MS - Jessica Chambers, 19, found burned near her car, Panola County, 6 Dec 2014 - #8

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
The rumor about the 53 seconds missing from the surveillance tape, does anyone know if it would be possible to delete something from the CCTV?
 
Concerned Mama said:
The back seat of the vehicle would have burned, leaving only the framework of a pull-down seat. You could shine a flashlight to see if anything/anybody was in the trunk.

That's not an answer to your question, but I'd think since the photos at the impound lot show the crowbar on top of the trunk, LE didn't pry it open until it was at the lot. JMO.
Click to expand...

After posing that question I looked at the pic at M&M of the trailer with the car on it. The trunk had been pried, I think. Can't say it was at the scene, but before it arrived at the impound lot. JMO add..I googled "Jessica Chambers car" Images
 
southernyankee said:
No, not necessarily at Leah's House. If we take into account what Lisa (Jessica's mother) reported during her recent interview on True Crime Radio, she said Jessica was at Leah's House for 6-8 weeks and I believe that was over the course of June + July 2014. So she probably wasn't posting it from LH, but I suppose it's possible the picture could've been taken there.

I agree that it is a cute picture of Jessica! She kind of reminds me of a grown-up Cindy Lou Who with her hair way up + the stripey dress. :) and I say that entirely with affection.

As for the phone: It's hard to tell exactly what she's using based on this pic alone. My first, not-even-thinking-hard impression is that it looks like a black HTC phone, but it is difficult to tell. In any case, it looks smaller than a Samsung Galaxy, at least to me.
Click to expand...

As to the phone, I agree it is not a Samsung Galaxy..I have had an S2 and an S4, and they are thinner than hers seems to be, and neither of them has that much visible silver on the sides, and, as you said, it certainly appears to be too small to be an S4 or later. I am also reasonably sure it isn't an iPhone, as the Apple logo is prominently displayed on the backs of all of those I have ever seen, so it most likely is an Android of some type. In this pic, she does not appear to have any case around the phone to me, certainly nothing like an Otter Box, so it is very possible that the battery could be removed very easily, either intentionally, or as the result of being dropped or tossed. As always, JMO
 
ZOOL said:
It is interesting to see that my original post was deleted, and that the link in your reply also.

Within 10 minutes of that post, my computer was hacked by someone who reset my calendar date and time to 25 years into the future (ie. January 21, 2040)! And also wiped out 8 hard-fought weeks of HISTORY urls...

This caused me 4.5 hours of CODE 80072F8F research to gain recovery.

Someone is playing very dirty. And I do not appreciate it. :mad:
Click to expand...

:ufo:
Mercury Retrograde
 
Although I have a feeling that you have looked into this already, i'll humor you because I am have some spare time at the moment (procrastinating actual work):bored:.
I found a great deal of info pertaining to deleting CCTV via google search, and I found an interesting website from a CCTV company in the UK... humor me here.

"The quickest and most convenient way to erase a CCTV recording on a tape is by using a bulk tape eraser. Bulk erasing a CCTV tape can take just 5 seconds, returning the tape back to its original condition, completely clear of any previous recordings. This also ensure the CCTV tape provides the best recording quality (http://www.veritysystems.com/degaussers/erase-cctv.html)". I found this interesting for 2 reasons. 1) I had no idea it was that simple/fast to erase info from CCTV, and 2) the prior paragraph, which discusses admissibility of CCTV footage in court, "Under new rules and guidelines relating to the use of CCTV video recordings being submissable as evidence, state that it must be proven that a video tape has been completely erased before being reused if it is to be submitted as evidence".

Also, here in the states, it is common for CCTV to be set up with an accompanying USB drive. CCTV Camera Pros recommends using a USB thumb drive because you can backup a lot more video to a 4, 8, or 16 GB USB drive than you can a 700MB CD-R disc. The purpose of the backup system is to allow the DVR operator to export a specific segment of video so that the video can easily be transferred to the police in the event that something occurs that needs to be investigated. The file that is exported by the backup process can be replayed using the video player application that is built into the integrated remote station software that the DVR comes with. The backup system is designed to export minutes worth of video. The system is NOT meant to be an archiving service to export hours and days of video to an external drive (http://www.cctvcamerapros.com/DVR-Video-Backup-s/263.htm). I am reading this as to mean that there could be more than one form of the CCTV footage, possibly on UDB, and also that if someone is tech-savvy, it would not be hard nor would it take long to delete something from the CCTV. This is all the info I could dig up in the 15 minutes I have right now to look into this, but I know that the missing footage has been eating at some of us, so I wanted to see what I could find. All :cow:




Han said:
The rumor about the 53 seconds missing from the surveillance tape, does anyone know if it would be possible to delete something from the CCTV?
Click to expand...
 
In my experience, following several cases here over the last two and a half years as a member, and probably that long as an on again, off again lurker before that, it is natural that the numbers of members participating in any thread dwindles considerably when the headlines have gone and the investigations get into that state where little to no information is being released. Honestly, with nothing new to talk about, all we can do is hash, rehash, and hash again the same few things, moving from one dead horse to another to another. Some people hang around, but many don't. I assure you, as soon as there is a break in the case, most of those that left will come running back. I feel, and share everyone's frustration at having our hands tied by TOS, but I have been on sites where they aren't, and those get REALLY out there at times. I know this thread is probably pure hell to moderate, and sometimes I think we may think we are being picked on while others posting the same or worse are getting a free pass, but I do believe the mods do the best they can to be fair to everyone, and to let us explore as much as we can within TOS. I have seen more TO's handed out on this case than any other I have followed, (I got my first ever), but I think that is because most of us here are reading other sites and constantly trying to slip stuff in here that WS just won't allow. JMO
 
SteveP said:
In my experience, following several cases here over the last two and a half years as a member, and probably that long as an on again, off again lurker before that, it is natural that the numbers of members participating in any thread dwindles considerably when the headlines have gone and the investigations get into that state where little to no information is being released. Honestly, with nothing new to talk about, all we can do is hash, rehash, and hash again the same few things, moving from one dead horse to another to another. Some people hang around, but many don't. I assure you, as soon as there is a break in the case, most of those that left will come running back. I feel, and share everyone's frustration at having our hands tied by TOS, but I have been on sites where they aren't, and those get REALLY out there at times. I know this thread is probably pure hell to moderate, and sometimes I think we may think we are being picked on while others doing the same or worse are getting a free pass, but I do believe the mods do the best they can to be fair to everyone, and to let us explore as much as we can within TOS. I have seen more TO's handed out on this case than any other I have followed, but I think that is because most of us here are reading other sites and constantly trying to slip stuff in here that WS just won't allow. JMO
Click to expand...
Agreed! The mods are protecting the site as well members from unintentional liable. We are all questing for resolution to crimes, but mentioning names can be tricky. If someone is falsely accused on this forum and a future employer searches and sees it, then there has been damage to a person's reputation. I can understand the frustration as I'm not always clear on who is safe to sleuth / reference, but we have to respect the mods who make it possible for this site to exist.
 
IMO just because we haven't seen any photos of JC's car in situ doesn't mean none were taken. Sure the car was moved too fast IMO but I have no idea whether photos were taken of it before it was moved. Does anyone have any info that says none were taken at the scene after JC was on her way to the hospital?
TIA for any answers and as always :moo:
 
I don't even understand the part about wanting to keep the browser's history. I have mine set to dump it every time I shut the browser.
 
:+:MrTT:+: said:
That dont sound like a hack to me. Thats sounds like your battery on your motherboard is going bad. The round battery on your motherboard controls the date and time. change the battery, and when you start your computer go into the BIOS and change the date and time to current. then save and exit and go to your desktop. Check your browser history tabs and enter the date, specific dates to see if you can find what you lost......MAKE sure you change the date to current in your BIOS, if you dont and go to your desktop, you will experience more pain and suffering with a date incorrect.
Click to expand...
I had the same problem a couple of years ago. Every time I reset the clock, it would jump ahead again. After I replaced the battery and reset the BIOS clock, it was fine until it became unstable on pages with a lot of graphics, which research indicated was due to a computer that couldn't hold any more information/bad motherboard. I've gotten a new computer since then and most of the time it works fine. Whenever my computer begins acting up, I go to safe mode and run my security programs. Rarely is the problem a virus. I usually find only tracking cookies from news and advertising sites, and once I delete them my computer runs normally again. I hope there is nothing more than these issues impairing Zool's computer.
 
On a much lighter note, last night I checked the popularity of names of males born in Mississippi in 1995. If it seems you've seen a lot of Derek/Erick in your sleuthing here's why. Rank in popularity in Ms in 1995 was:

#7 Erick
#20 Derek
#47 Derrick
#84 Eric

At the beginning we were told Jessica had named the person who did this. Apparently that was just a first name. One person who was spoken to by law-enforcement had been home since 6 PM with a toothache. The other claimed he was out of the area completely. If they're going to have to go through all the Ericks and Dereks in the area around Jessica's age, this could take awhile.:thinking:
 
It is hard to fully 'express' yourself in print... I wasn't trying to come across as offended or frustrated or anything of the sort... Especially not by your post. I am extremely new here, and most likely need to do a personal refresher of the TOS. I am familiar with the law and liable, pertaining to slander, accusing innocent people, etc., and I respect your point of view, and I agree that the moderators are here to do their jobs as far as respecting the TOS and running a functional, legal forum for us to discuss crime related topics. I just felt compelled to point out the fact that what people post on social media is for the world to see! ;):eek:fftobed:

FeistyCat76 said:
I wasn't mentioning this thread in particular nor anyone specifically. I've been on WebSleuths for a few years now and was just sharing what I thought the rationale might be behind the terms of the site and actions of moderators. I can understand your frustration, but please understand that I was not trying to admonish anyone.
Click to expand...
 
I got a feeling that the phone call between JC and her mom revealed more information than what we were told. What if the names Eric/Derrick was given to LE by JC mom?

And so, instead of putting those names out there from the mother, LE said they came from Jessica.

Jus thinking........t
 
suspicious1 said:
I got a feeling that the phone call between JC and her mom revealed more information than what we were told. What if the names Eric/Derrick was given to LE by JC mom?

And so, instead of putting those names out there from the mother, LE said they came from Jessica.

Jus thinking........t
Click to expand...

Hmm...:thinking:
 
SteveP said:
As to the phone, I agree it is not a Samsung Galaxy..I have had an S2 and an S4, and they are thinner than hers seems to be, and neither of them has that much visible silver on the sides, and, as you said, it certainly appears to be too small to be an S4 or later. I am also reasonably sure it isn't an iPhone, as the Apple logo is prominently displayed on the backs of all of those I have ever seen, so it most likely is an Android of some type. In this pic, she does not appear to have any case around the phone to me, certainly nothing like an Otter Box, so it is very possible that the battery could be removed very easily, either intentionally, or as the result of being dropped or tossed. As always, JMO
Click to expand...

Thanks for the information.

I agree 100% that the phone in the picture isn't an iPhone. I did a comparison by holding my iPhone 4s in my hand the way Jessica is holding hers. First of all, the Apple logo would still be visible and it is not. Also, her phone is "shorter" than the iPhone by something like, maybe 1/2" to 1". She probably had larger hands than mine but there would still be a difference. About the width, I'd say it is a little larger than an iPhone.

I never owned any other smartphone so I can't compare it to anything else.
 
I understand the info given in the interview w/Janice Broach about the names Jessica supposedly spoke and I totally get that she could have been able to speak at that time since the terrible swelling was just beginning. Now if I recall correctly the FireChief of the volunteer fire dept. said in an MSM interview that JC spoke to him while he was trying to tend to her. And he would not disclose what that was. Her mom said she was talking in the MedVac heli (and that she wasn't entubated until at Regional One). Those medflight copters are super loud and super fast. I've been on one and I've also known someone who works with the patients enroute. If JC was talking to anyone on there it must have been thru some type of small microphone device because I'm fairly sure that the headphones the heli pilots and medics use onboard to communicate with one another would not have been used on JC considering the thermal injuries.
Long post short, do we have any other verification of the words "..eric/etc" other than from the man with the toothache via Janice Broach's words? And if we don't how do we know she wasn't saying any variety of things such as "wreck". She was most certainly in serious shock. 100% in the worst kind of shock clinging to life.
Once again as always just :moo:
 
It looks like an iPhone to me. Are you sure that isn't the front of an iPhone?
 
Interesting 4senthia. "A wreck"/Eric/derrick.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 156 more.
Total: 2,080 (members: 157, guests: 1,923)

Online statistics

Members online
157
Guests online
1,923
Total visitors
2,080
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
595,208
Messages
18,021,107
Members
229,600
Latest member
JamesLittle
Back
Top