MI MI - Jessica Heeringa, 25, Norton Shores, 26 April 2013 #6

[Treelights]

GMA interview with Jessica's mother
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/michigan-mother-vanishes-late-night-shift-gas-station-19060413
This video is from 4/28

Yes, and I posted the same one, before I knew you posted it, too.

 

[imamaze]

Jessica's mother does say (not exact words...Someone supposedly had seen her walk out of the store with this guy, like there was no problem, but realized when they got to his van that there was a struggle that started)

But she doesn't say She talked to this person and they told her this. I think it was misinformation, of course I could be wrong about this. I don't think the witness ever said they saw a struggle. The Chief sure didn't hear anything like that.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

http://www.mlive.com/news/muskegon/index.ssf/2013/04/norton_shores_missing_persons.html
I'm typing the paragraph as it appears in the article above with the quotes as it appears in the article. ~

Shelly Heeringa said she believes someone who came to the gas station regularly "lured (Jessica Heeringa) out the back and shoved her in the back of the van." . . . .

"I'm sure she was abducted," Shelly Heeringa said. "(There was) no struggle. She was cleaning a machine, she left her car keys, (and) no money was taken from the gas station."

I wonder how or why SH believes Jessica was cleaning a machine? Maybe because it was partially disassembled?
About the struggle, conflicting statements* appear as the article was updated the day after it was published. Shoved doesn't sound good though.

*See next article please.


http://abcnews.go.com/US/jessica-he...ion-attendant-knew-abductor/story?id=19065157

3rd sentence,
Chief Shaw states NO sign of a struggle.
LE hadn't found and tested the blood yet that was determined to be Jessica's blood.

7th para -
Shelly Heeringa told ABC News that someone saw her daughter "walk out of the store with this guy like there was no problem," but when they got to his van, a struggle ensued.


I'm still looking for the video of Shelly saying someone told her they witnessed a struggle so everyone can hear her stating these words directly.

 

[imamaze]

If we are going to state something that has been said then we do need to link to it, that's the rules here. If no link is available then its considered rumor and can not be discussed.

Are there earlier articles that I'm not aware of? or I didn't get posted in our media thread?

 

[imamaze]

I know, if I'm going to work this hard (after linking links in the beginning) someone is going to have to start paying me. lol! :banghead:

Unless someone is new to the case, I figure peeps are somewhat aware of the things that have been said and not said. We all forget and it's difficult to sort facts from hearsay but geesh!

Woe, I think its very important to link to something you are stating was said. Its something we all have to do and in order to keep rumor and speculation down its a pretty good rule around here.

I think most of us are familiar with the case but... we all can read the same article and obviously not see it the same way so that's another reason why its important to link to what you are saying.

Ima

 

[Woe.be.gone]

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/michigan-mother-vanishes-late-night-shift-gas-station-19060413

Yes in the GMA interview, SH states "someone supposedly had seen her walk out" . . .

There was another interview. Can youtube be linked? SH words are toned down in the GMA interview. Of course I can't prove it if I can't find the other or original interview.

Why or where would Shelly believe that if no one told her that? Why would she pull that idea (that someone witnessed J with a man leaving the store and then near a van) out of thin air. I mean sometimes a leap is only common sense. Unless LE told SH that info in the first place and that's something they didn't want made public. LE denies anybody told them they witnessed a struggle or even a man walking out of the store with Jessica.

I'm not willing to spend anymore time on this particular point but I did my best to find what I could to support what I think I knew/heard. What it all means I haven't a clue.

iamaze, thank you for organizing all the media links. Since you began compiling them later in the case though, I believe a few if SH's early interview links may be missing. She spoke several times to reporters while standing outside somewhere (before positioning near the gas station) and/or sitting inside a house. The interview I'm thinking of was conducted while she was inside someone's house. Later she spoke several times from near the gas station.

 

[CoolJ]

could the van have been a diversion? and in fact the driver was there as a regular customer and that was the guy who they had questioned for so long??? I don't know, just a thought, just been reading along and that is what things seem to be adding up to.

 

[missgulfsouth]

http://www.mlive.com/news/muskegon/index.ssf/2013/04/norton_shores_missing_persons.html
I'm typing the paragraph as it appears in the article above with the quotes as it appears in the article. ~

Shelly Heeringa said she believes someone who came to the gas station regularly "lured (Jessica Heeringa) out the back and shoved her in the back of the van." . . . .

"I'm sure she was abducted," Shelly Heeringa said. "(There was) no struggle. She was cleaning a machine, she left her car keys, (and) no money was taken from the gas station."

I wonder how or why SH believes Jessica was cleaning a machine? Maybe because it was partially disassembled?
About the struggle, conflicting statements* appear as the article was updated the day after it was published. Shoved doesn't sound good though.

*See next article please.


http://abcnews.go.com/US/jessica-he...ion-attendant-knew-abductor/story?id=19065157

3rd sentence,
Chief Shaw states NO sign of a struggle.
LE hadn't found and tested the blood yet that was determined to be Jessica's blood.

7th para -
Shelly Heeringa told ABC News that someone saw her daughter "walk out of the store with this guy like there was no problem," but when they got to his van, a struggle ensued.


I'm still looking for the video of Shelly saying someone told her they witnessed a struggle so everyone can hear her stating these words directly.

How does she know he "shoved her in the back of the van"? How would anyone possibly know that???

 

[Woe.be.gone]

could the van have been a diversion? and in fact the driver was there as a regular customer and that was the guy who they had questioned for so long??? I don't know, just a thought, just been reading along and that is what things seem to be adding up to.

Meaning more people are involved? We can only speculate but we can't! :banghead:

Someone claims they saw the van around 9:00 p.m. at the gas station.
I'm sorry I'm too tired to find links right now. Maybe tomorrow.
Anyway, the van seems to be a common theme.

 

[nerosleuth]

They were all arguing about what year the van was.

I will have to look back, but I remember something about the co-worker witness stating that she saw a van pull in the station with it's headlights out, and she thought this to be suspicious, so she (they) parked to watch. What was up with the headlights of the van being off?

I think the issue here is the headlights on the van.

If the witness statement was true that a van pulled into the station with it's headlights out, I can see why there was an argument over the model year of the van.

It is my understanding that it wasn't until the late 90's that daytime running lights became common on vehicles in the United States.

Daytime running lights (DLRs) turn on automatically when the ignition is started and are overridden when regular headlights are activated.


Source: http://www.usroads.com/journals/rmej/9912/rm991203.htm


So if the headlights of the van were off when it pulled into the station, then the model year of the van likely would have to be before the late 90's.

 

[MsFacetious]

I think that DLR didn't start till later than that.
My 2003 Dodge Grand Caravan did not have them.
My Dad's 2005 Dodge Truck does not have them.
I know a few people with vans/trucks from 2000 - 2005 that do not have them.

In Canada they are required...
So you CAN have them turned on at the dealer if you want them in the states.

I know that others like my Toyota Siennce had them earlier.

But Dodge/Chrysler I think were 2003 or later. :twocents:

 

[jenstar]

I think the issue here is the headlights on the van.

If the witness statement was true that a van pulled into the station with it's headlights out, I can see why there was an argument over the model year of the van.

It is my understanding that it wasn't until the late 90's that daytime running lights became common on vehicles in the United States.

Daytime running lights (DLRs) turn on automatically when the ignition is started and are overridden when regular headlights are activated.


Source: http://www.usroads.com/journals/rmej/9912/rm991203.htm


So if the headlights of the van were off when it pulled into the station, then the model year of the van likely would have to be before the late 90's.

http://forum.chryslerminivan.net/showthread.php/1496-Daytime-Running-Lights

From what I've read DLRs on the T&C are an optional and enable-able feature for the 2005 (even the base model) here in the US. Canada's come standard with that. Why? IDK. But it seems that all it takes is some sort of relay switch/ programming. Earlier models (mentioned in the above thread) didn't have the feature per-se; but users were able to purchase different bulbs and get the same result. (Probably without the auto-off feature that the relay switch gave.)
However this only draws me to one conclusion;
If the headlights were "out" on this one while it was driving, it's because it was on purpose. JMHO

 

[cluciano63]

I really think LE needs to hold a press conference on this case. Way too much confusion about the van, whether or not they know it was involved for sure, what make and model, etc. five weeks, good grief.

 

[jenstar]

I really think LE needs to hold a press conference on this case. Way too much confusion about the van, whether or not they know it was involved for sure, what make and model, etc. five weeks, good grief.

I know what you mean. It's awfully frustrating to see the family go through this. They're so strong. I'd hope my family would do the same for me. o/t Now-a-days, I call my husband when I make a trip out of town to tell him the route I'm taking just in-case something happens to me or I don't show up on time somewhere. I make sure to tell him where I'm at if I plan to leave the house. I hope he doesn't think I'm crazy lol

 

[WideOpen]

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/michigan-mother-vanishes-late-night-shift-gas-station-19060413

Yes in the GMA interview, SH states "someone supposedly had seen her walk out" . . .

There was another interview. Can youtube be linked? SH words are toned down in the GMA interview. Of course I can't prove it if I can't find the other or original interview.

Why or where would Shelly believe that if no one told her that? Why would she pull that idea (that someone witnessed J with a man leaving the store and then near a van) out of thin air. I mean sometimes a leap is only common sense. Unless LE told SH that info in the first place and that's something they didn't want made public. LE denies anybody told them they witnessed a struggle or even a man walking out of the store with Jessica.

I'm not willing to spend anymore time on this particular point but I did my best to find what I could to support what I think I knew/heard. What it all means I haven't a clue.

iamaze, thank you for organizing all the media links. Since you began compiling them later in the case though, I believe a few if SH's early interview links may be missing. She spoke several times to reporters while standing outside somewhere (before positioning near the gas station) and/or sitting inside a house. The interview I'm thinking of was conducted while she was inside someone's house. Later she spoke several times from near the gas station.

This article is dated April 29th. Someone told SH this, either LE or a witness/co-worker.

According to Shaw, police are looking for a silver mini van, possibly a Chrysler Town and Country, that was seen in the area prior to Jessica's disappearance.

Shelly Heeringa said her daughter was seen "walk[ing] out of the store with this guy like there was no problem," but that there was a struggle when they got in the van.



Read more: http://www.upi.com/blog/2013/04/29/...ringa-disappears/3551367236384/#ixzz2UwqiCWjH


Jessica where are you?

jmo

 

[goldenbear]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/jessica-hee...ry?id=19065157
I am very weak at copy and paste technique. I have been trying all day to point out something and the computer wouldnt let me post. It came up with all kinds of error messages. The point I am trying to make is the chief was saying that inside the store I repeat inside the store there was not any sign of abduction. The other party was talking about when Jessica was at the van there were signs of abduction. These two reports are talking about two different locations and they dont mean that one has to be wrong.

 

[Treelights]

http://forum.chryslerminivan.net/showthread.php/1496-Daytime-Running-Lights

From what I've read DLRs on the T&C are an optional and enable-able feature for the 2005 (even the base model) here in the US. Canada's come standard with that. Why? IDK. But it seems that all it takes is some sort of relay switch/ programming. Earlier models (mentioned in the above thread) didn't have the feature per-se; but users were able to purchase different bulbs and get the same result. (Probably without the auto-off feature that the relay switch gave.)
However this only draws me to one conclusion;
If the headlights were "out" on this one while it was driving, it's because it was on purpose. JMHO

Hey Jenstar, this is sort of off topic, but I have to say, how you wrote your post, I can actually hear Marisa Tomei from the movie "My Cousin Vinny", say exactly what you wrote, in her New York accent! (It reminds me of how she talks about cars and tires! )

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

FWIW: After watching the GMA interview and reading several articles referenced above, I take SH's comments to be speculative and hypothetical rather than accurate information gleaned from other sources. This is a mother, grandmother whose daughter and the mother of her grandchild has gone missing without a trace, and SH is grasping for reasons how and why this could have happened to Jessica. It sounds like she is trying to figure out what might have happened to Jessica, how the abduction went down, and that she knows that her daughter wouldn't have gone with someone against her will.

I can picture myself saying something similar in these circumstances: "The abductor must have lured her out to his vehicle by saying that he needed help with something, then he grabbed her and tried to push her into the back of the van, but Jessica struggled because she can be feisty and wouldn't let someone take her when she didn't want to go. She has a 3-year-old son and is engaged and would never have left them willingly."

Anyhoo, that's how it sounds to me - that SH is trying to make sense out of her daughter's disappearance under mysterious circumstances, and she is hypothesizing and speculating about how it might have happened. :moo:

 

[jenstar]

Hey Jenstar, this is sort of off topic, but I have to say, how you wrote your post, I can actually hear Marisa Tomei from the movie "My Cousin Vinny", say exactly what you wrote, in her New York accent! (It reminds me of how she talks about cars and tires! )

O/T
Haha! Treelights, believe it or not. I do have a somewhat "northern accent". Detroit girl over here, through and through. I do love to talk about cars. I live in Indiana now though lol

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

How does she know he "shoved her in the back of the van"? How would anyone possibly know that???

This is precisely what I mean when I suggested above that SH is hypothesizing about what she thinks might have happened when Jessica was abducted. Some of her speculative comments sound like they are a conglomeration of conversations with folks who talked to someone or heard something from someone, and SH is taking bits and pieces from several sources - possibly unreliable - and trying to make sense out of her daughter's disappearance. Unless she has received specific information from LE, I don't think that SH has been given details of exactly what the investigation has revealed. :moo: