Page 28 of 47 FirstFirst ... 18 26 27 28 29 30 38 ... LastLast
Results 406 to 420 of 697
  1. #406
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Wenatchee, WA
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by ajfa View Post

    Investigators are working under the assumption that Cowell, and not just her phone, were at the boat launch."[/B]
    Respectfully snipped by me.

    So thanks to Dogdad, we now know the pings are not quite as accurate as we hoped.

    Can someone tell me exactly where WC's place of employment is? Someone in a previous thread made it sound like it was right there next to the boat launch. Could someone have been parked at WC work when that ping went off? I'm not saying it was WC, but could JF have had the phone, stopped by to grab something, maybe keys, ping goes off and LE assumes it is at boat launch??

    But then why would they say they know her phone was at the boat launch if there is a possibility it was somewhere else? I'm so confused.
    Last edited by MissAnonymous; 03-13-2010 at 03:19 PM.


  2. #407
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by justiceformackenzie View Post
    That's a very interesting observation. I have always wondered what the big deal was about her jaw. She looks beautiful to me and her slight overbite doesn't appear to be that noticeable. I wouldn't have noticed it unless it was pointed out.
    FYI, in the photos of MC, her UNDERBITE, (not overbite) is not very visable. Her lower jaw was postitioned too far forward, placing her lower bridge of teeth in FRONT of her upper arch of teeth.


  3. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to hotmadre For This Useful Post:


  4. #408
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by ajfa View Post
    I guess that where I am going with this is that up till now I have been treating assumption as fact. I have been thinking that cell phone activity was a reliable means of pinpointing location. With the advent of Dogdads's expert information, however, now I am not so sure.

    Perhaps by 3:40 PM the horrible acts had already taken place, and the perp(s) drove down to that area of town to clear the head and make other arrangements for disposing of the body and car? He/she/they took the phone along with them, but used their own to make calls?

    Introducing the thought that cell phone activity may not be reliable for pinpointing location raises more questions and opens up more possibilities.
    My thoughts exactly. Because of the response of just "hey" ?
    This makes me suspect that it was not MC that sent that text
    I as you believe that she had been subdued by that time! That gave whom ever did this time enough to make plans. Also the actions of " cause of death" appears to be more than one person.So the time gap from 3:40pm -7:10pm is alot of time to move without suspicion.According to her normal routine , no one would have been alerted during that time frame. And yet after that time of 7:10pm the car was not reported for another hour from the time seen parked up PC. This gave 41/2 hours of time for driving to CBR , PC road etc
    Anymore thoughts you might have ?
    Just my thoughts on this at this time with the info out there of facts


  5. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to pachina For This Useful Post:


  6. #409
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by ajfa View Post
    I guess that where I am going with this is that up till now I have been treating assumption as fact. I have been thinking that cell phone activity was a reliable means of pinpointing location. With the advent of Dogdads's expert information, however, now I am not so sure.

    Perhaps by 3:40 PM the horrible acts had already taken place, and the perp(s) drove down to that area of town to clear the head and make other arrangements for disposing of the body and car? He/she/they took the phone along with them, but used their own to make calls?

    Introducing the thought that cell phone activity may not be reliable for pinpointing location raises more questions and opens up more possibilities.
    It sounds to me that some of the information concerning locating cell phone users that has been disseminated might be pretty old.

    It is my experience that there has been a huge push to get GPS locating into cell phone by first responders. In the past there were many tragic stories about people in distress calling 911 without any way to locate them.
    By the end of 2005 all cell phone providers in the U.S. were required to be able to trace a cell call to with 100 meters.

    http://www.travelbygps.com/articles/tracking.php


  7. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to PlainFranky For This Useful Post:


  8. #410
    Quote Originally Posted by Ozz View Post
    Advance apology if already asked. When did this occur?
    Last summer.


  9. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ChelanCountyMom For This Useful Post:


  10. #411
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by pachina View Post
    My thoughts exactly. Because of the response of just "hey" ?
    This makes me suspect that it was not MC that sent that text
    It could very well have been someone else, but I know it is VERY common for teenagers to just text each other "hey" randomly with no more communication. My own teenager has complained about this many times. If it was someone else that sent the text it could well have been another young person that's familiar with this common practice.


  11. The Following User Says Thank You to Clueso For This Useful Post:


  12. #412
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    181
    Just to follow up on my previous postings, even if location can be determined by cell phone activity, LE is still assuming that MC was where her phone was. What gets my attention is the phrase "Investigators are working under the assumption that Cowell, and not just her phone, were at the boat launch."

    If location can be determined by cell phone activity, it is still an assumption she was there.
    If location cannot be determined by cell phone activity, it is still an assumption she was there, just based on weaker circumstantial evidence.

    IMHO much hinges on the word "assumption."
    Last edited by ajfa; 03-13-2010 at 03:45 PM.


  13. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ajfa For This Useful Post:


  14. #413
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    21
    From in light of all the information to be facts : What we need is someone who would have been located at the boat launch/park area at the time of the text's being made who would be able to state all vehicle's, people on foot etc. that were present. This would help narrow the search .
    Help me here ? Any other thoughts ?


  15. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to pachina For This Useful Post:


  16. #414
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by ajfa View Post
    Just to follow up on my previous postings, even if location can be determined by cell phone activity, LE is still assuming that MC was where her phone was. What gets my attention is the phrase "Investigators are working under the assumption that Cowell, and not just her phone, were at the boat launch."

    If location can be determined by cell phone activity, it is still an assumption she was there.
    If location cannot be determined by cell phone activity, it is still an assumption she was there, just based on weaker circumstantial evidence.

    IMHO much hinges on the word "assumption."
    lbpom63, repost what your experience with LE at the boat launch was. They did not tell you it was an assumtion, right?


  17. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Clueso For This Useful Post:


  18. #415
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    181
    Quote Originally Posted by pachina View Post
    From in light of all the information to be facts : What we need is someone who would have been located at the boat launch/park area at the time of the text's being made who would be able to state all vehicle's, people on foot etc. that were present. This would help narrow the search .
    Help me here ? Any other thoughts ?
    I wish I could. Any statement to the effect that witnesses saw Cowell's car at the park/boat launch would be very helpful. I apologize if that was stated in news articles, or here at WS, and forgot or missed the information. I would not want to lead anyone on a wild goose chase (unless the goose swallowed the phone).
    Last edited by ajfa; 03-13-2010 at 03:58 PM.


  19. #416
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Wenatchee
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by dimples37398 View Post
    I haven't been following this case as close as I normally follow cases, but is it possible that MC was pregnant? Maybe she went to meet the person who she suspected got her that way and told him. He freaked out for fear of certain people finding out and being angry. Maybe it was consensual or maybe it wasn't and that is why he didn't want anyone to find out. It could be possible that she just told him she thought she could be pregnant, but wasn't sure. Just the possibility of that could have made him snap.

    JMO I don't believe this crime was commited by a female...no basis for that, it is only a feeling I have. Also when I was growing up the wanna be gangs were pretty bad around where I grew up, I dont believe it was gang related either. I do believe whomever did this did have some help after the fact.
    I'm just getting caught up and saw this post, so I hope I'm not answering it for the 50th time. It just dawned on me though - death certificates have a place for pregnancy - there's a box for yes and a box for no. If the WW was able to get a copy of MC's death certificate, it would have shown if she was pregnant or not. Since they printed the COD against LE wishes, my guess is that they would have stated that she was pregnant too, IF that was the case.


  20. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Moonsabove For This Useful Post:


  21. #417
    Quote Originally Posted by notmyrealname View Post
    “Unfortunately, in this case, we have no witnesses, at least none that have stepped forward, and we have no obvious evidence that points to anyone in particular." (Wenatchee World on March 12)

    In light of this comment, by police spokesman Doug Jones, a few questions:

    1. Why do people continue to believe LE knows who did this and is just being thorough before making an arrest?

    2. Why are so many people still so convinced that JF had something to do with this? (With no "strangers" to investigate, that we know of, LE has had a month to investigate those closest to MC. I'm guessing mom's deadbeat boyfriend has gotten a lot of attention, so if he did it, don't you think LE would have figured it out by now?)

    3. Scale of 1-10, how confident is everyone that police will have an arrest a month from now?
    (1.) The word "obvious". I think they can place a prime suspect with MC around the time she went missing, but they have no "obvious" evidence he/she actually committed the murder.

    (2.) I, for one, am not convinced JF did it. I do believe he was seen with MC before she went missing. I think he can explain being with MC, (either innocently or because of a illicit relationship with MC), therefore LE still needs definitive proof tying him to more than just being with her before she disappeared.

    (3.) 1-10 how confident am I that police will have an arrest within a month? Because police have yet to identify the location of the murder -- ZERO confidence. (Although I believe they have been to the crime scene they just didn't find obvious evidence to identify it).


  22. The Following User Says Thank You to alt.theory For This Useful Post:


  23. #418
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    441
    What could you locals possibly have to do that is more important than driving by a few "points in question"... Get a coffee, get a friend and go for a drive, and report back later!!


  24. #419
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Portland Metro
    Posts
    144
    [quote=pepsi;4920652]
    Quote Originally Posted by Ozz View Post

    i would love to move out of this town. not to many nice people here
    I already have and this is still breaking my heart. It's hard to see my hometown figuratively going up in flames over this.

    I still think it was someone high up, things got out of control and now they have to either come up with some STRONG evidence or let the case go unsolved.


  25. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to theissueathand For This Useful Post:


  26. #420
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    93
    [quote=theissueathand;4922903]
    Quote Originally Posted by pepsi View Post

    I already have and this is still breaking my heart. It's hard to see my hometown figuratively going up in flames over this.

    I still think it was someone high up, things got out of control and now they have to either come up with some STRONG evidence or let the case go unsolved.
    High up in what? The family, local govenment?


  27. The Following User Says Thank You to PlainFranky For This Useful Post:


Page 28 of 47 FirstFirst ... 18 26 27 28 29 30 38 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Found Deceased WA - Mackenzie Cowell, 17, Orondo/Wenatchee, 9 Feb 2010 - #8
    By Salem in forum Located Persons Discussion
    Replies: 794
    Last Post: 03-12-2010, 05:41 PM
  2. Found Deceased WA - Mackenzie Cowell, 17, Orondo/Wenatchee, 9 Feb 2010 - #7
    By Salem in forum Located Persons Discussion
    Replies: 886
    Last Post: 03-11-2010, 12:04 AM
  3. Found Deceased WA - Mackenzie Cowell, 17, Orondo/Wenatchee, 9 Feb 2010 - #4
    By Salem in forum Located Persons Discussion
    Replies: 386
    Last Post: 03-04-2010, 11:57 PM
  4. Found Deceased WA - Mackenzie Cowell, 17, Orondo/Wenatchee, 9 Feb 2010 - #3
    By Salem in forum Located Persons Discussion
    Replies: 706
    Last Post: 03-04-2010, 08:56 AM
  5. Found Deceased WA - Mackenzie Cowell, 17, Orondo/Wenatchee, 9 Feb 2010 - #1
    By SheWhoMustNotBeNamed in forum Located Persons Discussion
    Replies: 613
    Last Post: 02-19-2010, 10:45 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •