CA CA - Hannah, 16, Devonte, 15, & Sierra Hart, 12, Mendocino County, 26 March 2018 #1

Status
Not open for further replies.
I wonder about the adoption also. It doesn't seem likely that they would have been able to adopt as a couple in 2005. At that time most unmarried couples would have one parent adopt the child and the other parent would co parent. I also wonder is Jennifer was the adopting parent and that was why Sarah plead guilty to the charges when the child reported that Jennifer was actually the parent who abused her.
 
I wonder about the adoption also. It doesn't seem likely that they would have been able to adopt as a couple in 2005. At that time most unmarried couples would have one parent adopt the child and the other parent would co parent. I also wonder is Jennifer was the adopting parent and that was why Sarah plead guilty to the charges when the child reported that Jennifer was actually the parent who abused her.

I know more than one poster has mentioned this...

But how can that happen? A six year old surely knows which parent beat her, right?

Surely LE doesn't just knowingly let one parent take the fall for the other parent?
 
I know more than one poster has mentioned this...

But how can that happen? A six year old surely knows which parent beat her, right?

Surely LE doesn't just knowingly let one parent take the fall for the other parent?

All the articles I've read say the 6 yr. old said her mom Jen hit her. Told her teacher mom Jen hit her. But Sarah told the court she hit her and Jen witnessed it. Sarah told the court the girl lies all the time, I guess the court believed Sarah over the little girl.
 
Math and physics challenge for any interested.

Something is bothering me about the report that the speedometer was pegged at 90 mph. The physics of the SUV's final resting position are puzzling, when I think about weight, drop, and speed.

I'm going to work on the math a bit more, but wanted to post here to see if others might crowd source the physics problem solving. Clearly we know where the car ended up-- but the 90 mph info released last night doesn't seem to fit that scenario at first glance.

One part of the puzzle I don't know offhand-- is the trajectory from the highway perfectly in line with where the SUV went over the cliff? Or is it perpendicular to some degree to the usual line of travel southbound on that highway?

SUV average weight = 5400 lbs

5 people inside/ average weight 170 lbs X 5 = 850 lbs

Total weight of vehicle and 5 occupants = approx 6250 lbs

100 foot cliff vertical

Turnout is about 75 feet from road to end of tire tracks per police reports

Questions:

1. Is it even possible for an SUV to get up to 90 mph inside of 100 feet unless it was travelling on the road at 90 mph? Seems not. It was an older vehicle, and heavy with people.

2.It seems logical that the SUV should have followed an "arc" more at that weight, speed, and drop, and landed in the water-- not upside down on the rocks, very close to the cliff face. The resting place seems like it fell and rolled at least once. But the engine compartment is very heavy, and the weight is unevenly distributed, so perhaps it tumbled right away?

Appreciate anyone else's input. I'm going to model this a bit more as I think on it. (Maybe Cynic will drop by?!)
 
All the articles I've read say the 6 yr. old said her mom Jen hit her. Told her teacher mom Jen hit her. But Sarah told the court she hit her and Jen witnessed it. Sarah told the court the girl lies all the time, I guess the court believed Sarah over the little girl.

Surprise! Sadly no.....
 
Math and physics challenge for any interested.

Something is bothering me about the report that the speedometer was pegged at 90 mph. The physics of the SUV's final resting position are puzzling, when I think about weight, drop, and speed.

I'm going to work on the math a bit more, but wanted to post here to see if others might crowd source the physics problem solving. Clearly we know where the car ended up-- but the 90 mph info released last night doesn't seem to fit that scenario at first glance.

One part of the puzzle I don't know offhand-- is the trajectory from the highway perfectly in line with where the SUV went over the cliff? Or is it perpendicular to some degree to the usual line of travel southbound on that highway?

SUV average weight = 5400 lbs

5 people inside/ average weight 170 lbs X 5 = 850 lbs

Total weight of vehicle and 5 occupants = approx 6250 lbs

100 foot cliff vertical

Turnout is about 75 feet from road to end of tire tracks per police reports

Questions:

1. Is it even possible for an SUV to get up to 90 mph inside of 100 feet unless it was travelling on the road at 90 mph? Seems not. It was an older vehicle, and heavy with people.

2.It seems logical that the SUV should have followed an "arc" more at that weight, speed, and drop, and landed in the water-- not upside down on the rocks, very close to the cliff face. The resting place seems like it fell and rolled at least once. But the engine compartment is very heavy, and the weight is unevenly distributed, so perhaps it tumbled right away?

Appreciate anyone else's input. I'm going to model this a bit more as I think on it. (Maybe Cynic will drop by?!)
Im just guessing, but it does seem that at 90 mph the vehicle would have flown a bit unless the car hit rock or something to slow it down at the edge of the cliff.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
 
Could it have "tripped" on the berm and just fallen flat, no flipping? I don't see the 90 mph at 75 either but I'm not mathematical.
 
Math and physics challenge for any interested.

Something is bothering me about the report that the speedometer was pegged at 90 mph. The physics of the SUV's final resting position are puzzling, when I think about weight, drop, and speed.

I'm going to work on the math a bit more, but wanted to post here to see if others might crowd source the physics problem solving. Clearly we know where the car ended up-- but the 90 mph info released last night doesn't seem to fit that scenario at first glance.

One part of the puzzle I don't know offhand-- is the trajectory from the highway perfectly in line with where the SUV went over the cliff? Or is it perpendicular to some degree to the usual line of travel southbound on that highway?

SUV average weight = 5400 lbs

5 people inside/ average weight 170 lbs X 5 = 850 lbs

Total weight of vehicle and 5 occupants = approx 6250 lbs

100 foot cliff vertical

Turnout is about 75 feet from road to end of tire tracks per police reports

Questions:

1. Is it even possible for an SUV to get up to 90 mph inside of 100 feet unless it was travelling on the road at 90 mph? Seems not. It was an older vehicle, and heavy with people.

2.It seems logical that the SUV should have followed an "arc" more at that weight, speed, and drop, and landed in the water-- not upside down on the rocks, very close to the cliff face. The resting place seems like it fell and rolled at least once. But the engine compartment is very heavy, and the weight is unevenly distributed, so perhaps it tumbled right away?

Appreciate anyone else's input. I'm going to model this a bit more as I think on it. (Maybe Cynic will drop by?!)

I'm no physicist but....I played with this a bit pushing an object(cig. lighter, heavier on one end) off a jar( Jif peanut butter). It lands almost always, flipped over roof up, if it goes off backwards with heavy end last. In other words
if the car backed over the cliff. It does bounce once when it hit bottom and pushes it towards water. All pics I saw
showed car in water, could have been high tide.
If I push off cliff with engine in front, half the time it lands roof up in same area after bouncing once. But I had no real speed going off cliff/jar. Could speedometer have been broken and stuck on 90?
this theory may not be worth the time it took to write this up. sigh.
 
Im just guessing, but it does seem that at 90 mph the vehicle would have flown a bit unless the car hit rock or something to slow it down at the edge of the cliff.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

Some articles mentioned a small berm at the edge of the cliff.
 
This article talks about the homeschooling. They never notified school authorities or registered the kids when they moved to their new home.


Which they were renting. There are some quotes from the realtor they were using. The usual praise, and he considered them “close” even only working with them for four months. What is it about these women that convinces people they are so wonderful and that they know them so well?




http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-n...f/2018/03/mystery_only_deepens_of_what_l.html
 
MODS, please delete this post. Double posted and it won't let me delete.
 
Math and physics challenge for any interested.

Something is bothering me about the report that the speedometer was pegged at 90 mph. The physics of the SUV's final resting position are puzzling, when I think about weight, drop, and speed.

I'm going to work on the math a bit more, but wanted to post here to see if others might crowd source the physics problem solving. Clearly we know where the car ended up-- but the 90 mph info released last night doesn't seem to fit that scenario at first glance.

One part of the puzzle I don't know offhand-- is the trajectory from the highway perfectly in line with where the SUV went over the cliff? Or is it perpendicular to some degree to the usual line of travel southbound on that highway?

SUV average weight = 5400 lbs

5 people inside/ average weight 170 lbs X 5 = 850 lbs

Total weight of vehicle and 5 occupants = approx 6250 lbs

100 foot cliff vertical

Turnout is about 75 feet from road to end of tire tracks per police reports

Questions:

1. Is it even possible for an SUV to get up to 90 mph inside of 100 feet unless it was travelling on the road at 90 mph? Seems not. It was an older vehicle, and heavy with people.

2.It seems logical that the SUV should have followed an "arc" more at that weight, speed, and drop, and landed in the water-- not upside down on the rocks, very close to the cliff face. The resting place seems like it fell and rolled at least once. But the engine compartment is very heavy, and the weight is unevenly distributed, so perhaps it tumbled right away?

Appreciate anyone else's input. I'm going to model this a bit more as I think on it. (Maybe Cynic will drop by?!)

Definitely doesn't make sense. If it was traveling at any speed, it would have landed at some distance away from the cliff (unless the car washed up onto the rocks after landing, which I find would be highly unlikely given the weight of the vehicle). To me, it seems like the car went over the edge slowly in order for it to land on the rocks right below and not the water.

Another thing I don't get is the kids being found outside the car while both adults were inside, strapped in. For some reason I keep thinking they either made the kids jump/or pushed them off, and then got into the car themselves and drove off of the cliff slowly.
 
I still wonder if there was a financial incentive to 'acquiring' 6 minority children from difficult backgrounds. Do we
know for a fact they were legally adopted? Or could they be long term foster parents and earning monthly checks?
I've read that there are incentives of several thousand dollars per month to take in minority children who had abusive or neglectful backgrounds.

I was wondering if they were getting SSI for the kids
 
Could it be possible that they were being chased?

That's what I'm wondering, as one explanation for the very high speed indicated by the speedometer. And if so, was the chase the felony?

Way upthread someone mentioned that the trajectory of their vehicle, if we assume the car was southbound, was as if it continued straight forward after crossing the bridge, while the road curves to the left. If they were being pursued at a high rate of speed, and Jen (the driver) didn't know the road curved and didn't see it coming ....

But that means they'd fallen victim to serious foul play, and nothing in their known history suggests that kind of dire conflict with anyone who would have just happened to know they'd be on that road 550 miles from home at that time. I suppose there could have been a confrontation during their travels with another driver, or someone they met at a pit stop; or something about their vehicle/driving inspired an act of road rage; or a random awful person decided to force a car off the road for whatever idiotic reason, and they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. But all this speculation feels like just that. It strains credulity.

The other possibility is a near-crash that the other driver never reported, although the lack of skid marks goes against that. But fleeing the scene of a deadly accident and not reporting it could be the felony as well. Now I'm wondering about the person who "found" the wreck, despite the car not being readily visible from the parking/turnout area.

I hope Devonte, Hannah and Sierra are located soon. On the off chance that they're still among the living, in the woods (per the camping theory) or having run away/escaped, they must be terrified and feeling utterly displaced if not actually lost after possibly a week on their own. Two petite adolescent girls and a teenaged, emotionally challenged black boy are at great risk for predation and violence. :(
 
This article talks about the homeschooling. They never notified school authorities or registered the kids when they moved to their new home.


Which they were renting. There are some quotes from the realtor they were using. The usual praise, and he considered them “close” even only working with them for four months. What is it about these women that convinces people they are so wonderful and that they know them so well?




http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-n...f/2018/03/mystery_only_deepens_of_what_l.html


This is only a guess, but I'd imagine it's like how a lot of men who in secret are abusive but to the world at large they present themselves as husband of the year, are very charming, have lots of friends. Do a lot of grand gestures of ~love~ and are very demonstrative, but it's all an act. Makes it hard for their abused partners to get any traction in getting people to believe them. It's extremely manipulative and cunning.
 
https://web.archive.org/web/2015062...rail.co.nz/meet-devonte-little-boy-big-heart/

It is unfortunate there were no birth relatives who could have stepped up to raise Devonte and his sisters. Someone, in their birth family, or a friend of the birth family, must have seen the news and figured out they are missing. It would be unimaginably sad, especially, if they thought the siblings had been adopted into a better life.
 
These are photos taken from the scene via a drone and news outlet idk if they're allowed to be posted if not just delete this post. Anyway I am posting this so those of you like me trying to piece this together can have an image in mind of the car when it met it's final stop. I agree with those saying it does to appear the car went off the Cliff at a slow speed because if it had been speeding at the time it went over the cliff it wouldve def landed further out I feel. This kills the theory the family could've been being chased. If they were the suv would've gona over the Cliff at some speed and again landed further out. An SUV is heavy so it is not likely it moved once hitting the water/Rocks. I am now after seeing the photos and how close the SUV was to the water and seeing water in the videos brush up against that area with force if these children were starving and under weight it's possible they could've been carried out to the ocean. Its odd however the other children were found outside the SUV. But according to reports the children were thrown from the SUV. They must have evidence that the other 3 kids were on the trip if Le is searching the water. I just hope they are able to find the other three kids.
cd2105d927c24603d5332c28ccb4c5ad.jpg
d8b3fcc19f43b62dd885afccb6278eaf.jpg


Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk
 
Lonelychild, If you've ever seen roll over crashes in slow motion, usually all passengers without seatbelts go flying out
of vehicle. I'm not surprised they were found outside. Unlocked doors tend to fly open on rollover.
this accident must have happened Sat. morning early- 12 hrs. from home- they weren't found til Mon. afternoon, so
even if the 2 adults had survived the crash, they succumbed, IMO, from delayed treatment. The children likely died on impact.
 
Couple more pictures of the coastline. For the physics Q, the measurement of the slope, could that be much greater than than it looks in the overhead shots which looks like a straight drop?

image.jpg
image.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
71
Guests online
840
Total visitors
911

Forum statistics

Threads
589,923
Messages
17,927,720
Members
228,002
Latest member
zipperoni
Back
Top