Catching Up…

Hi there!

Wow, what a busy 24 hours.   First things first.

emergency brake•The Keys were in the ignition • the transmission in park • the emergency brake engaged • and the 2005 Kia Rio (black) was forward facing toward the tree.

• The trunk was opened the following day using a tire iron • Despite claims to the contrary there was what appears to be damage not caused by fire toward the right rear of the vehicle.

• An accelerant was used • soil samples were collected • 4″ x 12″ x4 sections of tree removed for testing.

This was not an accident.

♦  Secondly, regarding gangs or no-gangs.  Just because a person belongs to a gang -and that person carries out a crime- does not indicate the crime was a ‘gang crime’.  If a member of the ‘Soccer Ball and Teddy Bear Society’ robs a Citgo gas station, that doesn’t mean the SBTBS robbed the gas station.

♦  Third – Disinformation like we’ve never before seen, circles the case of Jessica Chambers.  It is almost enough to lend sympathy to DA Champion’s assertions of puzzlement, almost.

♦  Fourth – An oddly minded, and arguably unstable, entrepreneur – who self associates with the Soccer Ball and Teddy Bear conglomerate- did an interview “in December” of a person, LeAnn Horn, who was victimized by a white couple, in 2012, in a crime of similar fashion (lit on fire) to Jessica Lane Chambers; sans the final disposition.

A pigeon playing chess.

As a direct consequence of this interview, based almost entirely on pigeon supposition, you find the origin of said pigeon pushing the Mississippi “White Gang Theory“.  The pigeon believing that constructs of the prior 2012 victimization carry forward to explain the murder of Jessica Lane Chambers in 2014.

Hence pigeon proclamations that all other investigative venues -currently being followed by actual investigators on the ground- should be dispatched in favor of the pigeon theory; which, by itself is weak at best.  And to make it sound better, we’ll drum up a bunch of people to agree with us.

However, theories by themselves do not generate click-bait donations.

In order for a pigeon to self promote, the pigeon needs a venue of advancement.  A pigeon platform.

This is actually a familiar pattern.  Long term Treepers will remember we’ve seen this exact construct used before in the Trayvon Martin case.  The pigeons in that example were Joy-Ann Reid, and Frances Robles – the platform was The Grio / Miami Herald.

Here’s how it works.  Pigeon #1 writes a very weak presentation article, perhaps making baseless accusations – and appearing to create news.  Pigeon #2 then writes a follow-up article citing Pigeon #1 as partial source of baseless information, while constructing a larger narrative.

Pigeon #1, then piggy backs on Pigeon #2’s follow-up.  This creates the appearance of sourcing information.

It’s not really news, or journalism, or even research – It’s just collaborative narrative building.  It’s really just two friends/colleagues working together, citing each other, and baiting their readership.

In today’s example, the original outline cites Pigeon #1 as author/contributor, and then self-quoted within the content, as if they were a 3rd party to the construct.  (Which I find incredibly funny – BTW)

Every once in a while a new tidbit will be thrown in which adds to the narrative.  Meanwhile, all oppositional information is dispatched because continuing the build-upon construct becomes what is more important.

Joy-Ann Reid and Frances Robles were MSM pro’s at pulling this off.  Albeit their motives were for a cause, and not self-promotion per se’.

However, when confronted with doing it – such as the Witness #19 story in the Zimmerman case – the MSM reporters tend to go bonzo at having their collaboration exposed.  What do they do?  They attack the person and/or group who is deconstructing their shadow built narrative and bringing in the sunlight.

In 2012 literally the day before (Joy-Ann Reid) The Grio => NBC ~and~ (Frances Robles) The Miami-Herald => ABC, were about to deliver the George Zimmerman deviant 5-year-old sex molesting narrative (totally false),  we exposed the absurd construct of the false story, how the timeline didn’t match, sketchy W19 characteristics, and W19’s family prepared to say it never happened.

The pigeons were flat out furious.

Your collaborative research was valuable and miles ahead of them, constantly keeping them off balance.  This was not normal; this was not what they were familiar with.  They had never experienced such direct, fact-based, pushback and deconstruction.

So what did they do?  They attacked CTH, you, and as a direct consequence obviously me, with everything in their arsenal.

Meh.

Fast forward to 2015 (past three days) and history repeats.  Replace the names of Joy-Ann Reid (pigeon 1) and Frances Robles (pigeon 2) with John Cardillo and Charles Johnson  and you have the same scenario.

… You also have the same result when called out.

Over the target

♦  Fifth – REGARDING CONTACT – We would never knowingly put someone in a position of compromise.  And NEVER would we undertake the responsibility of receiving knowledge, or accepting ownership of information, which should belong exclusively to authorities in charge of a legal matter,  ie the police.

Again, long term readers and researchers will note the opposite.  Just like prior events, if we are engaged by a party with a direct interest in the story we are following we immediately refuse contact, and communication.

We have done this repeatedly.

The stories we follow and research are not about us.  We do not inject ourselves into them.  • Not once did we collaborate with or communicate with the GZ defense team – our work is independent of opinion.   • Same thing with Mike Brown shooting and the research into the participants around Darren Wilson – our work is independent of opinion/influence.

We do the research, we assemble the puzzle bits, anyone can look at the picture a completed puzzle presents.

So to clarify yesterday – when contacted by a potential witness to criminal activity – and with full understanding of the legal implications that come as a consequence of that contact – the first things stated are: #1.) do not tell us who you are, where you are, or anything personal about you.  #2.) do not tell us anything which would put us in a place of having to act upon your conversation.  #3.) If you are doubtful about those two points, then err on side of caution and keep us in dark.

So, what can we do to assist?   We can work to put someone in touch with assistance (attorney or LEO) who would be able to guide them through the myriad of issues which can come as a consequence of their knowledge.  We can also, on an emergency basis, help pay to get that assistance to them.

If, as an outcome of a conversation, a person begins to identify details that contain specifics, and they needed to be directed to law enforcement or a regulatory agency – we would do everything possible to begin that process immediately, with both #1 and #2 above in mind.

Now, back to business…

Advertisements
This entry was posted in justice for jessica, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

267 Responses to Catching Up…

  1. carterzest says:

    He he he…

    Nice Job SD!

    Liked by 3 people

  2. lorac says:

    Hmmm doesn’t Johnson watch tv? If you’re going to record someone, you have to – on tape, at the beginning – have them acknowledge who they are, and that they understand they are being taped, etc. I think maybe this guy just likes to rush whatever out, it’s about speed not accuracy.

    But even if he had gotten permission, he had already today looked foolish with twitter people explaining why Rudd left MS, saying things that diminished the credibility of Rudd’s interview. And anyway, the minute he went personal, he stopped being professional, IMO.

    Liked by 1 person

    • deqwik2 says:

      Believe it or not some states don’t require that. In Alabama you can record audio if one person is aware but both parties have to be aware of video that is recorded. I can put a thing on phone & record conversations without telling the other person & it’s legal but if I want to whip out the video recorder I have to tell you..crazy.

      Liked by 2 people

      • lorac says:

        That’s interesting, it’s different by state. Sounds like a safe thing to do anywhere, though — although I suppose some want to get something on tape that they know they couldn’t get permission for.

        I’m not really clear about Rudd’s objection though – even if it’s true that he didn’t agree to be taped, he knew it was an interview and the information would get out there.

        People have offered up different contributing factors to all we’re seeing now – the riots, etc. I don’t know about Rudd’s past, but I think for a lot of these youths, they were born to moms with drugs or alcohol in their system, and they are born with limited ability to think about consequences and limited ability to feel empathy. What did this Rudd think was going to happen if he talked to someone? lol

        Liked by 1 person

        • insomniakat says:

          I was wondering if Bryan Rudd knew if he was being recorded. I doubted that he did, and now we know he wasn’t. This Chuck Johnson guy should have told him.

          Like

        • sidneyaneres says:

          MIssissippi is what is referred to as a single party state. Only one person needs to know it is being recorded, video/audio.

          HOWEVER, Chuck called from another state. So Chuck must follow the laws from the state he called from. If chuck did not do this, (2 party state, 2 people must be aware, note this means if three people are involved, the third does not have to know, unless the state law is written differently).

          http://www.aapsonline.org/judicial/telephone.htm

          Most people are not aware of this. below the listing in the link is some information for each state.

          and on the record, means, what you are saying is being put on the record and able to disseminate, Chuck says he tole him on the record. However chuck says he called back, if he said it the first Time and not the second Time, and he is in a two party state, opposie in my opinion.

          Like

        • sophie1150 says:

          “limited ability to feel empathy”. In addition, children who are beaten, yelled at, and exposed to horrible violence seen to adopt this as a way of life.

          Like

      • BitterC says:

        So you mean all the criminals caught on videos in Ferguson can sue Basshole, Stacks and Reb Z??? Josh the arsonist should take not.

        Like

    • ytz4mee says:

      the minute he went personal, he stopped being professional, IMO.

      IMO, he never was “professional” but a clickbait trolling muckracker.

      When the facts are on your side, argue the facts. When they are not, pound the table, make a lot of noise, and argue emotion. CJ has been pounding the table.

      Liked by 6 people

    • Kitty Smith says:

      Some states are “One party” states, meaning only one party need know the phone conversation is being recorded. Some states are “Two party”, meaning both parties to a phone conversation must agree to have it recorded. Otherwise, it’s a prosecutable offense – that is rarely prosecuted.

      Like

  3. lovemygirl says:

    Oh, Lee S. (Stranahan?? sp) joined Chuck and John C on twitter later criticizing you. I almost spit out my soda when I saw his name pop up. I guess pigeon #3 was knocking over his own chess pieces strutting around the board..

    Liked by 7 people

    • froggielegs says:

      OMG Tranahan another twit!

      Liked by 4 people

    • froggielegs says:

      Both Tranny and Chuckles slam this blog only because they wish they could be half of what this blog and SD are. They are both failures and do nothing but beg for money online.

      Liked by 11 people

    • stella says:

      He and I have been carrying on a “conversation” today about this very thing. His remark about SD having an ego problem is particularly ironic.

      Liked by 4 people

      • deqwik2 says:

        A very wise person taught me that there are two ways to be “the big man in town”. If you think of man as a building in the city, you can either build the tallest building through hard work or you can go around knocking down everyone else’s buildings until yours is the tallest. Sundance has built his building (reputation) through hard work…the others are trying to knock him down so they can appear to be the tallest.

        Liked by 6 people

      • Fell into the burning hole of twitter last night trying to find info on Charles Johnson.
        C. Johnson, John C., Stranahan, almost like a twitter twilight zone. Looks to me like they were in a kitty fight. I was amazed, just amazed. Guess what? It was all SD’s fault.

        Liked by 2 people

    • justfactsplz says:

      I think we pretty much took out the strut in Lee right here on this site. Oh, that was a fun time.

      Like

  4. Pingback: Catching Up… | RINO Blog Watch

  5. froggielegs says:

    Now you know why I hated it when people would link his crappy juvenile looking blog in the MB topics. Using him for a source of information on anything including how to wipe your butt properly, ruins every ounce of credibility a person could possibly have.

    I hope that person does sue him. I do not believe for one second Chuckles got any permission to record the phone call. The only thing he is good for is to tweet crap to him that you wouldn’t want on a reputable blog knowing he will blog about it and if anyone ends up paying a price for it, it will be him. He lives for scandal and drama. His blog should be called Got sh!t. Cause that’s all that’s usually on it.

    Liked by 8 people

    • LetJusticePrevail" says:

      Well, another GOOD thing came out of the twitter exchange. We are now certain that it actually WAS Bryan Rudd who made the accusations that Jessica Chambers had been gang raped at least twice by “Bugeye” and “Bos Made”.

      I bet Bryan isn’t liking the idea of ever going to prison in MS any time in the next 15 to 20 years.

      I wonder if those hand signs in the pic of “Bugeye” and “Bos Made” are actually indicative of membership in a particular gang? If so, that could mean Bryan will have LOTS of people interested in having some “face time” with him.

      Liked by 3 people

      • insomniakat says:

        Here’s what Jessica’s sister AJ Prince, on Kelsey Arendale’s FB page had to say about what Bryan Rudd said:

        Like

        • LetJusticePrevail" says:

          Yup. I saw that. And that is exactly why I started to dig into some of Rudd’s claims and suggested that someone should create a complete transcript of that entire recording.

          Use his statements and the information about the arrests of “Bugeye” and “Bos Made” to establish a timeline for those attacks. Remember… Bryan said Jessica told him that both of those assaults occurred before he first started dating her.

          Also remember that Bryan said Jessica had a “boyfriend” when he firstmet her, and that Jessica and her “BF” used to come to his house all the time, and that his cousin’s BF used to sell weed to Jessica and Jessica’s BF. Oooooops! Did Bryan name names, and implicate a family member for selling illegal substances to a minor? I think he did….

          Liked by 4 people

          • BertDilbert says:

            I could not listen to the recording again! There were multiple instances where it seemed to be ending but it kept going and going. I like the way Sundance casually lobs an incendiary device in the general direction…. With great results.

            Like

          • PolioLioP says:

            LJP – I’m the guy that did the partial transcript last nite – some of it got lost in posting. I have the recording now and will post again in the Day #27 thread. I’ll bring forward the Day #26 work, correct it from the others who hvae listened, and put it out. BUt of course, NOW that I know what Jessica’s family says about Bryan and his crimes, not sure I believe any of it TBH.

            Liked by 2 people

            • LetJusticePrevail" says:

              Bryan Rudd is not to be trusted. While I don’t believe he has direct involvement in Jessica’s murder, I do believe that he has every motive to lie about the nature of his “breakup” with Jessica and/or the actual reason why he left MS to go to Iowa. He could also have a very strong motive to protect whoever actually did commit that murder, whether it was by members of his “set”, family members, or just “friends” in the Courtland/Batesville area.

              That could provide a very strong motivation to cast suspicion in the direction of Ben Chambers, since (in doing so) he can divert attention away from any of his “Homies”.

              What you see in his “interview” by CJ, and the fallout that followed CJ’s posting of the recording of that “interview” on his website, is a case of 2 people who were each trying to “use” the other for their own personal reasons. CJ wanted “clickbait” for his website, and was willing to use the recording of Bryan Rudd for that purpose. Bryan, on the other hand, had his own motives. But think about it. Bryan (most likely) already has a rock-solid alibi for the time of Jessica’s murder. So he doesn’t need CJ’s website to “clear his name”. But he certainly does want a soapbox that he can orate from to sidetrack the investigation.

              Liked by 2 people

              • ShepherdDawg says:

                I think that Bryan was probably abusive to Jessica and treated her badly.

                That is what AJ Prince’s Facebook comments suggest, and I am inclined to believe her (Kelsey’s mom).

                Like

        • lastConservinIllinois? says:

          I’m assuming the repeated use of the word “boy” is intentional.
          Intent to demean, and provoke him to keep talking.
          Keep talking fools!

          Like

        • yankeeintx says:

          Has anybody checked to see if there is an active arrest warrant out on Rudd?

          Like

        • sophie1150 says:

          Jessica had a horrible life and a very horrible death. She didn’t have a place she could call home.

          Like

      • John Galt says:

        Bryan snitched on rapists and abusive boy friend. Oooops.

        Liked by 1 person

      • John Galt says:

        “Bryan Rudd who made the accusations that Jessica Chambers had been gang raped at least twice by “Bugeye” and “Bos Made”.

        Nice recording to send to the parole board.

        Liked by 4 people

    • d'hack says:

      Might want to add to the posting guidelines a rule about not linking to Chuckies website.
      Gnome sayin”? 🙂

      Liked by 1 person

  6. If they ever write Jessica’s book about this, it should be entitled

    Pyrophoric Implosion of the Vanities

    Liked by 4 people

  7. cali says:

    Sundance: I wish your integrity would be copied in every profession/entity as “the” mission statement.
    Thanks for your honesty which reinforces the trust in all of us when we click and find that answer to a question.
    Naturally – you elicit ire from a lazy, shallow and dishonest msn – who had monopoly in reporting. You are a threat to many.
    You have done what others failed to: Being trutful contrary others. You are truly a gem!
    Regarding Johnson: BUSTED!!!

    Liked by 8 people

  8. Buford says:

    Were you able to assist the potential witness? I know you can’t comment on specifics. I certainly hoped this might be the break we were all waiting for. #praying

    Liked by 3 people

  9. I recall CJ telling people on Twitter that before he could post the clickbait he had to finish checking with lawyer…hmmm

    Liked by 4 people

    • LetJusticePrevail" says:

      Isn’t it AMAZING how he posted an image on his site on Jan 4th, emblazoned with his watermark, but it was actually lifted from the CTH?

      It’s really funny, since I have been tracking the number of “views” that image has received ever since Dec 13th:

      Liked by 6 people

      • nimrodman says:

        LJP, what image was that? Can you post the link from where it appeared here on CTH pls?

        Like

        • LetJusticePrevail" says:

          THIS 12/13 comment (on a CTH thread dated 12/12) is the very first time I posted that particular image:

          https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2014/12/12/day-5-mississippi-burning-the-murder-of-jessica-lane-chambers-investigation-continues/comment-page-4/#comment-1151422

          It was reposted by Sundance (with my full permission) in THIS original post on 12/13

          https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2014/12/12/day-5-mississippi-burning-the-murder-of-jessica-lane-chambers-investigation-continues/comment-page-4/#comment-1151422

          Now, here’s the tricky part: Notice how the wording of the caption below the pic varies slightly between those 2 versions? Well, the reason for that is because every time I post that image, I link it directly from the Imgur account where it is stored. SO, if I alter the pic in that Imgur account, but keep the link the same, even the old links will access the NEW (altered) version.

          When I posted that image the very first time, it included the exact wording seen in the caption when Sundance used it (with my full blessing) in the Dec 13th post. But, since he’s a smart operator, he didn’t use my link to the pic. He screencapped the pic (with my full permission and blessings) and put it in the CTH WordPress files, and uses his own link. Nothing wrong with that, since it keeps peeps from making alterations to the pics after the fact.

          As it turned out, I later wanted to use the pic in an newer comment, but it was after we had a discussion about the “Striped Shirt Guy”, and had learned that the CCTV video had actually been edited by the Television reporter and his editors (for the purposes of brevity and focus during a news report).SO, since I didn’t want to post a pic with a caption questioning the operator of the DVR, I “cut” the last sentence from the caption below that pic and “saved” it in the exact same Imgur location, and reposted my new comment with the same link (which NOW holds the “updated” version of the caption.)

          So you see, SD’s version of that image IS the actual, “original” version. And it was SDs wordpress image that was taken by CJ, and emblazoned with the “Gotnews” watermark.

          It’s the same sort of garbage that CJ pulled on Froggieleggs, when he took HER diagrams and posted them on his site and tried to pass them off as work of his researchers. (and explains why Froggie started to imprint her own images with a watermark).

          Liked by 10 people

          • sidneyaneres says:

            The fines for copyright violation are huge. Everything original written and photographed etc is basically copyright from that point. However if you have not officially taken the steps to register the work, it becomes murky, you must first notify them and demand they take it down, If they do not, go look up the penalties, and note in film/video its PER FRAME, largest award I know of was from a SPidey movie. Had to do with taking a movie theaters billboard from a scene where Spidey travels above the street.

            They took the frames from the original footage (its called a plate) and then used computer imagery to add spidey, however they also changed the original movie marquee to say Welcome Spider Man or something like that, from what the owners had placed on the marquee.

            The owners of the marquee sued and won, It was a couple seconds or so, 48-60 frames, several million dollars.

            Like

            • LetJusticePrevail" says:

              Meh. I took a screencap from a news report and added a caption below it. I never claimed to have taken that pic, or that I was ever in Courtland. I also don’t make so much as one thin dime from any “views” of that (or any other pic) I post here (or anywhere else,for that matter) So, If the news channel wants to sue me, let ’em. They’ll soon find out it’s not going to get them a dime (you can’t get blood from a turnip) and the expense of sending me a “cease and desist” letter won’t be worth their while.

              CJ, on the other hand, lifted that image from the CTH and then “watermarked” it with the “GotNews” logo, as if it was his own. Not much integrity there, IMO, and really shows what kind of “journalist” he really is.

              Liked by 6 people

            • White Hat JD says:

              Copyrights do not require registration.

              Like

          • nimrodman says:

            thanks for the explanation, LJP

            Liked by 1 person

  10. carterzest says:

    Oh, and I will gladly donate towards an attorney fund for the other slanderous piece he did on you. Dirty pool by a butthurt pimple!

    I WILL NOT POST IT HERE, but, Totally CLASSLESS!

    Liked by 1 person

    • froggielegs says:

      Just so you know, Chuckles source of info for that blog was BigBoi. As in Traybot. That so called info is 3 years old. Once again, Chuckles grabbed that info from another blog and posted it as his own “investigation”. But, but, but, he doesn’t steal blogs. The dude is a complete loser!

      Like

  11. waltherppk says:

    Sort of hate to do this but there is something that needs to be addressed about the burned wreck that is more significant than a broken windshield wiper arm Really I’m not meaning to be a pain about little details ……

    WHY is the entire STEEL back bumper of the burned 2005 Kia Rio ….umm … Just GONE !!!!

    What I am asking about is the steel structural “rebar” bumper that is underneath the plastic bumper cover cowling that obviously burned away. But steel bumpers don’t burn or just float away into space. And bumpers don’t just “go missing” or just fall off somehow without a whole lot of help.

    So ……..Where is the REAR BUMPER ??????

    http://www.ebay.com/itm/OEM-03-2003-04-2004-05-2005-KIA-RIO-REAR-BUMPER-REINFORCEMENT-BAR-REBAR-SUPPORT-/171421075906?pt=Motors_Car_Truck_Parts_Accessories&fits=Year%3A2005|Make%3AKia|Model%3ARio&hash=item27e97e09c2&vxp=mtr

    http://allkiaparts.com/new-arrivals/003051.html# Can look at different views here

    Liked by 1 person

    • waltherppk says:

      Here is the bumper piece that is missing, a nice sized chunk of structural steel that no way just fell off and disappeared

      Like

      • PolioLioP says:

        Her dad ran a chop shop.?? He got her this car – then took it away from her again and just very recently gave it back. Was it ever there?

        Like

        • waltherppk says:

          Somebody said to start asking the right effin questions. Okay I’d say we are asking and these should count.

          Liked by 4 people

          • PolioLioP says:

            OK, so what if the rear steel bumper had been replaced and shoddy work was done so that none of those other 5 bracket bolts were attached. Just the four (or two?) main bolts going to the strut absorber. Remember the car had been repainted, so perhaps Ben got a junker and put a new bumper on it? Then if like Stargazer says below, the fire exploded the strut cartridges and off comes the bumper.

            Like

            • waltherppk says:

              And what if the far more likely possible scenario exists that would account for what we are seeing? Do you for some reason just not want to go there? While those other mechanisms may be possible what is more likely? If this was any other car and you knew nothing else than the pictures you are looking at tell you…….then what do you see as likely?

              Liked by 3 people

              • LetJusticePrevail" says:

                I think you have “hit” on something, walther…

                Without that steel bumper, there are no lower attachment points for the cosmetic cover. IMO it could never have been installed in such a fashion.

                So what happened to the steel bumper?

                Liked by 4 people

            • AghastInFL says:

              or, the car was repaired from a previous crash and the bumper was omitted and only the bumper cover was installed. Safe? no, Cheap? yes. This car could have a salvage title for all we know… he is a ‘mechanic’.

              Liked by 1 person

    • waltherppk says:

      It would have taken a substantial force to rip that bumper off !!!!
      So what’s up with the missing bumper ????

      Liked by 3 people

      • Stargazer says:

        What IS up with that missing bumper?

        My mind is going in some terrible directions…maybe when she was given the car, the bumper was already missing…maybe purposely removed by someone with experience taking cars apart.

        If a car without a steel bumper is hit from behind, would that make it explode more easily?

        Maybe my thoughts stem from the fact that my first car was a potentially explosive Ford Pinto. There was a bolt that could be driven into the gas tank from an impact, resulting in a fireball. Several people were incinerated.

        Like

      • royofan says:

        Torn off towing the car to the tow truck maybe? If the car was hood first butted up to a tree it would have had to been towed from the rear initially.

        Liked by 1 person

        • royofan says:

          I doubt that would shear off the top bolts…but maybe. And more of a possibility if the truck driver was dumb enough to actually attach the chain/s to the bumper and not a tow hook.

          Like

        • waltherppk says:

          Possible but not likely. There are holes in the frame for tow hooks and there seems no reason they would try to hook onto the bumper. It would be likely more of a shock load kind of catastrophic force would tear off the bumper. The bumper wouldn’t have likely just ripped off even if the tow truck did improperly hook onto it to drag the car out, it should have held okay on that kind of gradual force, could have probably picked up the whole car by it.

          Liked by 1 person

          • Kitty Smith says:

            Two things, opposite ideas:
            1). The Kia may not have been towed out by hooking to the frame holes because, to a backwoods MI tow driver, the vehicle is a total so it doesn’t matter if he does it the easiest way possible by wrapping/hooking to the bumper, never mind further damage/destruction of evidence, or the bumper was hanging as an impedance to towing and removed, perhaps tossed into the back seat and later discarded or, halleleujah, retained as evidence.

            2). The bumper was deliberately removed prior to the murder and the cosmetic cover was jerry-rigged to stay on to appear normal, thus meaning the murder was planned well in advance of that Saturday night and distinctly planned to be carried out as a forced crash & burn.

            Like

      • Excellent eye. I had assumed that structure was some type of composite..but the part you are showing looks steel like you say, should have survived a fire at least as well as the aluminum body. I still think this could be a result of striking the ground (catching a structure beneath the car) during an accident. The only other logical explanation is the tow truck ripped it off idea.which doesn’t fit so well either. Great job.

        Like

        • waltherppk says:

          The body is likely just sheet steel not aluminum like some land rovers. Aluminum is rare.

          Liked by 1 person

          • Thanks. So, the body of sheet steel survived quite well in the fire. The bumper has ripped off somehow. My guess is it would take a pretty high rate of speed to cause such force, a lot of trauma.

            Like

            • waltherppk says:

              10 or 15 mph into any substantially immovable object would do it, even plowing into earth would do it. It could possibly cause serious injury to the driver and would likely cause airbag deployment which could actually make things worse. An airbag is a sort of separate “counter” crash by itself and can easily break bones or injure, but is a predicted compromise where the odds are calculated it may save a person. Not always. Depends on the actual need versus the projected need. People have been killed by airbags in otherwise survivable accidents.

              Liked by 2 people

              • I have had an air bag go off on my beautiful face (insert sarcasm here) and it can be very traumatic. Saved my life though. It does stun you at the least. It is a very violent action.

                Liked by 1 person

                • waltherppk says:

                  I have had several accidents where I could have been seriously injured but my head broke my fall.

                  Liked by 3 people

                • taqiyyologist says:

                  And the smell from whatever gas is in the bag stays in your nose for a couple of days, for some reason, I noticed.

                  Like

                • Ha! More like years. I’ll tell that to the judge next time;)

                  Like

                • yankeeintx says:

                  Interesting point. Is there anyway to tell if the airbag deployed in Jessica’s car, and would that put the “it was just an accident” scenarios to rest?

                  Like

                • Kitty Smith says:

                  Airbags don’t deploy in rear end collisions. They’re only supposed to deploy on front end collisions over to about 30 degrees off center and usually require a G (force) of 7 to deploy. Some vehicles prone to rollovers are equipped with side airbags. Airbags are often targeted by thieves.

                  Since Jessica didn’t actually hit that tree, there would be no reason for the airbags to deploy, assuming they were in place and the sensor functioning properly. The 2005 Kia Rio comes equipped with dual front airbags.

                  So far, it LOOKS like Jessica was hit while driving somewhere in the vicinity of the rear of the car with just enough impact to run her off the road where she was able to brake in time to not actually hit the tree. She still had the presence of mind to put it in park and set the brake, so it seems like the attack came after that, including the blow to her head.

                  Like

              • AghastInFL says:

                Go to the picture posted by Walther above showing the Rio with bumper bar attached, notice the rear wheels, toward the rear… also missing is the inner qtr panel, another steel part (pricey part $300+) it is also missing completely the bumper cover attachment assm is hanging free…. see #006:
                http://www.kiapartsoverstock.com/showAssembly.aspx?ukey_product=7186974&ukey_assembly=1067168
                The steel panel behind the bumper cover is not flat like the other car it is bent… fire damage? possible…previous damage? also possible.

                Like

              • stella says:

                If they aren’t wearing a seat belt. The two are meant to work together.

                Like

                • waltherppk says:

                  Yeah but people just going a few blocks often do neither one, or they buckle up in a hurry very discretely when they see a cop.

                  Like

                • stella says:

                  That’s why people are ejected from cars and land on their heads, or submarine under air bags.

                  Like

    • waltherppk says:

      Here is the inboard view of where the bumper would go into the frame mounts, looks like two bolts each side in addition to 5 more bolts on the brackets so I’m counting 9 bolts holding that bumper onto the car. For sure it didn’t just fall off.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Stargazer says:

        One of the struts holding the bumper on may have exploded and launched the bumper many feet away from the car. Apparently, this can happen in a car fire:

        “…Three firefighters approached the vehicle at a 45° angle from the driver’s side of the front bumper, just as they were taught. Just before they applied water to the fire, there was a loud explosion. The three firefighters assumed that a tire had exploded; they continued the extinguishment. After they knocked down the fire, an officer found the complete bumper and left strut lying several feet from the vehicle. The left strut had exploded, launching the bumper about 25 feet from the vehicle; it penetrated a wooden fence (photo 1). The bumper, weighing at least 50 pounds, traveled fast enough so that the three firefighters did not notice it even though they were standing within 10 feet of it at the time…”
        http://www.fireengineering.com/articles/print/volume-163/issue-7/Features/vehicle-fires-is-it-time-to-change-our-training.html

        Like

        • Stargazer says:

          Sorry, the link above seems to go to a sign-in page. The title of the article is “Vehicle Fires: Is It Time to Change Our Training?” in the publication, ‘Fire Engineering.’

          Liked by 1 person

          • waltherppk says:

            It doesn’t matter, it is not a possible scenario for this vehicle which has no shock absorber cylinders but uses a foam crush system.

            Like

            • nimrodman says:

              Ahhh, ok. I’ve got a comment in the spam filter that reiterates that cylinder-explosion example from the firefighting article and I say maybe it’s in the woods and should be searched for. So pls disregard that aspect when my missing comment appears.

              Like

            • Kitty Smith says:

              Besides that, most of the fire was in the front of the vehicle. The burning on the exterior rear is clearly from an accelerant being splashed about here and there and lit off by amateur arsonists. There is nothing about the appearance of that vehicle in the aftermath that suggests temperatures high enough in the rear to cause a failure needed to detach/sheer off the bumper. So far as we know, the gas tank didn’t even get hot enough to vaporize the fuel. If it had, all bets would have been off and that vehicle would have been an inferno. It wasn’t.

              I don’t think it was fire or that explains why the bumper wasn’t there, unless it was a rather gentle impact from a VERY heavy vehicle. Removed because it was bent enough to impede pulling it out and getting it up the tow truck ramps and got tossed into the back seat or on the truck bed? Maybe. Otherwise it wasn’t there to begin with or it was removed immediately for evidence (hard to believe from that team).

              And all of this raises another issue: Did the cops examine the vehicles owned by Jessica’s acquaintances and their associated friends, etc. for damage? Have they questioned auto body repair shops, parts houses, etc. to see if any of her acquaintances have had auto body work done or purchased body parts? If that happened somewhat locally, they should be able to discover that. Of course, if the work was taken to an urban area like Memphis, they wouldn’t look that far and it’d be a dead end. But the folks of Courtland aren’t exactly the smartest and they’re cocky because they probably don’t think there’s much to fear from the local gendarmes.

              Like

        • waltherppk says:

          That scenario is not applicable to this vehicle. There are no shock absorber cylinders but instead there is a crushable foam overlaying the steel bumper which is rigidly attached to the frame. The flexible plastic bumper cover cowling covers the shock absorbing “styrofoam” or urethane? foam block that overlays the steel bumper and any impact simply crushes the foam that works the same way as skull protection in a motorcycle helmet. There are no hydraulic cylinders to explode in a fire so that is ruled out as an explanation. No explosion tore off the bumper. It was torn off by brute force of an impact load rearward and probably from underneath like from running over a stump or a boulder or plowing into an embankment. I would bet money on this.

          Like

          • waltherppk says:

            The #14 part is the foam crush block that absorbs bumps by deformation. The bumper is a sandwich, flexible plastic outside cover cowling, foam block underneath grooved in back to fit over the steel “real bumper” fastened to the car frame.

            Liked by 1 person

          • Kitty Smith says:

            I think there’d be a lot more visible body damage from an impact powerful enough to get that bumper by impact from the rear. Torn clear off by a stump is a possibility, but I think we’d see some stretching and folding on the very ends of at least one quarter panel if that happened. It seems to me that any rear impact powerful enough to knock that bumper clear off would have caused a lot more body damage and possibly launched the vehicle right into that tree. Further, the damage to the vehicle that hit her would be very noticeable. In rear end collisions, the rear car usually gets the worst of it in terms of damage, even if the front vehicle is moving as long as they come to a stop without losing control and hitting something else.

            Forcing an accident is a lot more “iffy” way to kill somebody than to run them off the road, torture and burn them.

            The question still on the table is, “Where is the bumper”?

            Like

      • waltherppk says:

        I have run the numbers for tension failure of 4 medium grade 6 mm bolts whcih would be one mount on one side and it is over 7 tons for tension failure for one mount. If you had the tow strap in the middle so the load was balanced double that to 14 tons for tension failure of the bumper mount. You could pick up a string of these cars with a crane hooked to the back bumper of one of them.

        Like

        • waltherppk says:

          My best guess is it would hairpin the bumper and tear out the frame mounts metal sockets before the bolts would fail. The bolts would still be hanging in the torn metal.

          Like

      • Kitty Smith says:

        It could partially fall off and be hanging a little bit if enough bolts broke on one side. But yeah, there would have been crumpled rear quarter panels, trunk lid sprung up, etc. in connection with an impact severe enough to break that bumper completely off.

        Like

    • nimrodman says:

      First off, great observation, waltherppk! Your persistence and doggedness in examining things rigorously and repeatedly have paid off in a BIG find. Kudos to you, sir.

      “Where is the rear bumper?”

      Presumably, if it was ripped off at the burn scene (either by a botched towing attempt or walther’s bottoming-out “wild ride” proposal) the onsite responders would have thrown it on the tow truck to make its way to the impound lot with the rest of the vehicle.

      Maybe it’s at the impound lot and part of the investigation’s evidence, and we just haven’t heard of it yet from police or seen it in photos. Remember, we haven’t seen police photos from the burn scene yet either, have we? Most details of the investigation are being held close to the vest by LE.

      If it’s NOT at the impound lot, that would favor hypotheses that
      1) it wasn’t on the vehicle for some reason; or
      2) it got launched somewhere (in the woods) like the firefighting article cited downthread.

      If it’s not at the impound lot, a thorough search for it should be conducted back at the burn scene.

      Hopefully, police read this site and if they don’t have it in hand at the impound lot, they’ll go conduct such a search. And if it’s nowhere to be found, then they’ve got a couple questions to ask a couple folks.

      Liked by 1 person

      • waltherppk says:

        Whee I meant to “stir the pot” and it looks like a mission accomplished.

        Liked by 2 people

        • nimrodman says:

          Well, regardless of the various events and forces proposed and argued, a missing bumper is a missing bumper and needs to be accounted for. Either at the impound lot or by questioning former repair/reconstruction persons.

          Liked by 3 people

      • nimrodman says:

        Yeah, this is my comment that got caught in the spam filter while other discussion ran ahead of it. Disregard #2 “launched … like the firefighting article.” Waltherppk points out that this vehicle has no cylinders to explode, rather the bumper is backed by a crushable foam insert instead.

        But the other points apply: it should have been tossed on the tow truck and ended up at the impound lot. OR – it wasn’t on this car in the 1st place, possibly for various reasons a couple other posters have proposed.

        Liked by 1 person

        • nimrodman says:

          That’s my 10:16 comment that got stuck in spam for a half-hour, just to be clear.

          On a related topic, I had been exhaustively viewing the impound-lot photos and new-car photos back in day #4 and day #5 threads to look for that “rear panel damage” – and mostly I saw fairly good refutations that their was any such damage apart from the crowbar prying. It’s not clear to me that rear damage is “confirmed” as in the lead-off paragraph in this thread and at the top of the day #5 thread.

          But also back there are photos of another burned-out Rio (I think). Interestingly, it also has no rear bumper. Probably it had already been salvaged off by the time of the photo. But you can see the sockets in the sheet metal where the bumper prongs insert. And there’s a view from the front that clearly shows what a front bumper looks like.

          Scroll down from this starting point: https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2014/12/12/day-5-mississippi-burning-the-murder-of-jessica-lane-chambers-investigation-continues/comment-page-1/#comment-1149554

          Like

    • manickernel says:

      Probably came off when the wrecker attached and dragged the car down the bank up onto the sled..

      Like

  12. PolioLioP says:

    Sundance, if I may suggest? I have written alot of scientific journal articles and papers, so I know a lot about language and my audience. I hope you are not speaking or talking to this witness you mention above with the language you’re using here. You really should consider the need to ‘dumb down’ your English, so you don’t a) offend, b) scare off, or c) totally confuse this person from Batesville or wherever local they are from. I doubt he/she could understand half of what you wrote when your are using your ‘adult’ language style? I mean no offense, but if it were me I would be trying extra hard to be on their level. I’d hate to lose this excellent opportunity to break the case by scaring her off.

    Like

  13. The bumper appears intact in the M&M video shortly before the fire, unless my eyes are playing tricks on me.

    Liked by 1 person

    • nimrodman says:

      Yeah, but what’s visible on the exterior is the vinyl bumper cladding, or cover. Don’t think we’d be able to distinguish from the video whether there’s a steel bumper underneath or not.

      Liked by 1 person

      • I agree, what’s underneath is not visible. I would need evidence proving there was no steel bumper underneath the part you mention. What I do see is no evidence of the steel bumper in the photo after the burn. First impression is accident, leaving road, underside of car striking a hard structure (concrete, stump as mentioned before, etc.) puncturing fuel tank, removing steel bumper, causing fire. What would change my thinking? DNA evidence, ATF (not the local DA) or rumor..showing definitive evidence of the use an accelerant, evidence of cell phone by other individuals at the site, video, lack of evidence of her leaving road prior to point of impact to hill and tree, lack of the steel bumper separated from car at site, etc. Just facts, no emotion. No heresay.

        Like

        • nimrodman says:

          “Just facts, no emotion. No hearsay.”

          Agreed. All I’m focusing on here is waltherppk’s observation of no bumper on car when on tow truck and when at impound. Either it came off somehow or wasn’t on there in the first place, as a couple posters pointed out might be from prior reconstruction/repair and simply left off for one reason or another.

          And if it came off at the crime scene, it should have been tossed on the tow truck and is at impound, but perhaps lying somewhere away from the car, or at least out of photo frame.

          Like

          • True..but..try to imagine how dark it was, and may not have been noticed in all of the chaos. It could have been located several yards west of the final resting place. Primary concerns are to help the victim and to move the vehicle to a secure environment.

            Like

            • nimrodman says:

              And if it’s still lying somewhere out there, hopefully police will be reading our conversation here and go search for it.

              Like

        • waltherppk says:

          It can be ruled out except by forensic evidence we don’t know about, that the car was firebombed before it left the road, although that seems unlikely too. It is still possible within the scenario parameters.

          Like

    • James F says:

      Maybe that car was used to transport meth or other drugs hidden within the bumper cover. Just brainstorming.

      Like

        • Terry in GA says:

          James F., this picture describes what I’m thinking. What if the plastic cover was taken off car to expose contents of inner secret compartment that had been custom-constructed to replace the missing steel bar, then whoever created the secret compartment was using it for transport purposes and had to go back to get the merchandise and replace the plastic cover before the car was taken by tow truck to shop yard.

          In other words, mechanic who fixed up prior used car may have included a special secret compartment during repairs. Then if some sort of transport was involved, not known to Jessica, those responsible for the contents may have removed the stash and replaced the cover.

          Like

    • manickernel says:

      Wrecker attached to rear to pull car onto sled. Probably broke free then,

      Like

  14. coeurdaleneman says:

    Hopefully the info contained in paragraph #1 of sundance’s OP will put to rest any more speculation that the Kia went careening through the brush as the final part of some car chase down Herron. That the parking spot was chosen deliberately seems to have been established once and for all.

    What went on earlier elsewhere (regarding any accidental or maliciously-caused car damage) is still open to discussion. Also, there is still the possibility that some modest front-end damage resulted at the burn site, because we have never seen any photograph of that part of the vehicle. Did a person not caring about the condition of the vehicle come in too fast, causing fender bender-type damage? Well, we need some evidence.

    Like

    • waltherppk says:

      Stow it. Show the specifications that even indicate this car even has an automatic tranny. What is the source of the information?

      Like

      • coeurdaleneman says:

        So where’s your source for this hyperbolic bullcrap?

        “It would be likely more of a shock load kind of catastrophic force would tear off the bumper.”

        Was there even a piece of steel under that plastic beforehand? Did you check carfax or talk to Ben Chambers before settling upon the most inflammatory explanation possible? Do you ever consider benign alternative explanations?

        Like

        • waltherppk says:

          You are looking at my data. Where is yours?

          I’ll just leave the fortune telling to you since you have the crystal ball.

          Where your source for your unsubstantiated and far out there speculations, one source please.

          Like

          • My hunch is that the fuel tank ain’t too far away from the missing bumper (actually, I just looked it up, and it’s not)

            Like

          • coeurdaleneman says:

            I looked at your data and all of the other photos (and the video) and could not reconcile an accident involving catastrophic force with what sundance wrote:

            “Despite claims to the contrary there was what appears to be damage not caused by fire toward the right rear of the vehicle.”

            I presume that sundance’s source had a view of the vehicle in order to make that determination. And, we have the photo of the right rear, clear as a bell, with possible damage that no one has actually pinpointed. “Slight” or “modest” I might be willing to grant. But will no clear determination whether it was due to previously fixed damage.

            So how does “catastrophic” forces produce so little observable damage elsewhere in the same part of the car? I remember “catastrophic” being used to describe the breakup of space shuttles, and not some minor forces that kept most fit-and-finish lines mostly intact for the vast majority of the vehicle seen in the photos.

            Like

            • waltherppk says:

              You can go back and read all the threads again and presume everything you like that serves being dismissive. I am trying to be real here with a lot of people who simply don’t want to consider what is staring them in the face as a “first impression”, but are going far afield looking for their own answer to a mystery. Many of the presumptions do not withstand scrutiny but are “anecdotal” evidence being given more weight than empirical evidence. I have a science and engineering background and I can’t change how I think. Others may find it contentious but really I don’t mean to deliberately be a pain in the ass. My wife and others say it is a natural talent.

              Liked by 2 people

              • coeurdaleneman says:

                My background is in engineering also. So I don’t mind folks looking at all the possibilities. But that means keeping suggestions–let alone conclusions–withing the bounds of the known evidence, and how forces work upon materials.

                With regards to this particular vehicle, we have no idea what Ben Chambers did to it beforehand. From all known statements, he was a creative wizard who was worth more than his salary to the county. It is not a logical leap that he patched together a cheapo beater, probably for a song, given his financial resources. The history of this carbody’s past is a mystery.

                But that being said, these limited amount of photos do not tell the story of a vehicle that was seriously damaged. I hope that sundance will clarify what his source told him about the entirety of the estimation of damage. If it is confined to the right rear, then it’s time to move on, because it appears to be pretty piddly.

                Like

                • waltherppk says:

                  We will just have to disagree. I own an almost identical vehicle and drive it every day. It is one of the reasons I have taken a personal interest. Another is that I have a daughter who was horribly abused, permanently maimed and nearly killed, and permanently destroyed mentally by criminals who are now imprisoned for life plus a hundred years.

                  Liked by 4 people

                • ShepherdDawg says:

                  I’m praying for your daughter.

                  Liked by 4 people

                • waltherppk says:

                  Thank you

                  Like

                • PolioLioP says:

                  I’m sorry to hear that Walter – my deepest sympathies. I hav a 19 yr old daughter too, and pray for her at school nitely……..

                  Like

              • Stargazer says:

                Several posts back, Sundance suggested looking at the “motive for the evidence” instead of the motive for the crime. It makes sense to take a close look at the empirical evidence, and come up with another scenario that may be more likely. Even if (and especially if) it doesn’t go along with the favored theories. Every possibility should be considered.

                Liked by 3 people

                • waltherppk says:

                  Exactly …..have to honestly look at all the angles and put confirmation bias at the back of the bus where it belongs

                  Liked by 1 person

                • coeurdaleneman says:

                  Stargazer: that was then and this is now. Sundance’s latests posts contain more information. He eliminated it being an accident, for example.

                  Besides having more witness information about the (limited) damage to the vehicle, he has included much more reliable information about the cast of characters that Jessica was involved with on the night in question. It’s a signal that conspiracy theories about staging or high-impact wrecks are receding toward the rear of possible circumstances. Meaning that it’s beginning to look more like an attempted murder, followed by a hamhanded arson that happened to work pretty effectively.

                  Like

                • waltherppk says:

                  There is nothing about the damage that says the car wasn’t forced off the road. Why the car crashed there I do not know. But I still believe there was a crash. It could still be a murder so don’t misunderstand what I am looking at as my being positive it was any accident at all how the car came to be there damaged. What I am saying is the car is damaged and it crashed. There may be nefarious activity involved or not, and I don’t know that part.

                  Like

                • fred says:

                  I never hear you mention shoe prints. Soggy ground should have had beautiful prints and would tell if there was a crash or people there other than JC. A few prints 2 sets 3 sets. That would end the crash controversy and go a long way to identifying who ran up the hill or down the hill or Jack or Jill.

                  Like

              • waltherppk: I am a complete novice but I remember that you said many days ago that the right rear wheel was too far forward in the wheel well. Wouldn’t that jive with the tow truck driver, who also could have been a complete novice, hooking onto the bumper instead of the holes in the frame and in the process yanking the bumper off and also displacing the wheel? Just wondering…..

                Like

                • waltherppk says:

                  On slotted wheels there is the easiest hook point on the wheels themselves. On a burned wreck it wouldn’t be like there is a worry about scratching the rims.

                  Like

            • nimrodman says:

              courdaleneman quoted Sundance’s 2nd opening paragraph at top:
              “Despite claims to the contrary there was what appears to be damage not caused by fire toward the right rear of the vehicle.”

              … and went on to say:
              “I presume that sundance’s source had a view of the vehicle in order to make that determination.”

              I don’t take that 2nd paragraph to be new information or to be solidified by any recent account from a “new source.”

              I think he’s just summarizing information from past threads to set the stage, as in “here are some fundamental knowns.”

              I’m just not convinced that right-rear damage truly is a known.

              Sundance appears to have concluded the right rear damage as far back as day #5 thread, which begins:

              “New Updates from Day #4 include the following:

              ♦ Confirmed. There was damage to the rear of Jessica’s car when it was found at the crime scene. Note – there was no damage to the rear of Jessica’s 2005 Kia Rio prior to the night of her murder. (link)”

              Now, I can’t get that video to play in my browser, but I suspect it verifies the 2nd part of that statement (no damage before), not necessarily the 1st part (right rear damage found at crime scene). Someone correct me if I’m mistaken please.

              Problem I have with that right rear damage is that – to me – the most convincing arguments in the day #4 thread were that there WASN’T any right rear damage but instead we were looking at either the contours of the vehicle with the vinyl claddings and tail-light lamp burnt off, or what damage that was evident was from the pry bar. I’ll post links next because they’ll probably get caught in spam jail awhile.

              Like

              • waltherppk says:

                I have been following carefully all the vehicle related information, and not necessarily finding any of it significant whether it is correct or not correct either way. And I don’t mean to toot my own horn, but none of it is as significant as a missing bumper. This is a biggie in terms of significance.

                Like

                • nimrodman says:

                  Agreed that the missing bumper is a biggie, walther.

                  But although the other damage that received so much discussion was so minor as to be disputable whether it was damage at all, it was being cited to support a hypothesis of Jessica’s car being rammed from the rear or pit-maneuvered off the road. That’s a pretty serious contention, and why I took the time to post day #4 links below.

                  Your missing bumper forks off into 2 possibilities (or more). One is that there was a substantial bottoming out of the car sufficient to rip it off. In which case we reasonably expect it to be at impound. The other is that it wasn’t there to begin with for some reason. Others have speculated on the possible reason.

                  Like

              • coeurdaleneman says:

                nimrodman:

                1. I personally don’t see significant right rear damage. I’ve been requesting (from those who do) the use graphical aids to point it out specifically, but all I’ve gotten is more massive verbiage, or links to more massive unspecific verbiage.

                2. I recall reading where Tom Dees claims that he got access to the vehicle, and saw some damage. Unfortunately, his communication was done through twitter, or some other form of abbreviated form (that often results in as much confusion as enlightenment). Judging by how briefly that he passed over the topic, it seems to not have struck him as being substantial, let alone catastrophic.

                Like

                • nimrodman says:

                  Even if Dees made that claim, he may have been misinterpreting that combination of tail-light body cavity and pry-bar trunk deformation to equal “rear end damage”, similar to how you and I suspect posters here are misinterpreting it.

                  Like

      • Old Redneck says:

        waltherppk, While I really don’t want to get into any sort of heavy discussion about this, I’ll inject a few minor points. First of all if you look at the image posted that shows the entire rear of the Kia Rio, you will see scorching of the paint, to the extent the black paint is gone. You will also see brackets hanging, like the bumper cover was probably there. Now unless you fail to realize that this car was only worth about $700 to $1000 retail, and with knowledge of Ben Chambers vehicle history, and with the repaint in mind, I would suggest this car is a rebuilt total on a reconstructed (salvage) title. My whole point is that with the low value of the car and the cost of the rear bumper assembly in the neighbor hood of $300+ it is very likely the inner bumper and pad was not on there. Next if you will actually go find a similar auto you will realize your fuel tank rupture is also not a viable scenario as well. I would suspect if you were to purchase a car fax for this car you would see that it sustained a rear end collision, accounting for the minor damage to the body structure under the right rear door, as seen under the kick panel on the right side. This car was a piece of junk and no parent in their right mind should have put their child into it.

        Like

        • waltherppk says:

          Build one the way you are telling this and then get back to me.

          Liked by 1 person

          • Old Redneck says:

            I know, it’s your story and you’re going to stick to it! I am surprised with your extensive engineering background you did not realize, when talking about the force need to pull the bumper off by the roll back wrecker, that you made an error that only a novice would make. Take a look as an engineer and think, what is actually holding the (metal) bumper to the body structure? Do you notice the two bars that extend forward from the bumper that each take a vertical bolt? Perhaps you should figure the “shear” force necessary to cut these bolts? Now, again using your analysis, of the force necessary to “pull” the bumper from the structure, do you see enough damage to the mount area of those bolts to sustain your reasoning that they were pulled out from an incident creating the force you claim necessary to remove the bumper?
            You have from day one pushed the “crash” theory, but unfortunately you have nothing to back the claim except guess work. Have you ever seen the pit stop maneuver used? Ask your self, how wide is that road? To make the maneuver one must be to the right side of the vehicle, and the only way that could happen on that road is if the vehicle hitting the Kia was in the ditch, where are the tracks? The Kia would have spun out on the blacktop, where are the skid marks from her tires?
            I must admit, I am not an engineer, however I do have more than thirty years experience as an auto insurance fraud investigator. Does that make me an expert on this accident, absolutely not, simply because we do not have enough data to work with at this time. However IMO this was not an accident, but instead the auto was placed in such a manner to suggest that it could be, the question there could only be answered by the party that committed the crime. As to your suggestion that I build a car, I don’t have to, if you actually spend a little time in the field, you will see plenty of repairs done like I suggested, does not make it right, but the bottom line is simply money, a junk car costs too much to repair right. I suggested you pull a car fax on the car, did you do that? It might just prove you right and this might have been a cream puff of an auto, only driven on Sundays by a little old lady to church and back.

            Liked by 1 person

            • waltherppk says:

              I have experience as a steel worker fabricating and assembling but some design knowledge also and as for the shear I had to guess that according to best practices the fasteners would be sort of matched well with the strength of materials fastened. Do i have to know what is the anomalous weakest link in an assembly to then make an educated guess about the strength presuming that the engineers who did design it knew what they were doing and followed a coherent design strategy? Automakers do not generally overbuild one part and then associate it with a weaker part so the strength designed in for the one part becomes irrelevant, There is generally a continuity of design and design margins employed. I stand by my analysis. Want an expert opinion for the court then go hire an expert, which I don’t claim to be. I even used an online calculator and didn’t print my results from running the numbers. Somebody was say yeah any wrecker could just so easy snatch that bumper off, and i wanted to do more than just argue having no idea of the numbers, so I got some. It could be proof tested to see how well Kia did their homework but I did mine.

              Like

              • Old Redneck says:

                You simply fail to realize the design purpose of the bumper. It is designed to absorb an impact from the rear, and the fasteners you mention are basically an over kill only because the structure they attach to is so flimsy, and pretty thin sheet metal. This bumper and its support structure is really not designed to take an impact from the front, and any impact that was sustained with enough impact to remove the bumper would have done a lot more damage than what we see in the few photos we have available. Can I say with 100% certainty that the metal bumper was not present, no but IMO it probably was not.

                Like

                • waltherppk says:

                  If there was only anticipated compression loading on that assembly they could have fastened it with a 3 mm pop rivet on each side and said “good enough”.
                  Of course it is stronger in compression and I very well know that. Correct it wasn’t designed for tension or for shear. But unless the design engineer threw away the book there was a continuity of design involved even for the contingency. I don’t want to have this argument. Kia designed the car I didn’t. All I did was a bit of quick reverse engineering to try to see what is there. If you want a comprehensive study then hire it done and get the work certified and sealed.

                  Like

                • Old Redneck says:

                  There is at least one point in which we agree! The wrecker did not pull the bumper off. So see even in disagreement we can find points in which we agree.

                  Like

                • waltherppk says:

                  Oh you are just saying that to rub it in by being nice. Anyway, about the history on the car wouldn’t a VIN be needed for that and I don’t know if anyone here has it, but sure having a history on the car would be nice, even if it wasn’t complete. A lot of stuff that may happen to a car never gets into the database so even a history on the car wouldn’t be conclusive. It would be worth checking though.

                  Like

            • Kitty Smith says:

              Old redneck, I agree with most of what you say. I have said from the start that there was no pit maneuver done for the same reasons you state. I worked some accident/auto insurance fraud when I was assigned to bunco. I know this isn’t your point, but I saw salvage-titled vehicles purchased and used for these accident scams multiple times. I’m sure you have, too.

              I think if the bumper was there at the time of the murder, there was a minor impact that was just enough to send her momentarily out of control off the road causing her to go over an obstacle of some sort that caught on the back bumper enough to bend it down such that it needed to be removed in order to move the vehicle. The impact itself would not cause the bumper to detach or fail. However, if it was a salvage vehicle, there may have been no bumper at all or it was damaged in the previous accident and re-used anyway, perhaps heated and bent back close enough to barely fit, or just cut down and new bolt holes drilled to “make” it work. In that case, it might have somewhat easily broken loose by catching on something underneath, but again, not likely from what was possibly an impact, which was low, if any. The only way I can see a stock, properly and securely mounted bumper breaking loose would be from SEVERE impact. Lighter impact from a VERY heavy vehicle might do it, but we’d still probably see more body damage than what we do.

              I just don’t see a missing bumper here being the result of fire or impact. I think it was physically removed before the vehicle was placed on the tow ramps, either long before or that night.

              Like

  15. TNman says:

    Looking at the picture of the car on the tow truck, is that the rear bumper under the car behind the wheel? Could it have been bent/pushed/rotated forward when the car was winched up onto the tow truck? Or maybe it was pulled off during recovery? Can the plastic/foam portion of this bumper be attached to a Kia Rio without the metal portion of the rear bumper in place?(missing from previous damage or repair) Aside from the car it seems like the locals are getting a bit jumpy/nervous. It would behoove any of them that know anything to come forward or risk becoming an accessory. Save yourself if you can!

    Liked by 1 person

    • waltherppk says:

      The muffler is what that is that has fallen down because the rubber hanger burned off.

      Derrick ? Deer…. Wreck ? ….. Eric …..A Wreck ? Covered before I know.

      Still there until Cole starts talking.

      Like

    • waltherppk says:

      A little further along in Isaiah but we won’t sweat the bible lesson today

      Like

    • PolioLioP says:

      Now here’s an ugly nefarious scenario that fits the missing bumper, the murder, the fire, the $14 of gas “going somewhere”, and the timeline:
      What if Jessica was on a drug run, using a car modified by her father to carry bales in the rear bumper area with the bumper removed? She is forced off the road on her return run, the drugs taken, and her and the car burned. Like in James F. picture above.
      I hate to say this – but Jessica could have been a worse ‘badass’ than we have figured. She always seems to be somewhere where firearms and $300 cash are said to be stolen…… Just sayin’.

      Like

      • PolioLioP says:

        And her M.O. is she casually flits between big, thuggish black boyfriends who are her protection. Three that we know of. And she’s a little bitty 100 lb’er, with her choice of boyfriend being big 6’4″ 250 lb football players. She puts up with the abuse, at least for awhile. Why? I’ve seen enuf of life to know how often tiny girls hook up and marry very tall large men, basically to alleviate their fears in life. Seen it a 1000X. So her bodyguards let her get away with bigger crimes?

        Like

  16. John says:

    Not a pro, but I do a bit of body work.
    When that kind of vehicle gets rear ended and the internal bumper damaged, the ‘frame’ often gets altered by the collision in a way that makes installing a new bumper very difficult unless the car is put on a frame rack.
    It is not uncommon for shade tree repair places to omit that part in a repair, or chop off the part that goes into the rails leaving it poorly secured but still serving it’s purpose as rear protection.

    Liked by 5 people

    • waltherppk says:

      The car looked perfect in April 2014 photos from Google street views

      Like

      • John says:

        When a plastic bumper cover is installed you can’t see the internal bumper. The cover attaches to the underside of the trunk sheet metal and back of fender skirts.
        It ‘floats’ over the internal bumper.
        If you look under the cover from below, you can see the internal bumper, but from no other angle.
        I submit Occam’s razor; it would be very bizarre for the perps to remove the part and take it away, and as the majority of the undercarriage of the vehicle sits lower than the bumper including the rear axle, hitting something on the road (or off road, like a stump) could not take it off. Go to the rear of any car and look at how much stuff is in the way of hitting the bumper in a fashion that would remove it rearward.
        Ergo, it wasn’t there to be found in the first place.

        Liked by 4 people

        • waltherppk says:

          It does not “float” much and would droop and not fit up properly if a supported foam core was absent. The nested parts fit snugly together like the plies in plywood.

          Like

        • waltherppk says:

          There is no “rear axle” it is a 4 wheel independent and the lowest thing to the ground is the muffler and gas tank.

          Like

          • This is not only possible..it is likely. I may have driven a couple cars off the road, and most of the damage was to the underside of vehicle. It doesn’t take much to cause significant damage.

            Like

          • John says:

            Do yourself a favor.
            Go out and look at the positions of the parts under any modern car and try to envision a scenario that would remove the rear bumper rearward without ripping out most of the undercarriage first.
            The only plausible condition I can imagine is if the vehicle encountering a stump while doing a wheelie.

            Liked by 2 people

            • waltherppk says:

              John I have an almost identical vehicle sitting in my driveway and I have worked under the car on these groups involved. A speed bump you do not want to hit going too fast especially with only one set of wheels on one side. It will bottom it out. Before I serviced the gas gauge sending unit it would stick sometimes. I would slide a brick under the car behind the back wheel and lay a 2 by 4 across the brick and step on the end of the 2 by 4 to tap the bottom of the fuel tank to jar loose and unstick the gauge. That is how low to the ground is the fuel tank.

              Like

              • John says:

                Now go to the front of the vehicle and measure clearances, then compare that to the height of the rear inner bumper. Unless the obstacle appears after the front has passed, some very serious damage would occur there.
                Also, as to the bumper cover drooping, a couple of paint sticks glued in place solve that problem.
                I hold no personal animosity to your position, only in my experience I have never seen that kind of bumper with rearward damage, much less torn completely off without the vehicle being rendered totally unusable. I also cannot envision how such a thing could happen.

                Liked by 4 people

                • waltherppk says:

                  Serious damage from underneath is exactly what I have been trying to say is possible based upon what things I have seen in the photographs. I have said the car could have been totaled from underneath and look pretty good on the upper body. No argument there the car would be torn up underneath, front and back, the wheelbase would even be shifted from control arm damage. Buckled struts and other assorted mayhem would definitely result in a car no longer usable. With frame damage too the car would be toast even if it hadn’t burned. Even if it could be fixed all the repair required would make it cheaper to buy another car.

                  Like

            • I’ll pass. Do yourself a favor and prove the steel bumper wasn’t on the vehicle prior to her death.

              Like

              • harrypara says:

                The bumper wasn’t steel, the credit goes to another poster for figuring it out. I’m just trying to be helpful and pass along the info.

                “An 05 Kia Rio REAR rebar is composite plastic.”

                Like

                • I searched for as many 2005 kia rio rear bumper reinforcement bar supports as I could bear to do..I found 4..and ALL of them indicate they are constructed of steel. The entire part, not just the brackets.

                  Like

  17. It’s remotely possible..

    Like

  18. coeurdaleneman says:

    From sundance’s latest post, the last people that JC was seen with were “Eric, Roscoe, Bryan, Robert.” And not agents from the federal government putting her into the witness protection program, by staging a transparently ham-fisted arson job on Herron Road. Or guys that she dodged on that narrow road, resulting in an accident.

    So real progress has been made.

    Liked by 1 person

    • ShepherdDawg says:

      The idea that the US Marshals or feds staged the car accident and spirited Jessica off to Witness Protection has always been entirely absurd.

      It is nothing but a distraction from getting to the truth.

      Like

  19. I would gladly volunteer to make a written transcript of the “interview” with Rudd, but I’d need to figure out how to slow it down at least 50%, because I can understand less than half of what he says. Of what I can understand, there’s a lot of important comments for analysis and review in his statements (things which would change or contradict many other things said and written.)

    Like

  20. Stargazer says:

    Maybe her killer was some unstable guy who she rebuffed, who was very angry that she chose to date outside her race or date guys involved in gangs instead of dating him. They may have had some sort of altercation that enraged him.

    Or maybe he was a gang member, but the gang was not involved in her murder (but they still felt they had to stay silent since he was one of them). They could have had a fight at the ‘party,’ and when she left he followed her.

    I think the theory that Jessica was being followed by someone who intentionally rammed or bumped the right rear of her car may be correct. It explains the damage to that area of the car, and it would have forced her off the road and propelled her up the small hill to the base of the tree.

    The car could have been damaged in the way WaltherPK theorizes (ripping the rear bumper off and possibly damaging the gas tank). If an explosion from damage to the gas tank isn’t what killed her, the person who bumped her off the road killed her afterward.

    It would be amazing for her to end up in that clearing instead of hitting a tree somewhere else alongside the road, though. But it’s possible.

    Maybe the entire attack took place at the scene where her car was found. Jessica may have thought the “bump” was a regular accident, and after she was forced off the road she put the car in park and got out to talk to the person that hit her car and to call police.That could be when she was relieved of her phone and attacked.

    If Jessica was ‘lured’ to that spot, or agreed to meet someone there for some reason, why would she drive up the hill to the base of the tree? Why would anyone who may have been driving her car do that? There must be a reason. The ground was muddy, so why would someone driving a Kia — obviously not known for being an off-road vehicle — attempt to get up that hill? It wasn’t a big hill, but even so, why bother?

    Either her car ended up there through some force, or the perpetrator chose that spot to purposely make the whole thing more visible. The top of a hill was often a spot chosen for public executions. Everyone could see, and then know what would happen to them if they committed the same offense.

    Her murder has rage written all over it. Personal rage.

    Like

    • fred says:

      where are the shoe prints and tire tracks from another vehicle in muddy type soil. Have to be some or she ran off the road or forced off and hit her head and gas tank blew. I doubt that but tire tracks and shoe prints would put it to rest. A different accelerant besides gasoline would go a long way as well. Was there an air bag.

      Like

    • Ginger says:

      Why was the parking brake set?

      Like

      • The parking brake was set to help prevent car from moving around on tow truck..in addition to constraints on the truck.

        Like

      • I looked up standard procedure for tow truck drivers. They are instructed to..a)engage parking brake of vehicle to be towed b)put the car in neutral c)pull the car onto bed of truck d)put the transmission back into park. Possible explanation for what seems to be a point of contention “The emergency/handbrake was engaged.” That’s just professional towing behavior.

        Like

        • sidneyaneres says:

          Starkey,

          This would also mean if he did so, He entered the vehicle, sigh,

          also after a fire such as this, what are the odds the parking break would work, what are the odds the cars transmission and mechanism to put into gear would be movable.

          Like

          • Yep, the seat may have been moved/leaned back to navigate getting to the handbrake, transmission, keys. Don’t know. Not sure also about the functionality of the moving parts after such intense heat either. No way to know at this point.

            Like

    • angie says:

      It seems that most of the guys Jessica knew were unstable. Eeenie, meenie, minie, mo, there is no 1 clear pervert which is the problem in solving Jessica’s murder.

      Like

      • Stargazer says:

        Good point, but this would be a guy she rebuffed, and who was unstable to the point that he would kill her for it. Maybe a similar type as that creep in California who killed several women ‘because no one would date him’ — a narcissistic looney-tune, and possibly meth-fueled to boot.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Stargazer says:

          I think some sort of perceived betrayal is what drove the killer over the edge, causing rage and a need to exert extreme control (the ultimate control) in revenge.

          This is a callous and extremely controlling person who had a warped sense of ownership over Jessica, because he could only experience her as an object.

          This view negated any possibility of empathy for her as an individual and a human, one who had an actual life outside of his self-centered mind, and who had a fundamental right to live that life.

          The details of the crime itself point to a killer with a huge sense of grandiosity. And without a conscience. A psychopath.

          Like

    • perfect beast says:

      Stargazer. I’ve thought the same thing about the placement of the car. Maybe she would have chosen the general area to park the car. But to drive it up the hill through the mud to the base of the tree doesn’t fit. Also, I doubt the car would have been able to make it through the mud, (it would bottom out in just a few inches of mud) uphill even if she did, for some mysterious reason, want to park there. As you said, a Kia is not an accomplished off road vehicle. So, how did it get there? Force or wreck is the only reasonable explanation.

      Like

      • Stargazer says:

        Yep, it’s really strange the car was parked on the hill. It seems there has to be some significance to it!

        Like

  21. BAMAFan says:

    Somehow missed this New York Times critique of Mr. Johnson. Pity.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/15/business/media/sowing-mayhem-one-click-at-a-time.html?_r=0

    Like

  22. St. Benedict's Thistle says:

    I wonder if the “party” turned sour. Perhaps it was meant to be a rape/punishment type thing, but “they went too far”. Maybe Jessica got in her car and said something defiant to the “party-goers” as she drove off. I wonder if they followed her and rammed her car and then did the unspeakable. If they had enough forethought to try to destroy evidence via setting her on fire, they could’ve easily picked up a bumper that had fallen off after being rammed. Idle speculation, I suppose.

    Like

  23. lovemygirl says:

    On the missing bumper – to me the simplist explanation is it wasn’t there at the time of the accident due to shoddy work repairing it from a previous accident. Daddy didn’t have much money and was a mechanic. He somehow got her this car after she got out of Leah’s House and cobbled it together so it looked good enough to drive. He may have even used material that was destroyed in the fire to atatachieve the plastic bumper cover to the body sans steel bumper.

    Like

    • yankeeintx says:

      I think it needs to be considered that it just wasn’t there before the accident. It does lead one to question if Ben Chambers did the work himself. If he did, and the car was a salvage title, who inspected it before it was allowed to be registered? Ben is a mechanic for the Sheriff’s dept. Does he get first dibs on impounded cars that are abandoned? He was busted running a chop shop, is he now doing it but splitting the profits with someone? I wonder if the insurance company knew the car didn’t have a steel bumper? Like our current administration, the corruption runs deep in this town, nothing would surprise me.

      Like

    • sundance says:

      According to Bryan Rudd, her dad took that car from Jessica as a form of punishment when they were dating. If true, she’s had that car since 2012 when she was around 17..

      Like

      • harrypara says:

        Another poster has stated the car was given to Jessica by Bens mother and Jessica’s grandmother. She didn’t say when the Grandmother gave Jessica the car.

        Like

        • PolioLioP says:

          No, it was her previous car, a Nissan Maxima I think, that her grandmother bought for her, and ben took that one away the 1st day she had it and SOLD it, (According to Bryan Rudd interview).

          Like

      • cajunkelly says:

        I thought Bryan said it was another car that her “grandmother bought for her”…a Maxima maybe? Dad took it away from her and sold it.
        Then with this car he said “she just got it back” which indicates he took it from her as well.
        I understood that the “Maxima” was what dad took from her for dating Bryan about the same time dad broke her laptop computer.

        Like

  24. Harley Driver says:

    Having grown up around a body shop, I thought I would add my thoughts.

    I agree there is no rear axle. The rear bumper system uses a stiff metal bumper base connected to the uni-body flanges. I don’t think it uses the bumper shock absorbers, but, it uses an absorbing material behind the bumper facial. This absorbing material would burn along with the bumper facial so it’s been destroyed by the fire.

    The bumper base certainly looks to be missing from the photo of the car on the flatbed. With all 4 tires gone, the car is much lower to the ground so the flatbed operator could have pulled on the bumper base if it was there and possibly pulled it off when winched onto the flatbed. Typically it would have been thrown into the car, along with other debris at the accident scene. I think someone mentioned the tire steel belts were thrown in the car explaining how some unburned branches ended up in the car.

    With the bumper rear facial missing, the tire/rim would appear to have been substantially shifted forward. In reality, it could have shifted forward a little since the rubber suspension bushings are burned out leaving lots of play in these suspension parts. When the car is winched along the ground and onto the flatbed, the rear suspension would drag along the ground and tend to move towards the front of the car.

    Whether the bumper base was in place and lost during that night or still sitting on the flatbed, it does not bother me. If it was never installed or jury rigged with pieces of wood, it still does not concern me. If it was available and damaged, it could have been that way under the bumper facial prior to the fire so I would not use that as evidence that the car was pushed up onto the hill. I do not see any damage to the tree bark other than the blackened area from the fire so I do not suspect the car was pushed into the tree thus causing damage.

    If the fuel tank ruptured as a result of the car being pushed up the hill and bottoming out, the fuel pouring onto the ground and igniting would have left a large burned area on the ground, I do not see that. Imo, there is relatively little burn damage to the ground as I would suspect since the car fire would draft air in from below and keep the surrounding ground relatively cool.

    Just my thoughts.

    Like

    • lovemygirl says:

      I’m wondering if the bumper might show up in some new picture we haven’t seen. Being pulled off by the tow operator or not being there to begin with are the most likely explanations. The accident theory is getting absurd. There is no damage to the tree, fence or car that is indicitive of an accident.

      Like

      • harrypara says:

        It looks like that riddle has been solved by another poster. It was consumed by the fire.

        “An 05 Kia Rio REAR rebar is composite plastic.”

        Liked by 2 people

  25. kathyca says:

    For those that are entertaining a car wreck scenario, what’s the theory for why the driver’ seat is reclined? Does it depend on whether it was an “assisted” wreck or a true accident? I think the seat back collapse cases were in the 1990’s or earlier, so I’m presuming that this car wouldn’t have prone to that. Especially in an impact that didn’t involve much if any visible front end damage.

    Like

    • fred says:

      good theory where are the tire tracks from the other vehicle.

      Like

    • Kitty Smith says:

      The seat might be reclined if it fell into that position from melted seat adjustment levers and stops. Or the killer(s) may have dropped it down to more easily pour the accelerant down her throat.

      Like

  26. I live and Mississippi and…it is not uncommon for young people..black and white..to cruise with the seat this low. I agree it is way back. I wouldn’t drive that way.but..it is not unheard of.

    Like

  27. nimrodman says:

    in the other thread (day #28), crossthread42 thinks he sees the missing bumper wedged behind the right rear wheel. I’ve outlined what I think he’s seeing, have a look at photos in my comment on page 2 of that thread

    https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2015/01/04/day-28-jessica-lane-chambers-open-discussionresearch-thread/comment-page-2/#comment-1207905

    Like

  28. angie says:

    One of our Treepers is a local and posted way back in the early days that word on the street was that Jessica had been raped by 4 men. Not mentioning the name because things seem to be heating up and I don’t know that this person would want his/her name “out there”.

    Like

  29. It is standard operating procedure for a vehicle to be towed a)with the emergency brake on and b)with the transmission in park.

    Like

    • Harley Driver says:

      It all depends on the how the vehicle is “towed” and if it is front or rear wheel drive. A Tow truck typically lifts the front or rear wheels off the ground. If towed from the front, the emergency brake would need to be off (car in neutral as well if rear wheel drive) so the rear wheels can roll.

      If the car is hauled on a car carrier or flatbed, it is held in place by the which in front of the bed and chains on the back of the bed. In this case, the vehicle would not move regardless if the emergency brake was on or the transmission in park. Some folks don’t use the emergency brake or put the transmission in park as a best practice. This is because if they forget to release the brakes and put the car in neutral before raising the bed and letting out the winch cable, the chains can fall of the car and when they release the brake or put the car in neutral, it rolls right off the bed and crashes into something. It happened to my Uncle once or twice, it still makes me lmao.

      In the case of JC’s Rio, with no tires, it really does not matter. The car is dragged onto the bed and chained, and then it is slide off the bed.

      Like

      • Thanks. I only brought this up as it seems to be a point presented often that these two points about the brake and transmission are used to validate the claim this was not an accident. If I understand you correctly, this is not the case. It is possible they were in that position for the tow. Possible, If they were in that position at the crash site, I would suspect foul play. I might have missed it, but aren’t the only photos from the burned out vehicle taken while it is on the tow truck and at the impound?

        Like

        • Harley Driver says:

          I’m not sure I would use the emer. brake and transmission selector positions to make any determination since I’ve not come across any photos of the car at the scene. You’re right, the earliest photos seem to begin on the back of the flatbed. Unless the front wheels were not straight, I would probably just leave it alone and drag the car straight onto the flatbed. In this case, I would keep my hands off of everything as much as possible until the investigation was over, but that’s just me.

          However, we really do not know what the flatbed driver touched or moved in order to haul in the car.

          I wish we had photos of the car at the scene.

          Like

      • Old Redneck says:

        Absolutely correct… I really don’t think the wrecker driver could have put the car into park or neutral, due to the linkage bushings being gone. The same for the parking brake, linkage would have been frozen. If you look at the photos of the car at the impound lot, note the tire tracks, from where the driver had to push the car into the parking spot, I’m still curious why he did not simply back to where it was to be placed and use a dead man tie point and pull the car off the bed. I still wish we knew who the wrecker company and driver was, he could probably answer some of the questions that have been asked about the scene off the incident.

        Like

        • Harley Driver says:

          Probably just their normal procedure. Typically you put the truck brakes on, raise the bed, slide the ed back, and let out the cable allowing the car roll off slowly. If you park over the spot you want to put the car, you have to leave the truck brakes off and allow the truck to roll forward as the car slides off the back. With all the safety interlocks on newer equipment, I wonder if the hydraulics even work if the truck brakes are not activated. In any case, you could push the car back by sliding the bed forward and back while changing the bed angle.

          Like

    • Kitty Smith says:

      Given the condition of the car and the melted parts, would anyone even be able to set the brake and put it in ‘park’?

      If the car had even been in drive, it would still roll back downhill a bit until it came to amore level area. Every car I’ve ever owned requires my foot on the brake to stay stopped on a hill, for instance at a traffic light. There are no other gears that would keep the car in place, and it would roll back through its own tracks even it was muddy there.

      I think Jessica put it in ‘park’ and was immediately or almost immediately immobilized. Otherwise, I think it would have been in reverse and not situated at the base of that tree if she still had control over it at that point.

      Like

  30. fred says:

    Do tire tracks or shoe prints exist because that would tell half the story. Accident staged or not or murder as there would be tracks in muddy soil. Every crime story I’ve seen on TV gets solved by who was outside the window or near the scene with size 10 reeboks. start simple and move on to bumpers and such.

    Like

    • auscitizenmom says:

      It doesn’t seem like that is something we could find out since the car was towed away quickly and in the dark. I don’t know how they would have been able to check that out.

      Like

    • Old Redneck says:

      fred, Unfortunately unlike crime scenes that you see on TV, this one was so contaminated by the 1st responders (fire dept) and their application of water, the wrecker driver and probably some on lookers at the scene, that foot prints in the sandy soil would be impossible to find and determine ownership. Nothing about the early investigation was done in even the slightest professional manner. It looks like the sloppy investigation techniques continue even to this point. It really looks like the local law enforcement folks simply want this crime to go away, the real question is why? Maybe it is time to follow the money in regards to the people (not) doing the investigation?

      Liked by 2 people

    • PolioLioP says:

      There is a 4-6″ layer of pine needles and dead leaves where the car was. It was soaking wet from rain previous day. There would be/was no mud or footprints prior to the wrecker dragging a non-rolling vehicle onto the truck. Look at Google Earth. NO mud.

      Like

  31. MrMag00 says:

    A few points to consider from an auto dismantler. An 05 Kia Rio REAR rebar is composite plastic. There is no steel cross bar like the front. The mounting points are steel and appear to be on the car in the picture of the car at the impound (you can see the offset bumper cover support bracket that attaches to it). The reference burn pictures from a salvage aution show the same thing, rear rebar melted, square brackets with support brackets left after the burn. The key for this car is steel with a plastic over-piece. I’d like to know if this piece was melted, it would have to be if it was in the ignition when the car burned. Most people have keys on a ring, were these present in the car? Some poorly repaired body damage can become visible after a fire when bondo is burned off. The adjustment of the seats are most likely the position they were in when the car burned. The mechanical latch is steel and very sturdy.
    Wrecker drivers often put keys in the ignition to straighten the wheels, put the emergency brake on when towing, put the car in and out of gear when loading.

    Liked by 2 people

  32. nimrodman says:

    Mr Magoo said: “An 05 Kia Rio REAR rebar is composite plastic. There is no steel cross bar like the front. The mounting points are steel and appear to be on the car in the picture of the car at the impound … The reference burn pictures from a salvage aution show the same thing, rear rebar melted, square brackets with support brackets left after the burn.”

    Like the photos LHLaredo posted in the day #5 thread?

    https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2014/12/12/day-5-mississippi-burning-the-murder-of-jessica-lane-chambers-investigation-continues/comment-page-1/#comment-1149554

    Liked by 1 person

    • I notice in these photos that both rear tires appear to have no tread on them, while the front tires do. Is this because the fire was most intense in the rear of the car, where the fuel tank is located? Just askin.

      Like

      • My apologies…wrong car.

        Like

        • nimrodman says:

          “wrong car”

          Yes, sorry, I should have been more explicit when I threw these photos up but was in a hurry to get them up before the discussion ran away from me (posts with web links and photo links are landing in spam jail today and other comments keep pouring in while they’re in jail).

          These photos are of a similar car – but not Jessica’s car – that were posted in the day #5 thread as a reference of a similar burn case to Jessica’s, but where better, unobstructed photos were taken than of Jessica’s car in the impound lot.

          Also posted in the day #5 thread were photos of new cars so we could see the tail-light lamp and elements of the vinyl “aprons” or bumper covers for comparison to post-fire photos where they’d been burnt away.

          So again, these 2 photos are of a “reference” car – similarly burnt out – but not Jessica’s car in this case.

          Like

    • Harley Driver says:

      Mr.Magoo, great info. You solved the missing bumper problem, thanks. Also, a few days ago, someone highlighted that you can see the outline from where the rear plate was. It looks like the same thing where the rear bumper (rebar) was was connected to the uni-body flanges. The area looks a little whiter. Also, the tail lamp assembly support bracket seems to be hanging down because it is no longer fastened tightly in place with the bumper (rebar).

      Like

    • MrMag00 says:

      Yes similar type

      Like

    • PolioLioP says:

      Notice everyone – the seatsbacks are NOT laying down flat, they are upright. And this fire looks more complete than JC’s car. Can we FINALLY put that to bed??

      Like

      • MrMag00 says:

        I believe the seats in JC’s car are in the position that they were in when it burned. The seat structures are steel and very strong, as are the latching mechanisms, tha actuator might be plastic but the latch is steel. They must meet collision standards that allow for tremendous forces on forward, rear and lateral impact.

        Looking at the seat positions I would say the passenger seat is fully reclined and the driver seat is 70-80% reclined. This would seem to indicate that they were reclined just before burning. If there were more than 2 people in the vehicle there would be no room for others in the back with the seats that far reclined. If there were more than 2 they might have exited and then reclined the seats.

        I’ll leave others to speculate on other aspects of the seat positions.

        Like

  33. All of the replacement parts I have found (4) for the 2005 Kia Rio Rear Bumper Reinforcement Bar indicate they are made of steel.

    Like

    • MrMag00 says:

      Many replacement rebars are made of steel. They can be used to replace aluminum or composite and still meet repair specs for impact. It will be easy enough to call a Kia dealer bodyshop and ask about OEM parts tomorrow.

      Like

      • Thanks. Just trying to eliminate the bumper being ripped off scenario for myself. Not able to do that yet.

        Like

        • MrMag00 says:

          Sure, maybe this will help. If you look at current ebay auction #221512060471 it is for a similar Kia, same time frame model year. There is a closeup of the rear of the rebar that identifies the plastic and the production run molded into the back. I realize this is not exactly the same car.

          Like

  34. Will do. One other thing: Why is there excess material still attached to the brackets of the comparison vehicle presented for comparison, yet absolutely none attached to the single visible bracket of Jessica’s car? The burn intensity levels appear similar, so why this difference? Also, does the bracket on the driver’s side appear to be missing to you?

    Like

  35. MrMag00 says:

    Which images of Jessica’s car? I may not have seen all the photos that you have. The one I saw, at the impound lot, shot from the rear shows the bracket on the passenger side. I don’t recall a driver side rear shot. I think it would be hard to determine burn intensity comparisons from the photos for me. The composites often have fiber strands for strength (fiberglass for example) the compounds of these fibers might determine how much might be hanging around.

    Like

  36. I think we are looking at the same thing..I would LOVE to see the rear driver’s side, doesn’t seem to be a clear shot of that around. It could have been altered during the towing process…seems altered to me. It seems to abruptly disappear from sight. I appreciate you entertaining my queries.

    Like

Comments are closed.