MS - Jessica Chambers, 19, found burned near her car, Panola County, 6 Dec 2014 - #7

[MSCJgrad]

:jumping::jumping::jumpingREEEEEEEAAAACCCCCCHHHHHHH:jumping::jumping::jumping:

I thought it was further back than thread 4 but I'm going to take your word for it. It just remember joining you in breaking it down about 27 times as to why exactly none of the 'evidence' LE had thus far was ever going to make it into a court room, and if it by some miraculous chance did make it into court, it would be gift wrapped and dripped in glitter for the defense attorney.

I think local LE blew the investigation from the start. They completely obliterated the chain of custody with regard to the vehicle, the crime scene itself, and god knows what happened to any remaining scraps of Jessica's attire or how they were handled, that's assuming first responders hadn't eradicated them with water. I think they know how bad they blew it and now they need eyewitnesses or confessions. They know who did it, but any evidence collected is going to be inadmissible. I've been saying this since thread 4. Right now the frustration level is hitting a peak for me again. I'm so fed up with inconsistencies from local LE, Jessica's own mother, and MSM I'm about to pop.

I guess it is promising at least that Jessica's mom is starting to feel the same way about the investigation as the people who were trying to help her from the beginning. The ones she dismissed.

Arrrrrrrrrrrgh :gaah:

 

[Yvettea]

I'm in partial agreement. I believe Jessica wasn't in the car at all. I find a problem with that though. How do you control someone who's on fire. I'm guessing restraints. Maybe that's why LE ruled it a homicide so quickly, she had some sort of ligature, or evidence of ligatures even though they were destroyed by fire. I guess you could use large wire wraps like LE do in mass arrest situations. How long would those last directly exposed to flame though? I guess you could use metal cuffs, but assuming they were trying to make it look like an accidental car fire, those would really stand out. I think there were at least three people there though. I can't see Jessica being contained by Just two people if she were struggling for her life. That level of adrenaline would have afforded her the strength I think to at least break free from her assailants. One perp manages the car, another manages Jessica, the third acts a lookout and also as a failsafe to restrain, or recapture the victim.
Q
If I were going to attempt such a crime the minimum people I'd have is 4. Two for the main crime, two shooters in case anyone stops by to assist the victim or to act as backup or lookouts.

All MOO.

If Jessica wasn't in the car when she was on fire wouldn't there be burn marks all over the place where she rolled around trying to put out the fire? Seems like you'd be able to see those in the grass. I can't imagine she didn't try to extinguish the flames.

Maybe she was shot in the head while she was still in the car but she wasn't killed. That could explain what appeared to be a big gash in her head. The police haven't said.

ETA: Why restrain someone you want to kill when you can just shoot them?

 

[SeriouslySearching]

Cleared? You mean abandoned and left unattended right? If I didn't already have high blood pressure, reading about this case, and the number of people trying to dismiss a homicide investigation as accidental would certainly give me circulatory difficulties.

I wonder if they ever discussed the concept of chain of custody in Panola County. I mean it is a principle aspect of law enforcement. You would think at least one of them may have heard about it somewhere.

Yes. There are people who want to keep an open mind about this case because we have not explored every avenue possible for the reason Jessica Chambers is dead. People do not have to agree with the police on their theory as to what happened. LE can be incorrect with their assumptions and those assumptions can fail a case in the end when a jury sees the holes left, imo. I can link a few examples.

And WS is not a good place for people with high blood pressure...should come with a warning here. LOL Opinions spark debate and debate creates passionate pleas. Passionate pleas can turn into angry outbursts until we learn to turn off our computer and walk away for awhile. Strokes are just no fun.

 

[southernyankee]

...it would be gift wrapped and dripped in glitter for the defense attorney.

DRIPPED IN GLITTER. I so think you might've meant to write "dipped" but "dripped" took the image of this right on home for me as a courtroom theatric. Haha!

If Jessica wasn't in the car when she was on fire wouldn't there be burn marks all over the place where she rolled around trying to put out the fire? Seems like you'd be able to see those in the grass. I can't imagine she didn't try to extinguish the flames.

Maybe she was shot in the head while she was still in the car but she wasn't killed. That could explain what appeared to be a big gash in her head. The police haven't said.

There seems like a good bit of dirt, not grass, at the site. Especially if the ground was damp or muddy, that may not have been apparent. If she was shot in the head, that would certainly be apparent in the autopsy - there is absolutely an answer to whether or not she was shot in the head. I would say no, based on what information we know at this point - not to mention, would she even have been conscious after being shot in the head? I'm thinking of former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, who survived + recovered after being shot in the head - but who was incapacitated in the immediate aftermath.

Edit: It's well possible to be conscious after being shot in the head, but depends to some degree on the location of the wound. I just don't think J was in this case. Plus, what about the sound of the shot? Sure, someone could have had a silencer but... I don't know. I kinda doubt it. There's been a total lack of explanation about whether a gun was involved, but we have at least heard an accelerant was used.

 

[flatfootjoe]

:jumping::jumping::jumpingREEEEEEEAAAACCCCCCHHHHHHH:jumping::jumping::jumping:

I thought it was further back than thread 4 but I'm going to take your word for it. It just remember joining you in breaking it down about 27 times as to why exactly none of the 'evidence' LE had thus far was ever going to make it into a court room, and if it by some miraculous chance did make it into court, it would be gift wrapped and dripped in glitter for the defense attorney.

Thank you for remembering that. I'm just finding it extremely frustrating to find that same sentiment being echoed so frequently now. Not because "I said it first" but because it probably means I was right. The one time I'd like to be completely off target... I don't want to be right, I want to be horribly mistaken. I want to wake up tomorrow with the knowledge that forensics alone will be sufficient to solve the case. AAMOF IIRC you were there helping me explain why one and one do indeed equal two. Thank you for that as well.

 

[Yvettea]

Travis Alexander was shot the head but didnt die until be was stabbed over 20 times and his throat slit. There's a lot of information law enforcement isn't releasing at least according to people here. The autopsy just said she died of thermal injury not whether or not she was shot. Anyway, the idea of restraints seems odd to me. JMO

 

[flatfootjoe]

If Jessica wasn't in the car when she was on fire wouldn't there be burn marks all over the place where she rolled around trying to put out the fire? Seems like you'd be able to see those in the grass. I can't imagine she didn't try to extinguish the flames.

Maybe she was shot in the head while she was still in the car but she wasn't killed. That could explain what appeared to be a big gash in her head. The police haven't said.

ETA: Why restrain someone you want to kill when you can just shoot them?

Jessica was burned severely over 98% of her body. You aren't going to get that sort of a burn efficiency to a body that isn't fully exposed to oxygen. If she were laying, sitting, reclining or even prone, the burn would have been denied oxygen on the unexposed surfaces. The ONLY part of her body unburnt were the soles of her feet.

She was restrained, she was unable to move at least for some time.

 

[GrilledCheezy]

BBM.

Do you mean acetone, or the more stinky less acrid currently found in stores version. I thought the acetone version was harder to come by nowadays for safety reasons. How would you come by that particular accelerant in volume? I'm not baiting you, I'm exploring the logistics.

You can buy 100% pure acetone at beauty supply stores in volume. I can buy smaller bottles at my local drug store and grocery store.

 

[menmo]

If Jessica wasn't in the car when she was on fire wouldn't there be burn marks all over the place where she rolled around trying to put out the fire? Seems like you'd be able to see those in the grass. I can't imagine she didn't try to extinguish the flames.

Maybe she was shot in the head while she was still in the car but she wasn't killed. That could explain what appeared to be a big gash in her head. The police haven't said.

ETA: Why restrain someone you want to kill when you can just shoot them?

BBM
To make them suffer.

JMO

 

[Yvettea]

Is this official? That she was restrained?

 

[Yvettea]

BBM
To make them suffer.

JMO

Oh she suffered. She so suffered. Restrained or not.

 

[menmo]

Oh she suffered. She so suffered. Restrained or not.

I'm sure. A bullet wouldn't have probably to cause her to suffer so long or so bad I would think.
Whoever did this is evil to the bone.

JMO

 

[MSCJgrad]

Once again, AMEN, FFJ.

Cleared? You mean abandoned and left unattended right? If I didn't already have high blood pressure, reading about this case, and the number of people trying to dismiss a homicide investigation as accidental would certainly give me circulatory difficulties.

I wonder if they ever discussed the concept of chain of custody in Panola County. I mean it is a principle aspect of law enforcement. You would think at least one of them may have heard about it somewhere.

 

[flatfootjoe]

If Jessica wasn't in the car when she was on fire wouldn't there be burn marks all over the place where she rolled around trying to put out the fire? Seems like you'd be able to see those in the grass. I can't imagine she didn't try to extinguish the flames.

Maybe she was shot in the head while she was still in the car but she wasn't killed. That could explain what appeared to be a big gash in her head. The police haven't said.

ETA: Why restrain someone you want to kill when you can just shoot them?

Why go to all that trouble if you just want to bust one in her bean. Hell just pop a few caps in her and dump her in a ditch 100 miles away, and nobody ever knows who she was. The murder weapon was fire, the crime was punitive, or at very least symbolic if you believe accelerant was introduced internally.

Why set someone on fire where you could be discovered, instead of driving her dead body and her car into a lake?

 

[flatfootjoe]

Is this official? That she was restrained?

Only in the regard that it would have made keeping her ablaze damned near impossible if she weren't. It has not been confirmed in MSM. As my signature states MOO. I don't see how the crime as reported would have been possible otherwise.

 

[SeriouslySearching]

Travis Alexander was shot the head but didnt die until be was stabbed over 20 times and his throat slit. There's a lot of information law enforcement isn't releasing at least according to people here. The autopsy just said she died of thermal injury not whether or not she was shot. Anyway, the idea of restraints seems odd to me. JMO

I agree. If she had a gash on the head and was set on fire, why would she be restrained? Neither of those actions require any restraints, imo. They can both be carried out from a distance.

BBM

 

[Yvettea]

Why go to all that trouble if you just want to bust one in her bean. Hell just pop a few caps in her and dump her in a ditch 100 miles away, and nobody ever knows who she was. The murder weapon was fire, the crime was punitive, or at very least symbolic if you believe accelerant was introduced internally.

Why set someone on fire where you could be discovered, instead of driving her dead body and her car into a lake?

I'll bite. Why set someone on fire when you could be discovered? What is the motive other than punitive? Just asking and JMO.

 

[southernyankee]

Why go to all that trouble if you just want to bust one in her bean. Hell just pop a few caps in her and dump her in a ditch 100 miles away, and nobody ever knows who she was. The murder weapon was fire, the crime was punitive, or at very least symbolic if you believe accelerant was introduced internally.

Why set someone on fire where you could be discovered, instead of driving her dead body and her car into a lake?

Good question. This is why I think this was vengeful, personal, + pre-meditated (the introduction of accelerant).

Furthermore - if a gun was indeed used on Jessica - and it may have been! even unbeknownst to us - it would be known to the medical examiner and those producing the autopsy report. I guess point is, whether we don't know is one thing, but the examiner would be able to ascertain the answer quite readily. (Same goes for whether J had any particular drug or substance in her system - though those tests would take a bit longer, I believe).

 

[SStarr33]

I'll bite. Why set someone on fire when you could be discovered? What is the motive other than punitive?

get rid of evidence

 

[flatfootjoe]

You can buy 100% pure acetone at beauty supply stores in volume. I can buy smaller bottles at my local drug store and grocery store.

Thank you for the education, I thought it was hard to purchase. I have a sensitivity to acetone and it gives me blinding headaches. I was so grateful when the women in my abode started bringing home the acetone free version. I thought they told me it was developed for safety reasons. It doesn't make my head explode but it stinks worse than acetone.