla., she says, and didn’t come home until after Haleigh vanished, on crutches, pins in his leg and a lot of pain.

With her car totalled, Chelsea started driving the blue family van, which she initially reported appeared to be parked in a different spot than she usually left it the day Haleigh was reported missing. Cousin Joe Overstreet had spent the night, and Chelsea later told police she’d left the keys on the kitchen counter, where she usually does, within easy reach. Reflecting now, she says, “What I told police was that I can’t totally, 100 per cent account for Joe that night…

“I don’t see Joe doing something like this, but I just gave police my observations — that the van just seemed to be in a different spot. I have a long driveway, and the back steps are to the left. I usually turn the wheel so the car is behind the stairs. This time, I noticed it seemed to be parked more on the side of the house. I don’t know if Joe took it to the store, or maybe he didn’t take it at all.”~ end snip

This cousin and his whereabouts for the evening cannot be 100% verified by his Satsuma relatives. The fact that he left hours after Haleigh went missing stinks to high heaven.
 
Where did I say it was unimportant, Elle? I have not seen you add anything in this post which would clear up the fact that LE returned the van, Misty doesn't admit driving the van, Joe can't be placed in the van, and Chelsea doesn't know her bottom from a button.

If the van was returned by LE, that means there was no evidence in it which would suggest Haleigh was in that van other than at some point. There is no blood evidence which could be confirmed as coming from Haleigh, there is no decomp evidence which would be attributed to Haleigh. The van is in the possession of the Croslins, and therefore as evidence, it has an endpoint.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 166 more.
Total: 1,831 (members: 167, guests: 1,664)

Online statistics

Members online
167
Guests online
1,664
Total visitors
1,831
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
601,050
Messages
18,117,807
Members
230,996
Latest member
truelove
Back
Top