Recovered Shirt and Necklace

[Babes]

But according to sources familiar with the probe, authorities recovered the T-Shirt, an oversized garment emblazoned with the words "Irwin County Woman's Softball." And have forwarded it to a crime lab for testing.

"It's the kind of thing you might sleep in," said one source familiar with the probe. It is known that Grinstead, who vanished from her home, apparently without a struggle, on Oct. 22, had a similar t-shirt, though sources believe hers was a different color.

Investigators have also reportedly recovered a necklace Grinstead had been seen wearing the night she disappeared. It was found over the weekend on the floor of her home, and had apparently been overlooked in earlier searches, a source said.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/news/ori...ead_probe.html

This new information doesnt sound good the missed necklace sloppy investigation work on LE's part? I hope not. Who all attended the dinner at the superintendant's home? Could she have been followed from there?

Big find with the shirt (in spite of color difference). Seems she might be close by where they found the article of clothing.

But whoever did this has to be pretty darn good, no evidence in the house, no signs of her at all, nobody heard anything that night. She seems like the type that would scream her head off. Weapon must have been used, gun or knife, to get her out of the house, IMO. Or else she was strangled/suffocated in bed, that's kind of my going theory.

No excuse for not finding that necklace on the floor.

[Babes]

Ocilla -- A softball jersey found in Irwin County yesterday most likely did not belong to Tara Grinstead. That news coming today from the command post set up to help find the missing high school teacher.

http://www.walb.com/Global/story.asp?S=4085549&nav=5kZQ

[Results]

Originally posted by Babes
But according to sources familiar with the probe, authorities recovered the T-Shirt, an oversized garment emblazoned with the words "Irwin County Woman's Softball." And have forwarded it to a crime lab for testing.

"It's the kind of thing you might sleep in," said one source familiar with the probe. It is known that Grinstead, who vanished from her home, apparently without a struggle, on Oct. 22, had a similar t-shirt, though sources believe hers was a different color.

Investigators have also reportedly recovered a necklace Grinstead had been seen wearing the night she disappeared. It was found over the weekend on the floor of her home, and had apparently been overlooked in earlier searches, a source said.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/news/ori...ead_probe.html

I'm having a hard time with this necklace being found the weekend of Nov 6th. This is not a small necklace from what I can see of Tara's picture that was taken of what she had on that night. I'm so confused on this because I want to know if this necklace was found by AG or LE? Does anyone know for a fact who found this necklace? TIA

[TuscanDreams]

Originally posted by Results
I'm having a hard time with this necklace being found the weekend of Nov 6th. This is not a small necklace from what I can see of Tara's picture that was taken of what she had on that night. I'm so confused on this because I want to know if this necklace was found by AG or LE? Does anyone know for a fact who found this necklace? TIA

That's a great question. Who found the necklace? I remember discussing this on a thread here and the answer was never found.

If anyone other than LE found the necklace, the chain of custody was broken and it really can't be considered evidence.

[Results]

Originally posted by TuscanDreams


That's a great question. Who found the necklace? I remember discussing this on a thread here and the answer was never found.

If anyone other than LE found the necklace, the chain of custody was broken and it really can't be considered evidence.

I'm with you on this one. We can't find out who found the necklace? It is of importance to me of who found it. IF and I do say IF that necklace was brought back to the house I agree with you TD a FEMALE. But, AG wanted so bad for the GBI to look bad who is to say she didn't find it or have it. IF the GBI found it then I think they know someone brought it back. I don't believe that they missed it 4 times and on their last visit they find it. I'm not buying that. Who found the frigging necklace? And they wonder why we can't find Tara? We can't even get an answer on a necklace. As always just posting my frustration and my honest opinion.

[Results]

Exactly and if it is true that the GBI found it then I'm not buying it that they missed it. JMHO

[One2Snoop]

I don't buy that they missed it either!

[odette]

Well I've read everything available regarding the necklace and I still can't figure out who actually found the necklace. In this crimelibrary article it says that "Investigators have also reportedly recovered a necklace". Now, whether that means that the Investigators themselves, were the ones who found it or someone else did, who knows?.


Crimelibrary
Investigators have also reportedly recovered a necklace Grinstead had been seen wearing the night she disappeared. It was found over the weekend on the floor of her home, and had apparently been overlooked in earlier searches, a source said.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/news/ori...ead_probe.html


eg. Answers.com

SYNONYMS recover, regain, recoup, retrieve. These verbs mean to get back something lost or taken away. Recover is the least specific: The police recovered the stolen car.

http://www.answers.com/recover


Here is a recap of some of the details regarding when/where the necklace was found.

Aired November 8, 2005 CNN (Tuesday)

GRACE: And it makes perfect sense with all of this traveling. Anita, another question about this necklace. This is also a new detail, a necklace found on the floor of her home. What was the necklace, and where was it found?

GATTIS: This was the necklace that she wore on Saturday night, the last time she was seen. It was laying on the floor. She had helped many girls get ready for a beauty pageant that afternoon, so she had various pieces of jewelry laying around. Interesting thing that we`ve just found yesterday, we cannot find the earrings she had on that night.

GRACE: What were they?

GATTIS: They were described to me by Missy Davis -- and that`s one of the last people that saw Tara -- as a chandelier-type earring. And Missy and I went through her jewelry yesterday for about an hour, and we cannot find the earrings.

GRACE: You know, Anita, that is a tiny, a subtle but important detail in this case. Now, the necklace that was found on the floor -- let me just ask you a couple of questions. What room was it found?

GATTIS: It was in her bedroom.

GRACE: OK. And that`s the same place the radio clock was found on the floor, that sat by her bed, and the lamp was cracked. Was that the same room where she charged up her cell phone?

GATTIS: Exactly. The cell phone was in the charger right by the broken lamp.

GRACE: OK. So then was that necklace one she wore that evening, or does anybody know?

GATTIS: That is exactly the one she wore. We`ve identified it. Yes, it was the necklace she had on Saturday evening.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP.../08/ng.01.html


JMOO

[TuscanDreams]

This case is absolutely frustrating because of the intrusions by persons other than LE. Not that LE is not to blame here, I think they could have released some info by now to help find Tara.

The simple question raised by Results is "Who found the necklace?"

Too bad there isn't an answer for that, all the info that can be located can be interpreted in 2 ways. 1- Anita found it. 2. LE found it.

this case is just outrageous.

[Results]

Originally posted by TuscanDreams
This case is absolutely frustrating because of the intrusions by persons other than LE. Not that LE is not to blame here, I think they could have released some info by now to help find Tara.

The simple question raised by Results is "Who found the necklace?"

Too bad there isn't an answer for that, all the info that can be located can be interpreted in 2 ways. 1- Anita found it. 2. LE found it.

this case is just outrageous.

You are so right. You have AG saying the GBI is not doing enough and then out of the blue the necklace is found on the bedroom floor. IF that necklace was there it will be in those photos that GBI took of that bedroom. That bedroom appears to be small. What a way to make the GBI look bad then to plant a necklace after they have been there so many times. The only thing we know is that the nekclace was "recovered". JMHO

[odette]

In this article, AG said the necklace was "thrown on the floor". How would AG know that the necklace was "thrown on the floor"?. Sounds to me like she was the one who found it IMOO or did the Investigators tell her that they had found the necklace thrown on the floor?. Something isn't adding up here ... or on second thoughts maybe it is.

Aired January 12, 2006 -

GATTIS: .... Also, a necklace that she had just made the night before. She used beads that she had and beads that were my grandmother`s necklace. She restrung, made her own necklace. That was thrown on the floor. Tara did not take care of her belongings like that.

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0601/12/ng.01.html

JMOO

[Results]

Very good post. I noticed that AG said "MY" grandmother's beads. Was this not Tara's grandmother? I can see why the necklace to AG would have been important. It almost gives you the feeling that Tara shouldn't have had these Grandmother's beads afterall AG said it was her Grandmother's beads. Hmmmm...going to have to digest this one. Speaks volumes to me about AG. JMHO

[fsbiii]

Interesting. The beads must have belonged to Anita's biological dad's mother--who would be Anita's grandmother, but not Tara's. How did Tara end up with the beads?

Originally posted by Results
Very good post. I noticed that AG said "MY" grandmother's beads. Was this not Tara's grandmother? I can see why the necklace to AG would have been important. It almost gives you the feeling that Tara shouldn't have had these Grandmother's beads afterall AG said it was her Grandmother's beads. Hmmmm...going to have to digest this one. Speaks volumes to me about AG. JMHO

[Results]

Exactly what I am wondering!

[Results]

Hmmm, I been doing some thinking here. IF the GBI found this necklace I would think they would know that it was planted and I don't see them saying oh we just found it "thrown on the floor" not after they kept "missing it" in the first searches. No, I think they would have held that close to their vest to see who would ask about the necklace. There is something so wrong with this necklace scene. Something very wrong. JMHO

[One2Snoop]

Originally posted by odette
In this article, AG said the necklace was "thrown on the floor". How would AG know that the necklace was "thrown on the floor"?. Sounds to me like she was the one who found it IMOO or did the Investigators tell her that they had found the necklace thrown on the floor?. Something isn't adding up here ... or on second thoughts maybe it is.

Aired January 12, 2006 -

GATTIS: .... Also, a necklace that she had just made the night before. She used beads that she had and beads that were my grandmother`s necklace. She restrung, made her own necklace. That was thrown on the floor. Tara did not take care of her belongings like that.

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0601/12/ng.01.html

JMOO

Poor choice of words on AG's part unless she's the one who threw it on the floor otherwise I tend to look at it as more AG dramatics. JMO

[TuscanDreams]

Originally posted by One2Snoop
Poor choice of words on AG's part unless she's the one who threw it on the floor otherwise I tend to look at it as more AG dramatics. JMO

And there we have it! I wondered if she threw it on the floor, herself.

[odette]

Originally posted by Results


You are so right. You have AG saying the GBI is not doing enough and then out of the blue the necklace is found on the bedroom floor. IF that necklace was there it will be in those photos that GBI took of that bedroom. That bedroom appears to be small. What a way to make the GBI look bad then to plant a necklace after they have been there so many times. The only thing we know is that the nekclace was "recovered". JMHO

Tara's bedroom is really quite small and what with the double bed and the furniture taking up a large percentage of the space in that room, there really is not much floorspace at all. This necklace is very distinctive, it is long (almost waist length) and the beads were large.

The GBI/LE, would have surely been given a full description of what Tara was wearing when she was last seen and one would hope that the distinctive necklace she had been wearing, would have also been included in that description.

Now, either the necklace was there in the house when they did their initial investigations or it was not. If it was not there ... fine ... can't find something which isn't there in the first place ... if it was there, then why didn't they come across it?. It was after all, allegedly, just 'laying/thrown there on the bedroom floor' when it was found.

IMO, that necklace would have been obvious to even the most casual of observers if it was just laying/thrown there on the bedroom floor. I surely hope that the GBI took photos of the bedroom floor on that first day/night.

IMO it is quite odd, to say the least, that the necklace 'just happened to show up' on the weekend of 5th/6th of November. That is almost a fortnight later!. This really is one of those things which makes me go hmmmmm.


JMOO

[odette]

Originally posted by Results
Hmmm, I been doing some thinking here. IF the GBI found this necklace I would think they would know that it was planted and I don't see them saying oh we just found it "thrown on the floor" not after they kept "missing it" in the first searches. No, I think they would have held that close to their vest to see who would ask about the necklace. There is something so wrong with this necklace scene. Something very wrong. JMHO

The more that I think about this "overlooked" necklace, which didn't appear until nearly a fortnight later, the more I feel that there is definately very hinky about it all.

IF the necklace was not in the house during the initial investigation then where was it and for what good reason would it be returned to the house?. I just don't buy it that they kept "overlooking" it laying there on the floor of the bedroom. Going along with my theory that Tara has been harmed, I can't think of a logical reason as to why whomever harmed her would decide to return the necklace. It would be much more logical to just throw it off a bridge into deep water, for example. IF it was returned to the house there has got to be a good reason.

As has been suggested in other posts, one of the reasons could be to make it look like the initial investigators didn't do a very good job but who would benefit from doing that?. There would have been some who had legitimate access to the house when the GBI had finished the initial investigation ... could one of them have returned it?. It had to be someone who had a key to Tara's house. The perp would have her keys .. could the perp have snuck back under the cover of darkeness and entered the house?. hmmmm ... I'll have to think some more on that. Just thinking out loud.

JMOO

[TuscanDreams]

I no longer think that the necklace was overlooked by LE. I think it was found by the sister of the victim in this case. There is nothing to state otherwise.

LE in my jurisdiction misses things on a routine basis. Bullet holes in walls, shell casings, etc. We have a high number of murders in our inner city and our LE rush from one scene to another and they simply overlook things. I'd thought that since Ocilla isn't a high crime area that their LE department simply overlooked the necklace.

However, I think it's baloney. I don't think the necklace was overlooked, I think it was likely placed in the location it was found by the person who found it.

I'm not bagging on Anita, I know she must be desperate in searching for her sister.

All Just my Opinion!

[Atok]

I speculate that the necklace made from AG's grandmothers beads was important to AG in a sentimental way. It may have been collected from the scene early on by her and then when it was noted that Tara had been wearing *that* necklace AG thought, "Oh my, I had better put that back where I found it!"

She did and it became "found" 2 weeks into the investigation.

This of course is speculative opinion. I can't possibly know for sure.

[One2Snoop]

Originally posted by Atok
I speculate that the necklace made from AG's grandmothers beads was important to AG in a sentimental way. It may have been collected from the scene early on by her and then when it was noted that Tara had been wearing *that* necklace AG thought, "Oh my, I had better put that back where I found it!"

She did and it became "found" 2 weeks into the investigation.

This of course is speculative opinion. I can't possibly know for sure.

Although I have to wonder why AG would keep that info a secret? Why wouldn't she say, Hey, I found this last week and didn't realize it was important - why not be truthful about it? Unless of course there was an alterior motive? JMO

[TuscanDreams]

Originally posted by One2Snoop
Although I have to wonder why AG would keep that info a secret? Why wouldn't she say, Hey, I found this last week and didn't realize it was important - why not be truthful about it? Unless of course there was an alterior motive? JMO

JMO- I vote for an ulterior motive.

[odette]

Originally posted by Atok
I speculate that the necklace made from AG's grandmothers beads was important to AG in a sentimental way. It may have been collected from the scene early on by her and then when it was noted that Tara had been wearing *that* necklace AG thought, "Oh my, I had better put that back where I found it!"

She did and it became "found" 2 weeks into the investigation.

This of course is speculative opinion. I can't possibly know for sure.

I found this in my notes, from an old CTV post, referring to when Tara's house was released. It appears that the family wasn't given free access to the house until about the 2nd of November. I stand to be corrected. The necklace was "found" on the weekend of the 5th/6th of November.

quote:GBI's CSU arrived at 4:30 p.m. and began work at 5:00 p.m. The family wasn't allowed in the house until afer 3:00 a.m. on Tuesday escorted by 3 GBI agents. The house wasn't released until 8 days after.:end quote


JMOO

[Atok]

By this information authorities had already been over the scene and should have noted the large beaded necklace in the tiny bedroom. They either didn't mention it, because it was right on the floor along with other sundry items of not known import at the time... or it wasn't there and they didn't note it.

AG was allowed in the house Nov. 2nd... not before?

The necklace was found Nov 5-6.

If the necklace had been noted in the original scene reports and if AG took it from the scene Nov. 2nd and then returned it later, then the authorities knows she messed with the scene. She would explain her actions as sentimental? They wouldn't make her answer to tampering at such a time for the family, let it slide it was an honest mistake? But then she went and blabbered on and on at how could the LE miss this info? It would seem that alone would create nasty blood between the family and LE, wouldn't it?

If the necklace wasn't at the original scene and appeared found later by AG's hand, then authorities have to ask How did AG get to be in possession of the necklace Tara was wearing when she vanished? Which is a far more serious question.

Either way implications to AG would be obvious and the reason for some head scratching I imagine. I add it to the many things that don't sit right with this case and reasons why I don't think Tara is traveling the world on her own or with a friend in hiding somewhere.

I would imagine the police have as many scenarios as we do, it's nailing down the truth that's the bugger in this case and of course, finding out where Tara is now.

It seems to me that a lot of the conflicting information was designed to make sure this case stayed as cold and confusing as possible. Like it's not meant to be resolved. I hope the police resolve it despite that.

I'm sure they have their hands full, because crime doesn't take a vacation.

I hope that the person(s) responsible for this are wracked with guilt and misery in their daylight and nighttime hours for as long as they live, until it becomes unbearable and they crack.

You can always ask for forgiveness and get saved later.

[mooloo]

I never heard she wasn't in the house before Nov. 2! Surely that is NOT right. I thought she had rearranged and decorated before that to be sure everything looked okay for the public and the television.

Originally posted by Atok
By this information authorities had already been over the scene and should have noted the large beaded necklace in the tiny bedroom. They either didn't mention it, because it was right on the floor along with other sundry items of not known import at the time... or it wasn't there and they didn't note it.

AG was allowed in the house Nov. 2nd... not before?

The necklace was found Nov 5-6.

If the necklace had been noted in the original scene reports and if AG took it from the scene Nov. 2nd and then returned it later, then the authorities knows she messed with the scene. She would explain her actions as sentimental? They wouldn't make her answer to tampering at such a time for the family, let it slide it was an honest mistake? But then she went and blabbered on and on at how could the LE miss this info? It would seem that alone would create nasty blood between the family and LE, wouldn't it?

If the necklace wasn't at the original scene and appeared found later by AG's hand, then authorities have to ask How did AG get to be in possession of the necklace Tara was wearing when she vanished? Which is a far more serious question.

Either way implications to AG would be obvious and the reason for some head scratching I imagine. I add it to the many things that don't sit right with this case and reasons why I don't think Tara is traveling the world on her own or with a friend in hiding somewhere.

I would imagine the police have as many scenarios as we do, it's nailing down the truth that's the bugger in this case and of course, finding out where Tara is now.

It seems to me that a lot of the conflicting information was designed to make sure this case stayed as cold and confusing as possible. Like it's not meant to be resolved. I hope the police resolve it despite that.

I'm sure they have their hands full, because crime doesn't take a vacation.

I hope that the person(s) responsible for this are wracked with guilt and misery in their daylight and nighttime hours for as long as they live, until it becomes unbearable and they crack.

You can always ask for forgiveness and get saved later.

[lighthousedazy]

Originally posted by mooloo
I never heard she wasn't in the house before Nov. 2! Surely that is NOT right. I thought she had rearranged and decorated before that to be sure everything looked okay for the public and the television.

I don't have a link and I may be wrong, but I understood that AG was in the house that Monday evening or perhaps Tuesday after Tara went missing. jmo

[odette]

Originally posted by mooloo
I never heard she wasn't in the house before Nov. 2! Surely that is NOT right. I thought she had rearranged and decorated before that to be sure everything looked okay for the public and the television.

I thought she had rearranged and decorated before that to be sure everything looked okay for the public and the television.

IIRC
The first television airing of the inside of Tara's house was shown by America's Most Wanted on November 05 2005.

Followed by FoxNews/GVS on 07 November 2005 then Nancy Grace had two days coverage on 12th/13th January 2006.

There may have been other television coverage of the inside of Tara's house before AMW visited Ocilla but I do now know of any. As always I stand to be corrected.

JMOO

[lighthousedazy]

Originally posted by odette




IIRC
The first television airing of the inside of Tara's house was shown by America's Most Wanted on November 05 2005.

Followed by FoxNews/GVS on 07 November 2005 then Nancy Grace had two days coverage on 12th/13th January 2006.

There may have been other television coverage of the inside of Tara's house before AMW visited Ocilla but I do now know of any. As always I stand to be corrected.

JMOO

I agree with you Odette. I don't have the links or the notes, but I agree AMW was the first. jmo

[odette]

Originally posted by lighthousedazy
I agree with you Odette. I don't have the links or the notes, but I agree AMW was the first. jmo

I did go to the 3 websites ie AMW, FoxNews, CNN and the dates I gave for the television airings are correct as far as I can make out.


JMOO

[odette]

Originally posted by lighthousedazy
I don't have a link and I may be wrong, but I understood that AG was in the house that Monday evening or perhaps Tuesday after Tara went missing. jmo

Further up on this page (12-02-2006 01:52 AM) I posted this quote from an old Crimelibrary post. I have the link to this from the Google Cache should you wish to verify it.

quote:GBI's CSU arrived at 4:30 p.m. and began work at 5:00 p.m. The family wasn't allowed in the house until afer 3:00 a.m. on Tuesday escorted by 3 GBI agents. The house wasn't released until 8 days after.:end quote

JMOO

[Results]

Originally posted by odette


I found this in my notes, from an old CTV post, referring to when Tara's house was released. It appears that the family wasn't given free access to the house until about the 2nd of November. I stand to be corrected. The necklace was "found" on the weekend of the 5th/6th of November.

quote:GBI's CSU arrived at 4:30 p.m. and began work at 5:00 p.m. The family wasn't allowed in the house until afer 3:00 a.m. on Tuesday escorted by 3 GBI agents. The house wasn't released until 8 days after.:end quote


JMOO

Thank you for bringing this up because we maybe getting closer to the truth about this necklace. JMHO

[Results]

Originally posted by Atok
By this information authorities had already been over the scene and should have noted the large beaded necklace in the tiny bedroom. They either didn't mention it, because it was right on the floor along with other sundry items of not known import at the time... or it wasn't there and they didn't note it.

AG was allowed in the house Nov. 2nd... not before?

The necklace was found Nov 5-6.

If the necklace had been noted in the original scene reports and if AG took it from the scene Nov. 2nd and then returned it later, then the authorities knows she messed with the scene. She would explain her actions as sentimental? They wouldn't make her answer to tampering at such a time for the family, let it slide it was an honest mistake? But then she went and blabbered on and on at how could the LE miss this info? It would seem that alone would create nasty blood between the family and LE, wouldn't it?

If the necklace wasn't at the original scene and appeared found later by AG's hand, then authorities have to ask How did AG get to be in possession of the necklace Tara was wearing when she vanished? Which is a far more serious question.

Either way implications to AG would be obvious and the reason for some head scratching I imagine. I add it to the many things that don't sit right with this case and reasons why I don't think Tara is traveling the world on her own or with a friend in hiding somewhere.

I would imagine the police have as many scenarios as we do, it's nailing down the truth that's the bugger in this case and of course, finding out where Tara is now.

It seems to me that a lot of the conflicting information was designed to make sure this case stayed as cold and confusing as possible. Like it's not meant to be resolved. I hope the police resolve it despite that.

I'm sure they have their hands full, because crime doesn't take a vacation.

I hope that the person(s) responsible for this are wracked with guilt and misery in their daylight and nighttime hours for as long as they live, until it becomes unbearable and they crack.

You can always ask for forgiveness and get saved later.

This is an excellent post. You and odette may have just found out the truth about the necklace. JMHO

[Results]

I went back to the NG transcripts to read it about the necklace and all and something just occured to me while reading this.

ANITA GATTIS, TARA GRINSTEAD`S SISTER: That`s correct. He actually came home earlier than was planned. Unexpectedly, I believe.

GRACE: He comes back home unexpectedly. And again, this boyfriend, Marcus Harper (ph), has not been named a suspect by the GBI or the police. In fact, they`ve all been tight-lipped. If there are any suspects, we don`t know about them. So he comes home three weeks before she goes missing. Now, that week, the week-and-a-half leading up to her disappearance, they have two verbal confrontations, correct?

GATTIS: That`s correct.

GRACE: One as late as Tuesday, correct?

GATTIS: Right.

GRACE: So the night she goes missing, is it true that this ex- boyfriend, Marcus Harper, is at a bar, drinking? His friend on the police department comes and picks him up, they get in the police car together to do a ride-around that night, correct?

GATTIS: That`s correct.

GRACE: Now, one last question. Is this the same police officer that Tara Grinstead tried to get fired?

GATTIS: I don`t know that she tried to get him fired, but she did file a formal complaint against him. Earlier, he...

GRACE: Why?

GATTIS: He had been the arresting officer in the incident with the student who tried to break into Tara`s home. Marcus was in Iraq at that time, and when Marcus got back, Officer Fletcher (ph) released some confidential information to Marcus concerning this incident.

GRACE: Are you talking about Anthony Vickers (ph)?

GATTIS: Yes.

GRACE: Now, everybody, Anthony Vickers had been -- he`s a young man. He had been a former student of Tara Grinstead`s. This is very important. Vickers believes that he has had a relationship with Tara. He had a big crush on her. He went to her house, started banging on the door. A neighbor called police. Now, it turns out that this friend on the police force tells the ex-boyfriend, Marcus Harper, about the incident. Do I have that straight, Anita? Correct me if I`m wrong.

GATTIS: You`ve got it.

GRACE: OK. And it just so happens that the night she goes missing, the ex-boyfriend and this cop are together doing a ride-along.

GATTIS: Right. That`s right.

GRACE: OK. Now, that`s an unusual set of circumstance. Here`s another shot from the ride-around we did today in the search for Tara Grinstead.

Wonder why AG failed to mention anything about HD being there but mentions MH, SF, and AV. She left HD's name out of what she considers to be important apparently. It was not AV that MH would be worried about it was HD that I feel Tara would be worried about MH knowing. She did not bring up HD being there. Now, we have HD not mentioned about being at Tara's there that night and we have noone mentioning that he was there Sunday night or wee hours in the morning Monday before she is reported missing from AG not to mention how many lies there are that she told in this interview alone.

You know I would like to know if we knew that HD was there in the beginning and that HD was at Tara's that weekend how many of you would have taken a closer look at HD?

As always JMHO.

[Results]

AG mentions in my post above about MH having an arguement 2 times according to her last one on Tuesday but she fails again to mention HD being there on Oct 18th of 2005. No one seems to know what he was doing there that day. Also, another transcript from AG and NG:

GRACE: Back to Anita Gattis. Anita, you told me about a long-term relationship she had for about six years that had been broken off, all right? You told me about a young student that had been bamming on her door, in love with her. Also now there are rumors flying that a married cop may have been interested in Tara Grinstead. Truth or false?

ANITA GATTIS: She was friends with a police officer. We`ve been friends with his family for years. His dad was best man in my wedding. They went to high school together. As far as I know, they were just really good friends.

GRACE: Is he married?

ANITA GATTIS: Yes, he is.

GRACE: So is it your belief, Anita, that tabloids and others are taking the truth and twisting it for salacious reasons?

ANITA GATTIS: Well, you know how that story goes.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP.../23/ng.01.html

HD and TG are 5 years apart how did they go to HS together? She dismisses HD of anything and everything. AG has protected HD from the beginning and came out swinging on MH, SF, and LE. Why do all this unless she has something to hide herself? JMHO

[Results]

[quote]Originally posted by Merrick
[b]

Originally posted by Results
I went back to the NG transcripts to read it about the necklace and all and something just occured to me while reading this.

Hey! Happy Holidays and welcome back!

You know, the fact that NO ONE mentioned HD being at Tara's house until Godwin let it slip that he was makes me wonder if anyone actually knew he was there. IMO, when he called FG from Tara's yard I don't believe he let her know where he was and I don't think he ever mentioned he was there to his very good friends, the Gattis'. IMO, he went to Tara's house not to check up on her but to make sure there was nothing there to link him or his wife to the scene. JMHO.

Also, the NG interview is not exactly accurate, IIRC. I believe that during the MH interview it was determined that MH left the bar, went to the OPD and had the dispatcher contact SF to let him know that MH was looking for him and subsequently the two caught up on SF's FOOT patrol. Stand to be corrected.

Hey Merrick. Thank you good to be back and Happy Holidays to you too. The interview is why I said there were so many lies in this interview alone to count. JMHO

[Results]

Originally posted by Merrick


http://www.hhsreddevils.com/devils.htm

HD graduated HS in 1988, Tara in 1993. IMO, they did not go to HS together.

You know maybe instead of starting a thread FACTS ONLY we should start one with LIES ONLY. We might actually get somewhere. JMHO

[odette]

Originally posted by Results
AG mentions in my post above about MH having an arguement 2 times according to her last one on Tuesday but she fails again to mention HD being there on Oct 18th of 2005. No one seems to know what he was doing there that day. Also, another transcript from AG and NG:

GRACE: Back to Anita Gattis. Anita, you told me about a long-term relationship she had for about six years that had been broken off, all right? You told me about a young student that had been bamming on her door, in love with her. Also now there are rumors flying that a married cop may have been interested in Tara Grinstead. Truth or false?

ANITA GATTIS: She was friends with a police officer. We`ve been friends with his family for years. His dad was best man in my wedding. They went to high school together. As far as I know, they were just really good friends.

GRACE: Is he married?

ANITA GATTIS: Yes, he is.

GRACE: So is it your belief, Anita, that tabloids and others are taking the truth and twisting it for salacious reasons?

ANITA GATTIS: Well, you know how that story goes.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP.../23/ng.01.html

HD and TG are 5 years apart how did they go to HS together? She dismisses HD of anything and everything. AG has protected HD from the beginning and came out swinging on MH, SF, and LE. Why do all this unless she has something to hide herself? JMHO

Right from day one, when AG came out with the “What did you do to my sister?” comment to MH at the OPD, she has IMO, been trying to convince everyone that he is responsible for Tara's disappearance. The more that I think about it, I really have to ask myself why?. Why is she so determined to try and convince us all of that?. Why is HD a taboo subject?. HD was, after all is said and done, the one who was having the alleged affair with Tara. Why does AG never bring up the subject of HD?. Why has AG never mentioned that HD was at Tara's house at 12:15am on Monday 24th?. I find it so suspicious that this was never mentioned in any of the earlier news reports ... Is she protecting HD?.

JMOO