MI MI - Jessica Heeringa, 25, Norton Shores, 26 April 2013 #8

What has always struck me about this case is the precise timing in which the abductor committed the crime. If the timeline is to be believed, the van pulled in at exactly the right time when no one was there. And left before another customer showed up at the store. Plus, this wasn't a store in some little sleepy town on a two-lane road. It was a convenience store that sells gas next to a highway and sits on a major 4-lane thoroughfare. I understand there are some statements saying the van was seen in the vicinity in the half hour prior to 11pm that night. But even if a criminal watches a store for a half hour, an hour or an entire day, he can't predict when customers are going to pull in.

In addition, in a prior century I worked for a convenience store chain as a manager and everything else, when I read Jessica's drawer was counted down and it was nowhere close to closing time--along with the fact she allowed friends to come in the back door!--I'm wondering how she was even working at this store. I mean, those can't be any bigger signs of theft outside of people seeing her carry non-paid-for items out the front door. Maybe the owner felt sorry for her since she was a single mother, etc., and hey, it's his biz not mine, and I'm not trying to be critical of Jessica here but . . .

Having worked for a convenience store chain for about 10 months, owners and corporations don't take too kindly to workers stealing from them. But I'm reminded of a situation my brother found himself in several years ago. Shoe salesman, a good one. Worked for a couple different shoe companies that were absolutely anal about money, the shoes they ordered, sending defective shoes back, etc. Then he moves the whole way across the country, gets a shoe sales job in the new city, and this business does things the exact opposite--loosey-goosey with everything, money just bleeding out of the business. Well, he eventually figured out the owners weren't in the shoe business . . . they were in "another" business, if you know what I mean. And they eventually got caught, luckily my brother quit before then.

One more thing about the above: I got to know many store owners in my short time in that career. They took their employees very seriously and every one of them had a story of an employee being assaulted, stuck up, and in a couple cases murdered in their stores . . . and if they had been called about an employee missing, they wouldn't have told the manager to check it out, they would've done it themselves . . . because the owners are ultimately responsible for the health and welfare of their employees, not the manager. Just sayin'. But for the record, I didn't work for the same chain involved in this crime.

If the timeline is to be believed, and if the manager is to be believed, I'm guessing that Jessica was stuffed into that minivan in those precious minutes between roughly 11pm and 11:10pm. What strikes me odd about that is the manager and her husband were riding motorcycles. Motorcycles are loud and it's not much of a distance between the mall parking lot and the back of the store. And according to the manager, when they pulled their motorcycles into the parking lot the guy at the back of the store was facing them even though he was on the far side of the van. So, he most likely heard the cycles, most likely saw the motorcycles with their headlights on, but the possible perpetrator didn't seem bothered at all. Instead, not only does he drive calmly out of the convenience store parking lot, he drives right by two people sitting on motorcycles in plain sight who could've seen him commit the crime and, at the very least, could get a good description of him. I'll admit: I don't know what to make of that. Was he really that oblivious? Did he know he was seen and drove slowly in an effort to make himself look inconspicuous? I mean, he didn't even freak out when the two motorcycles pulled out and followed him to the mall exit--according to the manager. Interesting . . .

Very well said!

fasteddy8170 said:

What has always struck me about this case is the precise timing in which the abductor committed the crime. If the timeline is to be believed, the van pulled in at exactly the right time when no one was there. And left before another customer showed up at the store. Plus, this wasn't a store in some little sleepy town on a two-lane road. It was a convenience store that sells gas next to a highway and sits on a major 4-lane thoroughfare. I understand there are some statements saying the van was seen in the vicinity in the half hour prior to 11pm that night. But even if a criminal watches a store for a half hour, an hour or an entire day, he can't predict when customers are going to pull in.

In addition, in a prior century I worked for a convenience store chain as a manager and everything else, when I read Jessica's drawer was counted down and it was nowhere close to closing time--along with the fact she allowed friends to come in the back door!--I'm wondering how she was even working at this store. I mean, those can't be any bigger signs of theft outside of people seeing her carry non-paid-for items out the front door. Maybe the owner felt sorry for her since she was a single mother, etc., and hey, it's his biz not mine, and I'm not trying to be critical of Jessica here but . . .

Having worked for a convenience store chain for about 10 months, owners and corporations don't take too kindly to workers stealing from them. But I'm reminded of a situation my brother found himself in several years ago. Shoe salesman, a good one. Worked for a couple different shoe companies that were absolutely anal about money, the shoes they ordered, sending defective shoes back, etc. Then he moves the whole way across the country, gets a shoe sales job in the new city, and this business does things the exact opposite--loosey-goosey with everything, money just bleeding out of the business. Well, he eventually figured out the owners weren't in the shoe business . . . they were in "another" business, if you know what I mean. And they eventually got caught, luckily my brother quit before then.

One more thing about the above: I got to know many store owners in my short time in that career. They took their employees very seriously and every one of them had a story of an employee being assaulted, stuck up, and in a couple cases murdered in their stores . . . and if they had been called about an employee missing, they wouldn't have told the manager to check it out, they would've done it themselves . . . because the owners are ultimately responsible for the health and welfare of their employees, not the manager. Just sayin'. But for the record, I didn't work for the same chain involved in this crime.

If the timeline is to be believed, and if the manager is to be believed, I'm guessing that Jessica was stuffed into that minivan in those precious minutes between roughly 11pm and 11:10pm. What strikes me odd about that is the manager and her husband were riding motorcycles. Motorcycles are loud and it's not much of a distance between the mall parking lot and the back of the store. And according to the manager, when they pulled their motorcycles into the parking lot the guy at the back of the store was facing them even though he was on the far side of the van. So, he most likely heard the cycles, most likely saw the motorcycles with their headlights on, but the possible perpetrator didn't seem bothered at all. Instead, not only does he drive calmly out of the convenience store parking lot, he drives right by two people sitting on motorcycles in plain sight who could've seen him commit the crime and, at the very least, could get a good description of him. I'll admit: I don't know what to make of that. Was he really that oblivious? Did he know he was seen and drove slowly in an effort to make himself look inconspicuous? I mean, he didn't even freak out when the two motorcycles pulled out and followed him to the mall exit--according to the manager. Interesting . . .

Click to expand...

One more thing: Would anyone be surprised to know that Sternberg Rd. doesn't have a divider--a car or motorcycle can make a U-turn anywhere on that road at any time. Granted, it would be illegal due to the double yellow line, but physically it's possible. Even so, the manager could've gone to the turn to the north on-ramp on the east side of the highway to make a U-turn, although it would've been a little more dangerous due to there being no stoplight. But it would've been "legal" . . . maybe.

In any case, Sternberg has a fifth lane in the middle for turning. She and her husband wouldn't have had to have stopped in the passing lane to do the U-turn if done illegally. They could've pulled into that middle lane to do it. I know motorcycle riders have to have their heads on swivels for all the crazy car drivers out there but a seasoned rider could pull this turn off with no problem.

Instead, she and her husband rode the whole way down to the first light on the east side of the highway--Harvey Rd--to make their U-turn. So, she's near Grand Haven Rd. on Sternberg and she thinks a theft might be going on and she's bothered enough by it that she convinces her husband they should turn around. But, she's not bothered enough to do a U-turn right in the middle of the street on Sternberg so as to catch the thief in the quickest time possible. I mean, the longer she waits to do that U-turn, the less likely she is going to catch somebody, right?

It's very possible, I guess, that her suspicions didn't kick in until she was well down the road. Like, she was weighing what to do, what to do, what to do, and finally her paranoia took over and by that time she was at Harvey. Wouldn't be unusual. We all think like that--sometimes a realization takes a minute to click in. But that's not how she explained it to police. She stated she suspected a theft when she saw the van parking at the back of the store. She said nothing about debating about turning around or not.

And I'm still wondering why she didn't just pull straight into the store parking lot--as in pull into the entrance on the far west side of the Exxon parking lot and circle around to the back where she saw the van park? In addition, she could've pulled into the Exxon parking lot and passed by the rear door on her way to the mall parking lot--that's the shortest path to the lot anyway. If she saw something she could've stopped. If she didn't see anyone she could've cruised to the mall lot and waited. Riding the whole way down to the mall entrance seems like the worst possible choice of all choices.

Once again, hindsight is 20/20. We all do strange things every day that seem to not make sense later. But since I've been a store manager at one time I've been in situations where I suspected employees of stealing and I don't think I would've done what she did in this case.

fasteddy8170 said:

What has always struck me about this case is the precise timing in which the abductor committed the crime. If the timeline is to be believed, the van pulled in at exactly the right time when no one was there. And left before another customer showed up at the store. Plus, this wasn't a store in some little sleepy town on a two-lane road. It was a convenience store that sells gas next to a highway and sits on a major 4-lane thoroughfare. I understand there are some statements saying the van was seen in the vicinity in the half hour prior to 11pm that night. But even if a criminal watches a store for a half hour, an hour or an entire day, he can't predict when customers are going to pull in.

In addition, in a prior century I worked for a convenience store chain as a manager and everything else, when I read Jessica's drawer was counted down and it was nowhere close to closing time--along with the fact she allowed friends to come in the back door!--I'm wondering how she was even working at this store. I mean, those can't be any bigger signs of theft outside of people seeing her carry non-paid-for items out the front door. Maybe the owner felt sorry for her since she was a single mother, etc., and hey, it's his biz not mine, and I'm not trying to be critical of Jessica here but . . .

Having worked for a convenience store chain for about 10 months, owners and corporations don't take too kindly to workers stealing from them. But I'm reminded of a situation my brother found himself in several years ago. Shoe salesman, a good one. Worked for a couple different shoe companies that were absolutely anal about money, the shoes they ordered, sending defective shoes back, etc. Then he moves the whole way across the country, gets a shoe sales job in the new city, and this business does things the exact opposite--loosey-goosey with everything, money just bleeding out of the business. Well, he eventually figured out the owners weren't in the shoe business . . . they were in "another" business, if you know what I mean. And they eventually got caught, luckily my brother quit before then.

One more thing about the above: I got to know many store owners in my short time in that career. They took their employees very seriously and every one of them had a story of an employee being assaulted, stuck up, and in a couple cases murdered in their stores . . . and if they had been called about an employee missing, they wouldn't have told the manager to check it out, they would've done it themselves . . . because the owners are ultimately responsible for the health and welfare of their employees, not the manager. Just sayin'. But for the record, I didn't work for the same chain involved in this crime.

If the timeline is to be believed, and if the manager is to be believed, I'm guessing that Jessica was stuffed into that minivan in those precious minutes between roughly 11pm and 11:10pm. What strikes me odd about that is the manager and her husband were riding motorcycles. Motorcycles are loud and it's not much of a distance between the mall parking lot and the back of the store. And according to the manager, when they pulled their motorcycles into the parking lot the guy at the back of the store was facing them even though he was on the far side of the van. So, he most likely heard the cycles, most likely saw the motorcycles with their headlights on, but the possible perpetrator didn't seem bothered at all. Instead, not only does he drive calmly out of the convenience store parking lot, he drives right by two people sitting on motorcycles in plain sight who could've seen him commit the crime and, at the very least, could get a good description of him. I'll admit: I don't know what to make of that. Was he really that oblivious? Did he know he was seen and drove slowly in an effort to make himself look inconspicuous? I mean, he didn't even freak out when the two motorcycles pulled out and followed him to the mall exit--according to the manager. Interesting . . .

Click to expand...

BBM...

Hi fasteddy,

Do you have a link where the manager and her husband followed the vehicle to the mall exit? I don't recall them saying that.

imamaze said:

BBM...

Hi fasteddy,

Do you have a link where the manager and her husband followed the vehicle to the mall exit? I don't recall them saying that.

Click to expand...

Sorry to quote myself , I think I found it, is this the where you read this?

http://woodtv.com/2014/04/02/target-8-a-new-twist-revealed/

He said they followed the van in the parking lot to Grand Haven Road, where it turned north.

http://www.mlive.com/news/muskegon/index.ssf/2014/04/jessica_heeringa_case_police_r.html

The part I interpreted:

"As the van drove closer to their location in the parking lot, the manager and her husband started their motorcycles and pulled up to the service drive. As the van passed, she looked at the driver, a male subject wearing a red or orange sweatshirt. Her husband stated that he did not see the subject well, but did see that he had “crazy” or wavy hair. Neither of them saw Heeringa or anyone else in the van.
The manager and her husband pulled onto the service drive and followed the van until it stopped at Grand Haven Road. The manager’s husband stated that he was positive the van was a Chrysler Town and Country van, silver in color, as it was the same type a relative owned (Note: This vehicle was located and was in Traverse City at the time of the abduction). He clearly remembered the Town and Country logo on the rear hatch door. Neither obtained the license plate number, as they had no reason to believe a crime had occurred."

If you check a Google Map, the way I see it in my head is this:

The motorcycles are in the mall parking to the NW of the Exxon, probably in the southeast section of it. The van travels that skinny road that goes in a WNW direction toward the mall away from the Exxon. The van continues west toward Grand Haven while traveling in the mall parking lot--essentially the furthest part south of it. The motorcyles are parked to the north of the van as it passes. So, when the van passes, the driver's side is on the far side from the manager and her husband, thus making a description difficult.

So, once the van passes, the motorcycles pull in the same westerly direction and follow the van until it reaches Grand Haven. It stops, presumably, before turning right (north). This is the point at which people go nuts: Why the two didn't get a license plate number. So, the van turns north, the motorcycles turn south on Grand Haven and go to the intersection of Sternberg and Grand Haven, and I presume go east on Sternberg to continue their trip to wherever they were headed that night.

What makes the news article a little tough to understand is the service road actually becomes part of the mall parking lot. So, when it says the motorcycles pull onto the service road, really all the motorcycles were doing was making a turn west in the parking lot. If you Google the map you'll see what I mean.

I should say, imamaze, that the mall has multiple exits. I'm taking for granted the manager means the first one north of Sternberg on Grand Haven.

Just thinking out loud, but if the Manager thought they should turn their bikes around and watch in case Jessica was stealing, what reassured them, after watching this whole incident, that she wasn't, and then they just drove away? I would think they would be more suspicious if nothing else. (I didn't reread the article, I will now, but hope I'm remembering this correctly.)

I want to try to get even stricter with the timeframe so we can see how tight it was--because I was a little loose with it before. And I happened upon a revelation.

According to the official timeline:

At 10:55pm, a girl enters to buy a lighter. Not exits . . . but enters. So, she probably didn't leave the store until 10:56pm, and if she's really picky about her lighters which smokers can be, maybe not till 10:57pm. Well the T & C van was spotted at the Homestead Tavern going north on Grand Haven at 11:03pm and that's 1.1 miles away. According to Google, if you follow the speed limit, it takes 2.1 minutes to get there from the Exxon.

So, if I add, subtract, divide, carry the one, etc. that means that the abduction took place between 10:57pm and 11:01pm because Jessica was still alive when the lighter girl left the store--with her approximate exit time of 10:57 (This will be important later). I guess what I'm saying is by the time the next customer showed up at 11:10pm, Jesscia was LONG gone.

Now, the problem with all this? The manager claims she saw the van pull into the Exxon at 11pm--that's according to the official time line that the police themselves have okay'ed.

I'm sorry--kick me off Websleuths or whatever--but that's just not possible. That has to be a lie, and at best a horrible error on the manager's and the police's part.

There is absolutely no way at 11pm the manager saw the van pull in, then she rode the whole way down to Harvey, turned around, got back to the mall parking lot, parked, shut off her motorcycle, and the van was still behind the Exxon. There's no way. Because at 11:03pm the Town and Country was seen at the Homestead Tavern 1.1 miles away--And for the Town and Country to be at the Homestead Tavern at 11:03pm, it had to leave the Exxon at 11:01pm.

Meaning, if you believe the timeline, the manager and her husband drove the whole way down to Harvey and back in under a minute. Not possible. Absolutely not possible. Simplified: She saw the van at 11pm, drives the whole down to Harvey and back, and it's only 11:01pm. Not possible.

The distance from the Exxon to Harvey is roughly a half mile. According to the timeline, the manager saw the van on the service road pulling into the Exxon as she was going east on Sternberg. So, more than likely, if the mgr is to be believed, she and her husband were at the intersection of Sternberg and Grand Haven when she originally saw the van. So, we have to add on at least 800ft to the half mile distance.

So, to travel from the Sternberg/Grand Haven intersection to Harvey and then back to the mall is about a mile and a quarter. Even if the mgr and her husband averaged 60mph going the whole way to Harvey and back they couldn't do it under a minute. And it's a Friday night and you know they probably hit a red light at Harvey.

By the way, the speed limit on Sternberg? 45mph and it's a reduced speed of 35mph in the section just west of the mall.

I've never been to Norton Shores, MI but I think the avg time the manager and her husband could've made it down to Harvey and back to the mall parking lot, starting from the Sternberg/Grand Haven intersection, is 3 minutes on a Friday night, especially if they got a red arrow at Harvey.

So, the manager didn't originally see the van at 11pm. More likely, the first glimpse she got of it was at more like 10:55pm. I know, that doesn't seem like a big difference but it is. So, I give her 3 minutes to get down to Harvey, u-turn, and come back. So, it's 10:58pm when she gets back to the mall. The mgr and her husband park. The guy is standing by his van. He fumbles around with something in the back of the van and leaves at 11:01pm.

Now, why is this all relevant? Because if the manager saw the van pulling into the Exxon at 10:55pm, it means the van was pulling in at the same time the girl was going inside to get a lighter. In fact, the two might've entered the Exxon parking lot at the same time except from different directions. Meaning, the van was already in the back of the store while the girl was buying the lighter.

The problem? The manager in the timeline approved by the police--I have to say that again because it drives me crazy--never mentions seeing any other customers going into or out of the store. Doesn't mention any other cars in the parking lot despite we know for a fact a car was in the parking lot at 10:55pm--the car of the girl buying the lighter.

The other point is the driver of the van had to see that other car in the parking lot at 10:55pm. And he approached the Exxon anyway. And that's scary given what we now know.

Also what backs up my scenario? A camera spotted the Town and Country in the mall parking lot at 11:02pm. So, it leaves the Exxon at 11:01pm. Drives slowly through parking lot and onto the service road, is seen by the 11:02pm camera at the mall, pulls onto Grand Haven and speeds up to be seen on the 11:03pm camera at the Homestead Tavern.

What's always bothered me about this case when I became interested in it was the timeline. How the van happened to show up at just the right time that no one was at the store. I think an analysis of this timeline shows the van showed up when a customer was in the store. Probably the guy was peeking into the back of the store from the rear exit and waited until the lighter girl left. And I think the manager should be nailed down a little more precisely on her timeline because every cash register and camera contradicts her 11pm original sighting.

Exxon map link in case someone wants to try to map it. My grandson just woke up; I'm out of time


Here’s the timeline, released by the Norton Shores Police Department:

April 26, 2013:

2:44 p.m.: Heeringa purchased groceries at Aldi, 2715 Henry St.

4:35 p.m.: Heeringa begins her shift at the Exxon store. She was aware the store did not have video cameras, as she had advised customers of this and the fact she was working alone. She was not worried about the lack of cameras. It was not uncommon for Heeringa to prop open the rear door and turn off the store’s rear security light so she could smoke cigarettes behind the store or allow friends to enter via the rear door, according to police.
7:30 – 8:15 p.m.: A man who told police he was Heeringa's boyfriend at the time (*Not to be confused with her fiance, Dakotah Quail-Dyer) arrived at the Exxon station in a work vehicle, a silver full-size van. The two reportedly had a discussion regarding their alleged relationship.
A customer advised that Heeringa appeared to be upset after the conversation with the male subject.
7:40 – 8:50 p.m.: A female friend entered the store through the front door to visit Heeringa. Nothing suspicious was noticed at that time.
Both the female friend and a male customer observed a bluish silver van pull up to Heeringa while she was changing the receipt paper in one of the pumps. It appeared that the male driver and Heeringa were having a friendly conversation.
10:55 p.m.: A female customer entered the store and purchased a lighter. She advised that Heeringa was alone in the store and did not appear to be nervous or distressed. The customer did not see anyone in the store or in the parking lot.
11 p.m.: An Exxon manager and her husband were riding their motorcycles eastbound on Sternberg Road.
She saw a silver minivan slowly enter the north drive of the Exxon station from the service drive of the Pointes Mall.
The van drove behind the Exxon station, did a u-turn and extinguished its headlights as it pulled behind the store facing west.
The manager suspected Heeringa may be in the process of stealing from Exxon, so she turned around on Harvey Street to return to the store.
The manager and her husband drove to the Pointes Mall, west of the Exxon station, and parked in the lot with a view of the north and west sides of the Exxon station. The minivan was parked on the north side of the Exxon station.
There were no other vehicles in the lot except for Heeringa's.
The manager saw a figure standing at the rear of the van and noticed the van’s rear hatch was open. The figure shut the rear hatch and quickly opened it again. It appeared as though the figure was adjusting something in the rear of the van, and then closed the hatch again. She noted that the person's head was just above the roof of the van.
The person then walked to the driver’s door, got into the van and began driving westbound on the service drive.
The manager said the store’s rear security light was not on and the store’s rear door did not open at any time. She never saw a struggle or heard anyone yell for help. She did not see Heeringa outside of the store.
As the van drove closer to their location in the parking lot, the manager and her husband started their motorcycles and pulled up to the service drive. As the van passed, she looked at the driver, a male subject wearing a red or orange sweatshirt. Her husband stated that he did not see the subject well, but did see that he had “crazy” or wavy hair. Neither of them saw Heeringa or anyone else in the van.
The manager and her husband pulled onto the service drive and followed the van until it stopped at Grand Haven Road. The manager’s husband stated that he was positive the van was a Chrysler Town and Country van, silver in color, as it was the same type a relative owned (Note: This vehicle was located and was in Traverse City at the time of the abduction). He clearly remembered the Town and Country logo on the rear hatch door. Neither obtained the license plate number, as they had no reason to believe a crime had occurred.
The van turned northbound on Grand Haven Road, while the manager and her husband turned southbound on Grand Haven Road and went home.
11:02 p.m: Surveillance video from inside of a closed store in the Pointes Mall captured a silver minivan turning northbound onto Grand Haven Road.
11:03 p.m: Surveillance video from the Homestead Tavern captured a silver minivan driving northbound on Grand Haven Road.
11:05 p.m: Surveillance video from the Coin Zone captured a silver minivan driving northbound on Grand Haven Road.
11:10 p.m: A male customer arrived at the gas station, pulled up to the pump and attempted to purchase gasoline. He was unable to do so as the pump would not activate. When the pump did not activate, he entered the store believing that the clerk may have been in the back room and not aware of his presence at the pump. He was unable to locate Heeringa. Upon exiting the store, he spoke with a female customer and called 911.
11:15 p.m.: Patrol units are dispatched to Exxon, 1196 E Sternberg Road, Norton Shores, regarding a suspicious situation.
11:25 p.m.: The first officer arrives and begins investigation. Officers searched the store but did not locate Heeringa. Officers located Heeringa's purse and jacket in the back room. The purse contained $420 in cash. Officers noted that nothing inside the store indicated a struggle. There was nothing that appeared to be disturbed. Officers exited the rear door and noted that the door did not have a handle on the outside.
Officers located items of possible evidence outside the rear door, including what appeared to be a 2-inch by 3-inch blood stain on the concrete, later determined to be Heeringa's. Officers photographed the interior and exterior of the store and evidence items prior to collection. Officers collected a sample of the possible blood stain and packaged the other evidence items.
11.38 p.m.: Exxon owner was contacted regarding the open store. He in turn contacted the day-shift manager to respond as she lives closer to the store.
11:50 p.m.: The day-shift manager arrives at the Exxon station and provides officers with her observations of the silver minivan and its driver.
The manager advised that the cash drawer was “counted down” for the next shift, indicating Heeringa was preparing to close the store. While talking to officers, the manager observed the man claiming to be Heeringa's boyfriend drive past the store in a work vehicle. He was contacted to come to the Exxon station and was questioned by officers.
12:38 a.m.: A K-9 team requested to search area. A search of the area north and east of the store was conducted with no results.

Thank you, Roselvr. If I was gonna go on that rant, I should've provided everyone with the official timeline for reference.

After thinking about it a little bit more, it occurs to me you could even tighten the sighting time up to 10:57pm. So, the mgr sees the van at 10:57pm, drives down to Harvey, comes back, and parks at the mall at 11pm. That leaves a minute to observe the guy standing behind the van before he gets in and leaves at 11:01pm.

The problem with that scenario is still the lighter girl. At 10:57pm she would've been at least exiting the store and at the very quickest pulling away from her parking place. But to my knowledge she didn't mention a van pulling into the back of the store as she left.

I should say . . . we need to remember that ingress and egress of that Exxon is unusually complicated. If you look at the Google map, you'll see what I mean. There's no short entrance like we're all accustomed to for gas stations. Instead, a customer, if traveling west, has to go past the Exxon, make a right onto the road on its western boundary, travel about 100 ft. and then make a 180 degree turn to get to the parking lot.

What this means is for the lighter girl to leave, her headlights would've been pointed in the direction of the access road and the mall as she made the 180 degree turn to get back to Sternberg. And to our knowledge, she saw no other vehicles as she exited. So, either the van still had yet to make its move toward the Exxon OR the van was already there. My bet is the van was already there with its lights out. Without the security light on in the back of the Exxon there's almost no chance the lighter girl would've seen it.

In addition, if the girl went in at 10:55pm and left the store at say 10:56 and 30 secs. She gets to her car. Probably lights a cigarette--hey, it's the reason she probably stopped in the first place. So, at the earliest she could leave the parking lot was 10:57 and 30 seconds.

Now, it's important to keep in mind that it takes the mgr 3 minutes to go down to Harvey and back. So, the latest the mgr could've seen the van pulling into the Exxon parking lot is 10:57pm. It can't be 10:58 because she wouldn't get back in time to see the van driver outside his car.

Now, it could be the mgr saw the van at 10:56pm or 10:55pm.

But this all still doesn't explain how the manager saw the van pull in but not the lighter girl's car in the parking lot. Because if the lighter girl's car was truly gone--meaning the time was at least 10:58pm, then the window in which the mgr could see the van, drive the whole down to Harvey and back, and get to the mall parking lot before the van left would've closed. It would be 11:01pm by that time and the van at the very least would've been pulling out of the parking lot, negating the mgr's testimony that she saw the van driver outside his vehicle before he left.

Wow, I hope I'm explaining this clearly.

Are you local? Have you considered calling LE?
Do we have any locals that can re-enact this?

fasteddy8170 said:

After thinking about it a little bit more, it occurs to me you could even tighten the sighting time up to 10:57pm. So, the mgr sees the van at 10:57pm, drives down to Harvey, comes back, and parks at the mall at 11pm. That leaves a minute to observe the guy standing behind the van before he gets in and leaves at 11:01pm.

The problem with that scenario is still the lighter girl. At 10:57pm she would've been at least exiting the store and at the very quickest pulling away from her parking place. But to my knowledge she didn't mention a van pulling into the back of the store as she left.

I should say . . . we need to remember that ingress and egress of that Exxon is unusually complicated. If you look at the Google map, you'll see what I mean. There's no short entrance like we're all accustomed to for gas stations. Instead, a customer, if traveling west, has to go past the Exxon, make a right onto the road on its western boundary, travel about 100 ft. and then make a 180 degree turn to get to the parking lot.

What this means is for the lighter girl to leave, her headlights would've been pointed in the direction of the access road and the mall as she made the 180 degree turn to get back to Sternberg. And to our knowledge, she saw no other vehicles as she exited. So, either the van still had yet to make its move toward the Exxon OR the van was already there. My bet is the van was already there with its lights out. Without the security light on in the back of the Exxon there's almost no chance the lighter girl would've seen it.

In addition, if the girl went in at 10:55pm and left the store at say 10:56 and 30 secs. She gets to her car. Probably lights a cigarette--hey, it's the reason she probably stopped in the first place. So, at the earliest she could leave the parking lot was 10:57 and 30 seconds.

Now, it's important to keep in mind that it takes the mgr 3 minutes to go down to Harvey and back. So, the latest the mgr could've seen the van pulling into the Exxon parking lot is 10:57pm. It can't be 10:58 because she wouldn't get back in time to see the van driver outside his car.

Now, it could be the mgr saw the van at 10:56pm or 10:55pm.

But this all still doesn't explain how the manager saw the van pull in but not the lighter girl's car in the parking lot. Because if the lighter girl's car was truly gone--meaning the time was at least 10:58pm, then the window in which the mgr could see the van, drive the whole down to Harvey and back, and get to the mall parking lot before the van left would've closed. It would be 11:01pm by that time and the van at the very least would've been pulling out of the parking lot, negating the mgr's testimony that she saw the van driver outside his vehicle before he left.

Wow, I hope I'm explaining this clearly.

Click to expand...

I live in FL and haven't been to MI since the 1980's. But I use Google Maps really well--I was up and down that short stretch of Sternberg about 20 times yesterday, looking at road signs, intersections, and measuring distances.

Last night I emailed the reporter who wrote the local story regarding the timeline back in April. Her last name is Peters. I gave her a condensed version of what I wrote here. Hopefully she'll look into it. I'll give her a few days to get back to me. I think that's a more fruitful path than going the LE route. Every reporter is always looking for a new story--I'm trying to give her one.

Yes, it would be nice if someone in Norton Shores could do a run-through on any night, especially a Friday.

There's something else that strikes me about the timeline.

"She saw a silver minivan slowly enter the north drive of the Exxon station from the service drive of the Pointes Mall.
The van drove behind the Exxon station, did a u-turn and extinguished its headlights as it pulled behind the store facing west."

What this means to me is the manager first saw the van when it was at the 90 degree bend in the service road to the NW of the Exxon. That's how I interpret it, somebody else may see it differently. From that point to the back of the Exxon--including a U-turn by the van--I'm saying is about 200ft. And if the van is traveling at about 15mph, that's 22ft/sec. roughly. So it took the van roughly 10 seconds (200/22) to complete the portion the mgr saw. In fact, given the turns it probably took longer than that--but 10 seconds works for the purposes of this presentation.

Now, if you go on Google Maps and do street view, you can figure out the furthest most eastern point on Sternberg the mgr could be and see the van stop and puts its headlights out behind the building. It's a line of sight thing--for example: the mgr couldn't have seen the van turn its lights outs in the back if she was at the gas pumps in the front. My estimation is the furtherst point east the manager could be on Sternberg to see the van shut off its lights is at the first mall entrance to the west of the Exxon entrance/exit. It's 400ft. from that first mall entrance to the Exxon entrance/exit, by the way.

So, by using the above facts, we can extrapolate and figure out at what point the mgr would've first seen the van on the service road. How? Well, keep in mind this is a "worst case" scenario . . . this is the latest everything could've happened.

Well, the mgr is on Sternberg on her motorcycle. Let's say she is traveling 45mph--the speed limit. That's 66 ft/sec. So in the time the van travels that 200ft., the motorcycle travels 600!!! ft. Well, going west from the first mall entrance (the latest point at which the mgr could see the van put out its lights) 600ft. is 200ft. past the Grand Haven/Sternberg intersection. Meaning, in this scenario, the van first caught the mgr's eye when she was 200ft. to the west of the Grand Haven/Sternberg intersection. You may be asking how far is it from that point to the 90 degree elbow in the service road? That's 1000ft. At night. With cars probably coming the opposite direction, I doubt that's possible.

Granted, maybe she was stopped at the GH/Sternberg intersection or she was traveling much slower than 45mph, thus putting her closer to the Exxon upon the initial view of the van. But then we're back where we started: If she was stopped or traveling slow when the van pulled in, did a U-turn, and put out its lights, why didn't the mgr turn into the Exxon right then? Even in my scenario with her traveling 45mph and seeing the van turn out its lights as she passes the first mall entrance, she would've had plenty of time to slow down, pull into the middle turn lane, and turn into the Exxon since there's no barrier there--it's 400ft. from the first mall entrance to the Exxon entrance/exit. If she's going 45mph, that's a 9 sec. span. Plenty of time to make a decision.

By the way, the slower the van is traveling in any example, the harder it gets to square the mgr's observations that night.

For the record, I'm not accusing the manager of anything. All I'm saying is her recollection of that night is not true. And the police should've done a study like I've done before ever releasing that timeline. They would've found what I discovered as well.

I've never heard it's illegal to make a left over double lines

From google link - it is legal to cross those lines to turn left to enter an alley, a driveway, or a shopping center unless there is a local ordinance against it.

fasteddy8170 said:

One more thing: Would anyone be surprised to know that Sternberg Rd. doesn't have a divider--a car or motorcycle can make a U-turn anywhere on that road at any time. Granted, it would be illegal due to the double yellow line, but physically it's possible. Even so, the manager could've gone to the turn to the north on-ramp on the east side of the highway to make a U-turn, although it would've been a little more dangerous due to there being no stoplight. But it would've been "legal" . . . maybe.

In any case, Sternberg has a fifth lane in the middle for turning. She and her husband wouldn't have had to have stopped in the passing lane to do the U-turn if done illegally. They could've pulled into that middle lane to do it. I know motorcycle riders have to have their heads on swivels for all the crazy car drivers out there but a seasoned rider could pull this turn off with no problem.

Instead, she and her husband rode the whole way down to the first light on the east side of the highway--Harvey Rd--to make their U-turn. So, she's near Grand Haven Rd. on Sternberg and she thinks a theft might be going on and she's bothered enough by it that she convinces her husband they should turn around. But, she's not bothered enough to do a U-turn right in the middle of the street on Sternberg so as to catch the thief in the quickest time possible. I mean, the longer she waits to do that U-turn, the less likely she is going to catch somebody, right?

It's very possible, I guess, that her suspicions didn't kick in until she was well down the road. Like, she was weighing what to do, what to do, what to do, and finally her paranoia took over and by that time she was at Harvey. Wouldn't be unusual. We all think like that--sometimes a realization takes a minute to click in. But that's not how she explained it to police. She stated she suspected a theft when she saw the van parking at the back of the store. She said nothing about debating about turning around or not.

And I'm still wondering why she didn't just pull straight into the store parking lot--as in pull into the entrance on the far west side of the Exxon parking lot and circle around to the back where she saw the van park? In addition, she could've pulled into the Exxon parking lot and passed by the rear door on her way to the mall parking lot--that's the shortest path to the lot anyway. If she saw something she could've stopped. If she didn't see anyone she could've cruised to the mall lot and waited. Riding the whole way down to the mall entrance seems like the worst possible choice of all choices.

Once again, hindsight is 20/20. We all do strange things every day that seem to not make sense later. But since I've been a store manager at one time I've been in situations where I suspected employees of stealing and I don't think I would've done what she did in this case.

Click to expand...

Roselvr, it may be legal some places, illegal in others. Local traffic laws can vary from state to state. But you may be right and I could be wrong. However, I would be happy I'm wrong because it would shine even a brighter light on the fact that the mgr rode the whole way down to Harvey to make a U-turn, when it would've been legal to do a U-turn anywhere on Sternberg since there's a fifth lane in the middle of most of it.

The only counter argument to that is I know motorcyclists (I'm not one, by the way) are fairly hesitant to do u-turns in any other place except intersections, especially at night, since riders can be hard to see.

Did anyone notice the sketch of the Abigail Hernadez suspect doesn't look that close to the they arrested? Makes me think the sketch of JH's suspect may look nothing like the actual perpetrator, ........................ especially if it's made up

I'm hoping that someone reads my last few posts and does the research as well. Don't take my word on it. I would like some corroboration. I know it's not easy and you have to be fairly skilled with Google Maps but I think it's important to come to a consensus on this. And plus, if I've made my mistakes, I'd like to know.

fasteddy8170 said:

I'm hoping that someone reads my last few posts and does the research as well. Don't take my word on it. I would like some corroboration. I know it's not easy and you have to be fairly skilled with Google Maps but I think it's important to come to a consensus on this. And plus, if I've made my mistakes, I'd like to know.

Click to expand...

It was turned into the new tip line.

When someone calls the tip line, the Heeringa family gets a notice on their phone, it is going directly to a family member, which depending how viable the tip is will depend how it is handled, we've heard so many people comment about tips that I feel have been worth checking into, and then we find out they called silent observer months ago and never had a response. I think everyone will agree when I say its been 1 year to long, we want Jes back home.

Click to expand...