WA - Mackenzie Cowell, 17, Wenatchee, 9 Feb 2010 - #14

[jgk10414]

Whoa that just reminded me of something. It probably doesn't have anything to do with this but I thought I'd mention it anyways. I used to work at a gas station with a car wash and on days that it was raining when we would leave work, my coworker would go through the car wash. The hot wax at the end of the wash made the rain roll right off of her windshield just like that rain-x stuff.

Yeah, your right...and thanks, that is the name of the product he used.

 

[greencross]

I do not recall if this has been discussed?
I would think that if LE had found specific critical evidence in or on MC car,
that it would not have been towed to an open outdoor area. Does anyone know if it was actually taken in for a proper crime inspection? Does anyone know if any other vehicals have been taken in for inspection?

I thought that I read that they initially did not find evidence of a crime in the vehicle, but later (after body was found I believe) they did say they were looking at it again. I don't think I ever heard anymore about it after that or if they found anything of significance.

 

[metalsmiths]

I do not recall if this has been discussed?
I would think that if LE had found specific critical evidence in or on MC car,
that it would not have been towed to an open outdoor area. Does anyone know if it was actually taken in for a proper crime inspection? Does anyone know if any other vehicals have been taken in for inspection?

Humwatsup
As far as I know it was towed to an open outdoor security lock up area in Chelan Co. at Alcoa. .

 

[alt.theory]

The only time I have seen no windshield wipers not necessary is when a coworker of mine sprayed some product you can by and it breaks the water tension and the water never stays on the windshield. So he didn't have to turn his windshield wipers on. I doubt MC would know about this.

snipped with respect:

MC may not know about it, but RC might. And it would be a great fix to the problem, as opposed to putting more money into an older model car like MC.

I have used the stuff, (there are a few different kinds out there, RainX etc.). As long as you clean the windshield regularly, (say each fill-up), you wouldn't need to use your wipers in the hardest of rain or snow. Eastern Washington isn't the ideal location for the product because it doesn't rain that much, but you still need to keep the windshield clean and product applied in case it does rain. Still, if there was something wrong with my wipers, I wouldn't hesitate to use it and would feel completely safe doing so. IMO, wipers actually obstruct your vision more then the sheeting action caused by wind and the product - and when freshly applied I've seen it work down to about 20 mph. Even the gust from a passing car is enough to blow the rain off the windshield.

 

[metalsmiths]

snipped with respect:

MC may not now about it, but RC might. And it would be a great fix to the problem, as opposed to putting more money into an older model car like MC.

I have used the stuff, (there are a few different kinds out there, RainX etc.). As long as you clean the windshield regularly, (say each fill-up), you wouldn't need to use your wipers in the hardest of rain or snow. Eastern Washington isn't the ideal location for the product because it doesn't rain that much, but you still need to keep the windshield clean and product applied in case it does rain. Still, if there was something wrong with my wipers, I wouldn't hesitate to use it and would feel completely safe doing so. IMO, wipers actually obstruct your vision more then the sheeting action caused by wind and the product - and when freshly applied I've seen it work down to about 20 miles. Even the gust from a passing car is enough to blow the rain off the windshield.

I guess it's subjective.Because I disagree.
Rainx sucks in a downpour like are last rains.

 

[jgk10414]

snipped with respect:

MC may not now about it, but RC might. And it would be a great fix to the problem, as opposed to putting more money into an older model car like MC.

JV's statement to MellissaW was probably correct about the windshield wipers, and the unfortunate fact I live in a different state. Washington State has a requirement for annual Emission Testing but no requirement for a Safety Inspection, ie. check operation of windshield wipers.

In my state, working windshield wipers are a safety requirement. Therefore can't substitute a chemical product in lieu of mechanical wipers.

 

[Miss Optimism]

respectfully snipped

You bring up a good point that always bothered me but I didn't post. Did LE just simple tow MC's car to the impound (at that time this was not a homicide...yet) or did they check to see if the car would start? But I am a newb (my kid's terminology) when it comes to CSI.

LE did tow the car and they did fingerprint. JV told me this because he was there but AFAIK, he doesn't know what happened with the car after it was towed away from PC.

Another thing I was going to mention was that MC's boyfriend would probably know about the Rain X also, since we've seen that he is so into cars. My husband sometimes does that to my car but my dad never did when I was growing up. Just as another possibility. The broken windshield wipers is odd though.

Then isn't there a chance she was heading to Golds Gym or she even made it to the parking lot and was getting ready to go in but didn't make it? Just throwing a possibility out there considering how close it is to the boat ramp.

That is a very good possibility, IMO. Didn't people speculate that she had workout clothes in her back seat?

 

[thecrux]

I guess it's subjective.Because I disagree.
Rainx sucks in a downpour like are last rains.

I like rainx but around the winter months it don't do to well with thedirty slushy junk that is always on the road. So it is weird to me at least that her wipers weren't working

 

[jgk10414]

Snipped with respect:

MC may not now about it, but RC might. And it would be a great fix to the problem, as opposed to putting more money into an older model car like MC.

I guess it's subjective.Because I disagree.
Rainx sucks in a downpour like are last rains.

Maybe the windshield wipers worked in a quarky way that MC new how to make them work, ie. tweeking with the switch. A stranger perp wouldn't know...but a familiar perp might.

 

[metalsmiths]

JV's statement to MellissaW was probably correct about the windshield wipers, and the unfortunate fact I live in a different state. Washington State has a requirement for annual Emission Testing but no requirement for a Safety Inspection, ie. check operation of windshield wipers.

In my state, working windshield wipers are a safety requirement. Therefore can't substitute a chemical product in lieu of mechanical wipers.

Jgk
We do not have Emission Testing in central WA.
But we do have road side safety inspection.

 

[Moonsabove]

Okay, I just did some research and there is a way to disable the keyguard lock. I have several friends and co-workers who have this same phone, and they have never disabled theirs.

That being said, MC probably still had hers enabled, but since it can be disabled, she might have disabled it. I doubt it, but its possible.

Can you tell me how to turn that lock off? I have the same phone, and that is the ONLY feature that bothers me, but I haven't been unable to figure out how to disable the key lock on the front.

 

[jgk10414]

Respectfully snipped:

Another thing I was going to mention was that MC's boyfriend would probably know about the Rain X also, since we've seen that he is so into cars.

Maybe Target sells Rain X?

 

[ginnii345]

Snipped with respect:





Maybe the windshield wipers worked in a quarky way that MC new how to make them work, ie. tweeking with the switch. A stranger perp wouldn't know...but a familiar perp might.

My husband has quirky wipers. Another couple of thoughts....going through the carwash maybe did something to the wipers? Or when the car was towed someone started it and bumped the wiper switch? Perp bumped the switch and too rattled to worry about making sure they returned to the correct position?

 

[jgk10414]

Jgk
We do not have Emission Testing in central WA.
But we do have road side safety inspection.

To make sure I understand...if LE pulls you over they can perform a safety inspection and write you up for defects?

 

[alt.theory]

I guess it's subjective.Because I disagree.
Rainx sucks in a downpour like are last rains.

No problem / each there own. I've driven limos in Seattle area with the stuff. And, as long as windshield is keep clean, with the product properly applied as a base, it worked great. It does take some getting use to, as the droplets of water blowing past can be distracting at first, (although no more so than then wipers IMO).

Also, something to consider would be the windshield would need to be relatively free from scratches, (an older windshield might get enough abrasion in it's lifetime that the product couldn't get all the scratches filled enough to make the windshield smooth enough for the wind to blow away the rain). This might be why it worked so good on the limos, but took more work on my personal vehicle. Also, we did not use RainX.

This is getting a bit off topic, so in an attempt to bring it back: IMO, MC could have driven that car for along time with a broken wiper around the Wenatchee area entirely safely, (although technically against the law). The few times it does rain, (or was forecast too), simply applying a RainX type product.

As looneymama recently stated, the hot wax from the car wash would help for shorter periods of time too, (although I am not sure rain was forecast for the Wenatchee area in the coming days Feb 9th through 12th?) But maybe she was preparing for coming rain??? IDK

 

[alt.theory]

To make sure I understand...if LE pulls you over they can perform a safety inspection and write you up for defects?

I believe the way the law is written LE can pull you over simply to do the safety inspection, (although they rarely if ever do as it doesn't sit well with the public or judges who need to be re-elected - because it happens so infrequently it is generally viewed as harassment by the judge and thrown out). Generally LE must have seen or have knowledge of some type of infraction, (or make one up before writing their report). It cannot be a "secondary" infraction either. A safety defect, headlights or cracked windshield or broken wiper-arm could all be used as a reason for the stop, IMO

 

[metalsmiths]

To make sure I understand...if LE pulls you over they can perform a safety inspection and write you up for defects?

Safety inspection is usual a warning

 

[shortstuff]

Unfortunately I am not a good sluether, so I do not know how to pull up old info very well. Maybe someone can help me a little? I am wondering about something(s).....

I believe LE is playing games with killer via public statements.

I also believe there is more to MC'S cell phone than meets the eye. So get ready to get sluethy folks.....

1) WHY OR WHAT makes us believe MC was at boat launch? Just cell phone info? Wasn't there a dive team at boat launch too? What were they looking for? LE posted statement concerning "if anyone has see this phone...." PLUS they posted a picture. SOMETHING doesnt smell right here. But, I don't know what exactly...... for example, maybe LE FoUND battery of phone (in water at boat launch or CB or speck house IDK) but did not find phone and wanted to throw killer off. Or the opposite: found phone WITHOUT battery in it. (but I am not sure what the benifit to LE would be here) I need to learn how to search prior posts- like the cell phone plea from LE. Is there anything that does not add up?

2) There was something that was said from LE (sheriff?) about checking MC's cell info and OTHER peoples,too- to figure out whereabouts during certain times. There is ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT in my mind this was premeditated- I think all the way down to MC's cell phone. Example;
lets say killer WAS in control of MC's cell at some point. And HYPOTETICALLY he/she was someone that knew MC and it would be normal behavior for this person to be corrresponding with MC via cell. Maybe RIGHT before, during, or RIGHT after the actual murder, the killer text or called MC, so as to make it look like he/she was not there.
3) Also, with my wo:banghead:nderful memory, I recall someone, maybe LE or sheriff, making a statement in regards to cell phone(s)- and it gave me the impresion that maybe TEXTS were erased on MC's phone a/or someone elses,too. Common knowledge- there are text logs that can be verified, but the actual WORDS of those texts are gone FOREVER once they are erased. Another hypothetical example; continuation from above example, killer texts MC's cell to say, " thanks for all the work you did" (or whatever b.s he/she makes up), then takes the battery out of MC's phone. This would show on records that killer was surely not anywhere around MC during this time or else why would he/she be texting her? Then he/she chucks the phone in the water or commercial dumpster IDK, then runs over to get a haircut or something so as to continue proving he/she could not possibly be the murderer.
4) I do believe the killer TOOK OUT MC'S battery in her cell phone!!!! If I were a killer and I knew my prints were on MC's cell phone, or maybe some other damning evidence such as texts, I would make sure I disposed of it! But what would be the benfit of removing MC's BATTERY? Get sluethy here guys...... I have read soooo much on cell phones,pings,towers etc.. I have informaion overload and I know I am missing a SIMPLE, OBViOUSe answer to this question.
5) It seems that if someone wanted to get rid of the battery (or phone) someone could just throw it off the bridge(s) into the Columbia! Just make sure no one is behind you when you huck it- AND NOW IT IS GONE FOREVER!
6) My gut feeling since the very begining is that the cell phone(s) info is going to be HUGE in this case.

 

[metalsmiths]

I believe the way the law is written LE can pull you over simply to do the safety inspection, (although they rarely if ever do as it doesn't sit well with the public or judges who need to be re-elected - because it happens so infrequently it is generally viewed as harassment by the judge and thrown out). Generally LE must have seen or have knowledge of some type of infraction, (or make one up before writing their report). It cannot be a "secondary" infraction either. A safety defect, headlights or cracked windshield or broken wiper-arm could all be used as a reason for the stop, IMO

Totally agree.

 

[Dogdad]

I was 12 pages behind and just caught up to a page about windshield wipers?

It's like getting to the end of a really bad book.