Found Deceased MO - Toni Anderson, 20, North Kansas City, 15 Jan 2017 #1

Status
Not open for further replies.
I wonder why the time LE pulled Toni over went from 4:25 to 4:40. To me, that is a huge discrepancy.
 
It's crazy right? I'm no shrinking violet but when I was a teenager if a friend had a bottle of cider it meant partytime! And I was 27 before I even saw someone smoke a joint! I'm old but I ain't that old, and I don't think it is any different in the UK.
Your that old huh? Sorry I had too. Lol Getting back to where our missing girl is has the LE checked hospitals in the area?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk
 
Seems odd that a device labeled as a GPS unit all of a sudden only tracks speed and not location. [emoji848]
 
KC reporter

9f3b7cdac2ebaff5c47658dfbb990cb6.jpg
 
My biggest question is why does LE keep saying there is no indication of foul play? While there is nothing proving foul play - there is nothing indicating it's not foul play. It's all a big question mark. So - maybe they know something that aren't saying. But don't rule out foul play so fast.
 
It's a bit confusing to deny dashcam footage when you are saying there is no sign of foul play. :/
 
It only helps clarify that the exact time of the stop is likely on the dashcam, and that's kind of what I'd personally like to see now given that they initially said she wasn't stopped at all.

Hell, a simple old single image with a timestamp would go a long way in solidifying trust in their accounting of that stop, you know? :)
 
So, there's 9 minutes for her to get back on the highway and get pulled over. And her GPS still had to get disabled before she got back on the highway? Am I correct?
 
Here is the timeline I have been keeping. I know it is a little different on some times of the above, but I am keeping it this way for now. (We now it is subject to change anyway.)

2:45 am - texted friend she was to meet
4:11 am - left work (Chrome; 7400 E HWY 40)
4:25 am - stopped by NKCPD for illegal land change; not cited (Southwest Blvd & 31st) (4:40 am)
(Toni pulled into QT at 2525 Burlington)
4:33 am - attempted ATM withdrawal; transaction declined per family (unknown location)
4:42 am - texted friend she was “…just pulled over again”
9:30 pm - cell phone went dead
 
It helps clarify that the exact time of the stop is likely on the dashcam, and that's kind of what I'd personally like to see now given that they initially said she wasn't stopped at all.

Hell, a simple old single image with a timestamp would go a long way in solidifying trust in their accounting of that stop, you know? :)

Well in their defense, they originally said the KC police hadn't pulled her over which was correct. It was the NorthKC department which is entirely separate.
 
I am from the KC area and have lived here 40 years.
After reading everything, watching all the news reports, I wondered about a few things.
This is a theory.......
She planned (via text at 2:45am) to meet her
friends at the Southwest blvd QT (knowing she needed gas she'd just get it there) and they would all go to the party downtown together (which is close to that QT), or all follow each other to the party.... she thought she had enough gas to get there but after driving she realized she maybe wasn't going to make it to the Southwest blvd one.
She decides to get off I-70 but goes the wrong direction (KC highways in the downtown area gets tricky and someone could get easily confused depending on how well they know the area). Probably scared of running out of gas decides to just drive until she found one.....after driving some sees the QT sign ahead of her and switches lanes without signaling? And the cop saw her thinking she's been drinking and pulls her over.

No one has mentioned though which direction she headed when she left that QuikTrip. *If that police officer saw her pull up to the gas pump, but maybe didn't wait to see which direction she headed after she was done, then wouldn't the surveillance camera capture that?
I know they can't release the surveillance cameras yet due to impending investigation, but anyone doing anything to her at that QT is highly unlikely or I don't think the police would say "no indication of foul play".
They never mentioned (or I haven't seen the info) of which actual location she attempted the ATM transactions which both were declined. Which I believe were made somewhere between her work and the QT (Hwy 9).
 
Well in their defense, they originally said the KC police hadn't pulled her over which was correct. It was the NorthKC department which is entirely separate.

It's completely understandable if that was the case. However, when there is question, you can simply clear up the confusion. A dashcam image with a timestamp would go a long way in doing that.

If you misreport on the stop (innocent mistake or not) and then you misreport on the time of the stop, I'd say there's some legit room for some healthy skepticism regarding what really happened. It's human nature.

A police officer pulling her over at 4:40 can drastically change what that timeline suggests, so I'd say given the misreporting a little transparency is warranted. That's kind of exactly what the sunshine act is for.

It's highly unlikely that there was a real issue, but the skeptic in me can see the logic of the flow of changes being reactive.

ie

1. We didn't pull anyone over!
2. Officer admits that he pulled her over, but didn't report it. -- because he now knew that someone was likely to look at dashcams as SOME police officer pulled her over around 4:42am
3. Ok, she was pulled over... at 4:40am and it was just a communication issue, because information we had wasn't northern KC, so we didn't check with them.
4. Wait a minute.... new information... here's this atm record at 4:33 that would have had to have happened BEFORE she was pulled over.
5. ok.... she wasn't pulled over at 4:40, it was.... um, 4:25 am. Yeah, that makes more sense.
6. We KNOW this officer isn't involved in this girl's disappearance, so lets just not open the door to that right now because it'll just cloudy the waters.

well... maybe the waters would need to be cloudy if this was indeed what happened? It's obviously a legit question to have right now.
 
Ok I have a question: does the NKSPD have access to this forum? And seen the tips of what is going on that thought of might be a set up and/or boyfriend knows more than what he is saying to LE and what does the boyfriend do as a real job? Because something is fishy here. Scratches on face that looks like nail marks. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk
I'm just assuming that maybe LE keeps tabs on things like this forum, just because they may know that some helpful tips come through sometimes, or people just piecing things together in different ways. At least, if I were in LE, I would seek out anything like this where other ideas and vantage points can be easily accessed. They should know about it though if they don't - there are a lot of good ideas and tips and just people generally thinking outside the box trying to get answers. Just my two cents though. And you are right. I feel like something is very off with the boyfriend as well. The marks on his face immediately reminded me of Kylr Yust's mug shot from back in September when Jessica Runions went missing, with the scratches/defense wounds on his face. Something's definitely not right. He needs to be questioned up one side and down the other.
 
No one has mentioned though which direction she headed when she left that QuikTrip. *If that police officer saw her pull up to the gas pump, but maybe didn't wait to see which direction she headed after she was done, then wouldn't the surveillance camera capture that?
I know they can't release the surveillance cameras yet due to impending investigation, but anyone doing anything to her at that QT is highly unlikely or I don't think the police would say "no indication of foul play".
They never mentioned (or I haven't seen the info) of which actual location she attempted the ATM transactions which both were declined. Which I believe were made somewhere between her work and the QT (Hwy 9).

That's a good point. It just all still seems needlessly vague imo :)

I don't think it's compromising an investigation to say "we know she headed north, via surveillance video" or "we couldn't tell what direction she went".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
172
Guests online
1,915
Total visitors
2,087

Forum statistics

Threads
590,035
Messages
17,929,218
Members
228,043
Latest member
Biff
Back
Top