WA - Mackenzie Cowell, 17, Wenatchee, 9 Feb 2010 - #17

Please continue here.

Thread 16



Thread 15
Thread 14
Thread 13
Thread 12


Terms of Service - Short, Plain Language Version

We have a detailed, formal Terms of Service (TOS) posted separately, and that TOS is what you will be held to as a member here. It's long and detailed because it has to be in the world we live in, and you are expected to read it, understand it and abide by it. However, we can sum it up as follows:

1) Be a decent human being;
2) Treat your fellow posters as the decent human beings they are;
3) Keep in mind that whatever you post will likely live on forever, so think before you press "Submit Reply".
4) It's a big world. People will disagree with you. You will disagree with them. This can be done with respect, and that's what we expect.

Some specifics about being “a decent human being”:

Being rude to our new posters or any poster for that matter, is against our TOS. If they ask a question you think has already been discussed, just pass on by it. Do not tell them to get up to speed before posting. That is rude and against our TOS.

Do not drag any innocent persons--such as JF's relatives--into this discussion, and certainly do not post personal information (names, addresses, phone numbers, etc) of innocent parties.

Do not post about other WS members, whether or not they are present. Do not post about why or why not they are present. That is called gossip, and we don’t do that at WS. It’s rude.

It is against TOS to try to guess or sleuth the identity of another poster at WS.

There is to be absolutely no discussion here at WS of the details of MC's parents' divorce.

It's ok to go ahead and post rumors, but two things:

1. You must clearly label them as rumors. All posts that do not include facts should include the words speculation, theory or rumor.

2. They must not be so wildly outlandish that they are unbelievable.

We do not discuss minors, and in this particular case, we do not discuss poetry.

Links to social networking sites are allowed, but WS does not allow direct quotes or cut and pastes from them.

Please do not link to minors' pages.

If anyone has a problem with a post, please alert us to it using the alert button in the top right corner of each post. You will see a triangle with an exclamation mark in it there. Do not respond to a problematic post. That only compounds the problem and creates more work for the mods. Hit the alert button instead.

You are all experienced enough posters by now to abide by these rules. Please don't make us give more timeouts.

The complete TOS can be found here:

The Rules - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community


Please read and follow them.

Thank you.

Alt.theory - I look forward to reading your next post. You have posted very useful information in an easy to read format. Grasping and understanding it takes me a bit longer....

Puf - I am looking forward to your timeline. I have been gone for a week and trying to catch up.

With respect to the gangs; graffiti is a way to 'claim' turf or a geographical area of operations. Putting the gang sign/name out there does not necessarily mean that the person doing the graffiti is in the gang; merely that they are copying it for some reason (i.e., thought it was cool, liked the 'style', emulating big brother, etc. etc.).

All right, I am looking forward to your posts. I can't get into the chat room so that line of thought is not in my purview. Help me out and stay here to discuss our theories.

Chat room? Been there...done that. So I am back here. It's like being in a room with 20people and 6 different conversations being discussed layed on top of each other. It does allow faster volleying back and forth (provided you type 100 words/minute)...though never figured out how to make the text bigger...and getting bumped off the net. But then the chat went to "animalhouse" then to facebook. Not my cup of tea and come to find out from "mystery guest" that LE is months ahead of us. Personally, I think it is counterproductive for our quest.

What did "Guest" discuss?? I was not on late last night.

Good to know that LE is months ahead of us!! That gives me hope.

It seems not everyone who knew MC thought she was all peaches and creme, as exampled by this brief, but telling FB exchange:



I'm sorry for posting this and also for not posting a link to the source but I feel it is relevant and important for us to read that exchange so that we are aware there are people who, for whatever reason, held unkind thoughts of MC before she went missing. And the reason for those thoughts might or might not have anything to do with what MC did or did not say or do but it is important to know those emotions were out there.

AFAIK, the exchange did not involve any family members.

For the person in that exchange holding those ill thoughts, it simply could have been the result of MC having turned down a date or that person might have been of the 'teaser' ilk.

The point is, this might be one of the situations preventing LE from 'solving' this case sooner rather than later: too many possibilities.

How many MC acquaintences held similar thoughts, and why? What might have occurred to cause one or more of those acquaintenances to deliver such anger and rage and pain upon a seemingly sweet girl?

... just another piece of some larger puzzle.

The simple truth is that one could inquire of five different people about their perceptions about any one of us and get five different answers. It is for certain that there is not one among us who walks on water:angel::furious:

Thank you Chuck....I was not sure whether to post that information or not....

I also found it somewhat relevant, only in the fact that many had posted that everyone who knew her adored and loved her, and this post wasnt in accordance with that belief

Any thoughts on the other information?

Astraea said:

Thank you Chuck....I was not sure whether to post that information or not....

I also found it somewhat relevant, only in the fact that many had posted that everyone who knew her adored and loved her, and this post wasnt in accordance with that belief

Any thoughts on the other information?

Click to expand...

I thank you too Chuck and Hi Astraea, IMO it goes to profiling the victim which is what I believe the FBI did right away since the CARD team was there. Learning everything they can would help them put the puzzle together sooner.

Aquariun Sun~ said:

The simple truth is that one could inquire of five different people about their perceptions about any one of us and get five different answers. It is for certain that there is not one among us who walks on water:angel::furious:

Click to expand...

Hi Aquarian, What I have read doesn't go so much to her being a good or bad girl but rather to her personality and what she liked. Those things are what have been mentioned that might have distanced her from some kids. IMO

ChuckMaureen said:

It seems not everyone who knew MC thought she was all peaches and creme, as exampled by this brief, but telling FB exchange:



I'm sorry for posting this and also for not posting a link to the source but I feel it is relevant and important for us to read that exchange so that we are aware there are people who, for whatever reason, held unkind thoughts of MC before she went missing. And the reason for those thoughts might or might not have anything to do with what MC did or did not say or do but it is important to know those emotions were out there.

AFAIK, the exchange did not involve any family members.

For the person in that exchange holding those ill thoughts, it simply could have been the result of MC having turned down a date or that person might have been of the 'teaser' ilk.

The point is, this might be one of the situations preventing LE from 'solving' this case sooner rather than later: too many possibilities.

How many MC acquaintences held similar thoughts, and why? What might have occurred to cause one or more of those acquaintenances to deliver such anger and rage and pain upon a seemingly sweet girl?

... just another piece of some larger puzzle.

Click to expand...

Thanks for posting that. Those are some mean things that person said. Were they friends with MC?

I remember at one point on WW, someone was talking about the possibility of someone being infatuated with MC and her beauty. Then, someone posted that the picture we were seeing was just really good and she wasn't that pretty. It was obviously an immature, jealous person that wrote that because we've all seen that she was pretty.

According to Gone Too Soon, MC was very timid, which could come off as being arrogant and snobby. I can see someone calling her those names because of this perception. We've heard from a few differen sources close to MC that she was a sweet girl who wasn't into drugs. However, someone still said those comments above about her. That does give us some insight into another possibility. Teens, especially girls, can be so mean. uch:

For those wondering... I spoke with 2 different teachers on separate occasions where the conversation turned to the MC case. Basically 2 things were gleaned:

1. A teacher who had MC as a student (not this year) stated that she was obviously much more needing of male attention that what the teacher considered "normal" at her age.

2. Evidently there was some sort of shrine with pictures etc at the HS. A teacher, not at all associated with MC in anyway, was browsing through the photos and noticed a pic with MC and a bunch of boys. All boys were flashing gang signs. The teacher asked for the photo to be removed.

#1 is one person's opinion, #2, I take as fact.

Miss Optimism said:

Thanks for posting that. Those are some mean things that person said. Were they friends with MC?

I remember at one point on WW, someone was talking about the possibility of someone being infatuated with MC and her beauty. Then, someone posted that the picture we were seeing was just really good and she wasn't that pretty. It was obviously an immature, jealous person that wrote that because we've all seen that she was pretty.

According to Gone Too Soon, MC was very timid, which could come off as being arrogant and snobby. I can see someone calling her those names because of this perception. We've heard from a few differen sources close to MC that she was a sweet girl who wasn't into drugs. However, someone still said those comments above about her. That does give us some insight into another possibility. Teens, especially girls, can be so mean. uch:

Click to expand...

The poster of those negative comments was a male...

scandi said:

Hi Aquarian, What I have read doesn't go so much to her being a good or bad girl but rather to her personality and what she liked. Those things are what have been mentioned that might have distanced her from some kids. IMO

Click to expand...

I could not agree with you more.

Since we are in a new thread, the following are some links to information from the previous thread that may be of interest going in, especially to new readers/posters:

Original timeline by pufnstuf with clickable links and a "who's who" in the case

A synopsis of resevoir water levels compiled ay alt.theory

Also, pictures by "Inspector Rose," aka Autumn Rose
and pictures by jarethamarie.

Hope it's OK to post these links to the pictures (if not I will delete them).

Hopefully, pufnstuf and alt.theory can repost their original information instead of just having these links, if they so desire.

ajfa said:

Since we are in a new thread, the following are some links to information from the previous thread that may be of interest going in, especially to new readers/posters:

Original timeline by pufnstuf with clickable links and a "who's who" in the case

A synopsis of resevoir water levels compiled ay alt.theory

Also, pictures by "Inspector Rose," aka Autumn Rose
and pictures by jarethamarie.

Hope it's OK to post these links to the pictures (if not I will delete them).

Hopefully, pufnstuf and alt.theory can repost their original information instead of just having these links, if they so desire.

Click to expand...

Okay with me.

h20skiier said:

Evidently there was some sort of shrine with pictures etc at the HS. A teacher, not at all associated with MC in anyway, was browsing through the photos and noticed a pic with MC and a bunch of boys. All boys were flashing gang signs. The teacher asked for the photo to be removed.

Click to expand...

I wonder if LE has that photo?

Since some of us are not in the chat, we sure do appreciate any new information those of you that are involved in chat have to offer. So, Thank you!
Please keep us informed!!

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=336329031326&ref=mf#!/group.php?v=info&ref=mf&gid=336329031326


I am sorry for posting about that FB group but I find certain details of the group to be 'unusual'. I know it was created by a C family member, but:

The FB group was created Feb 12, 2010.

Why, on Feb 12, does the description contain: was
MC wasn't found as deceased until Feb 13, 2010.

Also, on Feb 12, the title: Celebrating the life of Mackenzie Nicole Cowell

On Feb 12 MC was listed only as 'missing'. I would expect the title to have been similar to: Help Find Mackenzie Nicole Cowell

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but after you create a FB group you can not change the name of the group. If you want a different group name you have to create another group ... so the current title of that group is the original from Feb 12.

Odd. I'm sure there is a logical explanation?

ETA: it is confirmed a FB group name may be changed after the group is created ... and I assume you may change the description text as well.

ajfa said:

Since we are in a new thread, the following are some links to information from the previous thread that may be of interest going in, especially to new readers/posters:

A synopsis of resevoir water levels compiled ay alt.theory

Click to expand...

snipped

Thanks for that. Although the charts are accurate, you should all be aware that how I interpret that information is still constantly changing and only MY OPINION. --- Particularly this is in regard to the smaller "high" water levels that came out of Rock Island Dam between Friday mid-morning and the time the body was found. These water levels were short "bursts" of higher water levels. Therefore I really am unsure what effect they would have in front of the CB property, nor whether they would cause sufficient water levels to get clothes wet. It WAS my belief it would cause about 6 to 8 inches of higher water at CB... but there is quite a bit of "evidence" pointing towards it being only around 2 to 4 inches and possibly not enough to get anything more then some more of the the boots wet. (This would likely have occurred around 11 to 11:30 am. The body was discovered at 12:45 pm.)

RUMORED description of the body do tend to point to the body having been in the water for at least SOME amount of time, IMO. If that is the case, how can we even determine WHERE the body was first placed in that water? Do we really KNOW if any evidence collected from the property/brush had anything to do with the crime???

ETA: As for the location that shall not be mentioned... there isn't much to mention... LOL Lighting fast brainstorming is being conducted at random intervals, but honestly... it just looks like this :banghead: most of the time. No new info from 676 to report, as far as I know.