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

[New1]

The 911 call could be very suspicious. who in earth would keep driving and not stop to help? could have been one of the people involved who didn't expect it to go so far.

Do we really know that the 911 caller DIDN'T stop? Do we really know the 911 caller DIDN'T also report seeing a person "walking down the road on fire" as well as a car fire? It's been reported that she was walking down the road on fire AND that she was lying near her car according to first responders. Which one is right?

 

[cady]

Do we really know that the 911 caller DIDN'T stop? Do we really know the 911 caller DIDN'T also report seeing a person "walking down the road on fire" as well as a car fire? It's been reported that she was walking down the road on fire AND that she was lying near her car according to first responders. Which one is right?

We do not know. If I were the 911 caller, even if I did not see a person, I would probably wait by the scene until the firefighters arrived. I would have waited for the police, to tell them anything that I observed. I would NOT insist on anonymity, but maybe that was the decision of the police, and not the 911 caller. ??? JMO

 

[New1]

The 911 call could be very suspicious. who in earth would keep driving and not stop to help? could have been one of the people involved who didn't expect it to go so far.

Do we really know that the 911 caller DIDN'T stop? Do we really know the 911 caller DIDN'T also report seeing a person "walking down the road on fire" as well as a car fire? It's been reported that she was walking down the road on fire AND that she was lying near her car according to first responders. Which one is right?

 

[New1]

"Passerby" does not necessarily mean that person did not stop--just that s/he was driving down that road and saw a burning car. It does not mean that s/he passed on by without stopping. I *think* it is against the law not to stop and render aid?

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

I believe towards the end of the last thread, a poster (Misztery??) had a theory regarding the woman's shelter that was interesting.

And if there's anything to it, it would explain why the locals have been so quiet as they would be out of the loop.

'Just theorizing....

Please let the DNA/forensics speak loud & clear. And soon!

RIP JC

All moo

 

[liljim]

We have not heard the 911 call, which we usually do.... My understanding is that it was a call reporting a car fire. If so, the caller did not mention a person near or walking by the car or on the road. JMO

yep, and we havent even heard about "LE will not release the autopsy results at this time"
or that there was any request for the 911 call (if allowed there?)
or anyone asking for any information whatsoever that i have seen
am i wrong and have just missed things?

 

[liljim]

i wonder who exactly was threatening AA. i get the feeling it wasn't bc people thought he was involved. i think it was the people who were involved.

we heard part of one threat in a news report and it seemed to be some random person that had probably read about the case in the news or online, that was always my impression regarding any threats he got - that they came from lunatics online who deemed him guilty right away (after the surveillance tape was shown which was very early) and started posting his personal information online.

 

[FindHG]

Jessica Chambers murder: agencies search for suspects

<snipped>
Chambers was found on Herron Road in Courtland a little after 8 p.m. Dec. 6, walking away from her burning vehicle with burns over 98 percent of her body. Coroner Gracie Gulledge said the cause of the young woman's death was thermal injury.
<snipped> Perhaps it was the 911 caller that found Jessica walking away from her burning vehicle & attempted to administer aid prior to firefighters arriving. We know the firefighters were already at the scene of another fire when they got the call of Jessicas vehicle fire?MOO

SBM

Yep. That seems possible for all sorts of good if not too wishful reasons. IIRC, there was a report, sorry, lost track, that a first responder covered her up with their coat/jacket/something, upon finding her, so consider it a rumor until confirmed, and another quoting LE saying that they had been able the track down the 911 caller and clear them. Numerous interviews with the fire chief clearly stating they were responding to what they thought was just a car fire, until they saw Jessica, secured the crime scene, and put out the fire, called for help, wondered if the perps were watching even, I think in one of the early reports.

In addition, the article linked above from this afternoon has this info

Contacted Monday, District Attorney John Champion said the investigation is still in full swing. He said while there wasn't much he could say in the way of an update, investigators are still actively talking to witnesses.

 

[MizStery]

I think you're right because Jessica was still alive when the 911 call was made and LE responded. Her killer probably did not stick around or I think they would have been seen. Also means her killer wasn't aware she not only was still alive, she spoke to first responders. This is going to get ugly for the killer. I don't see this case remaining unsolved for long.

The fire makes the timeline pretty tight for anyone to try and make up an alibi. JMO.

The 911 call could be very suspicious. who in earth would keep driving and not stop to help? could have been one of the people involved who didn't expect it to go so far.

Do we really know that the 911 caller DIDN'T stop? Do we really know the 911 caller DIDN'T also report seeing a person "walking down the road on fire" as well as a car fire? It's been reported that she was walking down the road on fire AND that she was lying near her car according to first responders. Which one is right?

Just great posts! I would love to know the answers. Thanks to all! MOO

 

[MizStery]

I believe towards the end of the last thread, a poster (Misztery??) had a theory regarding the woman's shelter that was interesting.

And if there's anything to it, it would explain why the locals have been so quiet as they would be out of the loop.

'Just theorizing....

Please let the DNA/forensics speak loud & clear. And soon!

RIP JC

All moo

I do remember the post. And,your correct it was interesting. I remembered the screen on the previous thread that I read it on. I think it was deleted because it might have mentioned an individuals 'name'. Perhaps the post was deleted because the person had not been named in the mainstream media. MOO

 

[ZOOL]

I might be wrong, someone correct me if so, but I think the time was meant to be a vague reference to smoking pot and not an actual time pulled from anywhere. :moo:

Hi WhoaIsMe-- Do you care to elaborate upon this point? I am puzzled how a 4:20 pm reference by anonone's reference to fishing Enid Lake suddenly becomes a "vague reference to smoking pot". I am confused. I watched the interview, saw nor heard any reference to 4:20 pm, and now am very interested in where anonone secured that time-detail.

---

As an aside, I noticed in the Chandler interview that there is a car parked facing north on Herron. Then I read in the article that Chandler wrote and quoted Fowler:

[...] Fowler passed by the scene Saturday on her way to crappie fish at Enid Lake. [Chandler]

"Sunday morning, I took my phone off the charger and looked at Facebook, like I almost always do, and I saw the Fly High Jessica Chambers page," Fowler said, referring to the digital memorial Chambers' friends and family had set up. Once she realized what happened, "I got sick to my stomach," Fowler said. "I can't believe I didn't see anything when I passed by here. I wish I had. I would have helped her. I would have fought for her if I had to."--[Fowler]

Or in other words, the interview takes place on Sunday. When Fowler mentions "here", she is referring to the fact that she and her friend, Amber Shields, and Chandler are standing at the crime scene on Sunday. Her reference to "passing by the scene Saturday on her way to crappie fish at Enid Lake" clearly states that she drove by the crime scene on Saturday. Yet it does not say at what time.

However, since a car is visible on Sunday on the opposite side of the road of the crime, parked headed north, it is possible that either Fowler or Shields lives south of 2344-2355 Herron Road (closer to Benson Road, i.e. closer to Pope Co.), and that a trip to Main St., Courtland, is a regular trip heading north on Herron. (*note: It is also possible that the car belongs to Chandler.)

Later from Chandler we learn that indeed this northerly drive (i.e. north-to-south) may indeed be the case: "Shields -- who, like Fowler, lives close to the scene -- went to school with Chambers at South Panola High School...."

What may be important here is the time on Saturday when Fowler drove by the scene. However I doubt it.

If she lives "close by" on Herron Road, she can drive by the crime scene any time she wants on Saturday, and consequently make the statement that she does -- with one exception: She clearly states, "I can't believe I didn't see anything when I passed by."

That statement implies that she feels that she OUGHT TO have seen something.

Since she makes that statement on Sunday, Dec 7 (i.e. the following day of the crime), and since she has knowledge of the time of the crime, she places herself somewhere close within the timeline of the crime. If she really drove by the crime scene at 4:20 pm, that time confounds the M&M video timeline. Why would she believe that she ought to have seen something at 4:20 pm when Jessica did not leave her home until sometime (disputed) around 6:20 pm (or even 5:20 pm)?

Bottomline: Ms Fowler could be just a well-meaning friend who feels that she ought to have been able to do something. Or a highly suspicious POI.

 

[Luvrosco]

I, too have several theories. I can't wrap my brain around what her last moments were like. I want to be confident that the FBI is crossing their t's and dotting their i's so whoever is responsible never walks the streets again.

 

[FindHG]

Hi WhoaIsMe-- Do you care to elaborate upon this point? I am puzzled how a 4:20 pm reference by anonone's reference to fishing Enid Lake suddenly becomes a "vague reference to smoking pot". I am confused. I watched the interview, saw nor heard any reference to 4:20 pm, and now am very interested in where anonone secured that time-detail.

---

As an aside, I noticed in the Chandler interview that there is a car parked facing north on Herron. Then I read in the article that Chandler wrote and quoted Fowler:



Or in other words, the interview takes place on Sunday. When Fowler mentions "here", she is referring to the fact that she and her friend, Amber Shields, and Chandler are standing at the crime scene on Sunday. Her reference to "passing by the scene Saturday on her way to crappie fish at Enid Lake" clearly states that she drove by the crime scene on Saturday. Yet it does not say at what time.

However, since a car is visible on Sunday on the opposite side of the road of the crime, parked headed north, it is possible that either Fowler or Shields lives south of 2344-2355 Herron Road (closer to Benson Road, i.e. closer to Pope Co.), and that a trip to Main St., Courtland, is a regular trip heading north on Herron. (*note: It is also possible that the car belongs to Chandler.)

Later from Chandler we learn that indeed this northerly drive (i.e. north-to-south) may indeed be the case: "Shields -- who, like Fowler, lives close to the scene -- went to school with Chambers at South Panola High School...."

What may be important here is the time on Saturday when Fowler drove by the scene. However I doubt it.

If she lives "close by" on Herron Road, she can drive by the crime scene any time she wants on Saturday, and consequently make the statement that she does -- with one exception: She clearly states, "I can't believe I didn't see anything when I passed by."

That statement implies that she feels that she OUGHT TO have seen something.

Since she makes that statement on Sunday, Dec 7 (i.e. the following day of the crime), and since she has knowledge of the time of the crime, she places herself somewhere close within the timeline of the crime. If she really drove by the crime scene at 4:20 pm, that time confounds the M&M video timeline. Why would she believe that she ought to have seen something at 4:20 pm when Jessica did not leave her home until sometime (disputed) around 6:20 pm (or even 5:20 pm)?

Bottomline: Ms Fowler could be just a well-meaning friend who feels that she ought to have been able to do something. Or a highly suspicious POI.

forget about anonone's 4:20 reference as a timeline issue, safe to say, as for the rest of that line of suspicion involving LF, it's either good enough for the FBI or not. I would have to agree with your bottomline.

 

[octobermoon]

Tom Dees FOX13 Memphis
1 min ·

&#8234;#&#8206;JusticeforJessica&#8236; In the realm of questions in regards to covering the Jessica Chambers investigation. Many of you have asked me to ask law enforcement certain questions. I have asked many of them. To the answers of "No Comment" Or "It's an ongoing investigation."

I have asked many of them. Many of them you say "They need to answer"...by Mississippi State law and backed up by the Mississippi Attorney General's opinion they don't have to answer questions regarding a criminal investigation. That information and the records surrounding it are considered protected by Mississippi Law. I will continue to answer questions....but law enforcement doesn't have to answer. By law. Nor are they required to disclose it by Mississippi Law.

I have two very dear friends who are wonderful attorneys who assist me with any legal questions I have
Criminal investigation records are exempt from disclosure under MS Code Ann 45-29-1.

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=714522368646692&id=175571152541819

 

[ZOOL]

forget about anonone's 4:20 reference as a timeline issue, safe to say, as for the rest of that line of suspicion involving LF, it's either good enough for the FBI or not. I would have to agree with your bottomline.

I am sorry, but I am NOT going to forget anonone's reference to 4:20 pm. It is too suspicious. anonone needs to explain this. And in clear English, not a reference to Ray Charles. *smile*

 

[MizStery]

The fire makes the timeline pretty tight for anyone to try and make up an alibi. JMO.

<snipped>

Bottomline: Ms Fowler could be just a well-meaning friend who feels that she ought to have been able to do something. Or a highly suspicious POI.

<snipped> safe to say, as for the rest of that line of suspicion involving LF, it's either good enough for the FBI or not. I would have to agree with your bottomline.

i would also have to join in & agree with your bottom line. MOO

 

[FindHG]

I am sorry, but I am NOT going to forget anonone's reference to 4:20 pm. It is too suspicious. anonone needs to explain this. And in clear English, not a reference to Ray Charles. *smile*

I get your need . may your clear answers come

 

[ZOOL]

Tom Dees FOX13 Memphis
1 min ·

&#8234;#&#8206;JusticeforJessica&#8236; In the realm of questions in regards to covering the Jessica Chambers investigation. Many of you have asked me to ask law enforcement certain questions. I have asked many of them. To the answers of "No Comment" Or "It's an ongoing investigation."

I have asked many of them. Many of them you say "They need to answer"...by Mississippi State law and backed up by the Mississippi Attorney General's opinion they don't have to answer questions regarding a criminal investigation. That information and the records surrounding it are considered protected by Mississippi Law. I will continue to answer questions....but law enforcement doesn't have to answer. By law. Nor are they required to disclose it by Mississippi Law.

I have two very dear friends who are wonderful attorneys who assist me with any legal questions I have
Criminal investigation records are exempt from disclosure under MS Code Ann 45-29-1.

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=714522368646692&id=175571152541819

Gee Octobermoon, you are you a spoiler! Why don't we all just bury our heads in the sand, and grumble profanities because no one is interested in our questions?

We are the public. The public demands answers.

But what is more important here is that a young woman named Jessica Lee Chambers demands justice, not "No comment", or "It's an ongoing investigation". If the MS Att. Gen feels that he does not need to address the public's demand for answers, then I am certain the public will simply remove him from the equation.

Simply put: he can <mod snip> find a new job!

 

[octobermoon]

Gee Octobermoon, you are you a spoiler! Why don't we all just bury our heads in the sand, and grumble profanities because no one is interested in our questions?

We are the public. The public demands answers.

But what is more important here is that a young woman named Jessica Lee Chambers demands justice, not "No comment", or "It's an ongoing investigation". If the MS Att. Gen feels that he does not need to address the public's demand for answers, then I am certain the public will simply remove him from the equation.

Simply put: he can go shove it and find a new job!

Sorry. I just found this reporters twitter account on the #Justice for Jessica feed. Was looking for any news today.

 

[southernyankee]

With regard to the "no comment" or "it's an ongoing investigation" answers - sometimes that's actually necessary in order to secure an arrest and, later, strengthen the evidence in a trial. If certain information or details that only LE or the guilty party would know otherwise leaks to the public, it can be disastrous for following the letter of the law in the justice system.

Frustrating for those curious, yes, incredibly. For the family? Even moreso! I guess it would be nice to have some answers that are encouraging without being so specific as to hamper the investigation...