These are the top 5 questions that have helped me understand why this case needs to be re-examined and actively investigated by LE.
- Why is Tamara’s death suspicious? Because she disappeared one month before her body was discovered. I mention disappear because as far as we know, no one has confirmed her whereabouts February 25 (after 3:00 p.m.) until March 28, 2007 (4:30 p.m.).
- Why does this location and condition of her body raise questions? Because the central question is not simply how she died, but how she came to be in that particular stock pond in the first place. Establishing an accidental drowning requires explaining her movements, how she entered the pond, and why she was there. I have found no explanations for any of this.
- Why is it important to find answers for the above? Because Tamara had already been missing for weeks. This means that investigators WERE dealing with two separate events that needed to be fit together: 1) Her disappearance and 2) Her final location. If the evidence does not establish a convincing connection between those two events, there is a strong possibility of another explanation.
- Why hasn’t the “accidental” explanation completely resolve all the questions? Because the forensic evidence is INCONSISTENT with the “accident” theory. For me the biggest one is the lividity observed on her back as reported in the autopsy (based on accounts I have heard from the Gone Cold podcast).
- Why does all of this make Tamara’s case worth re-examining? Because when the manner of death, circumstances of the disappearance, location of the body, and forensic evidence don’t appear to tell one cohesive and clear story, then we should be asking WFPD and Tarrant County. ME office: Does the accident theory explain all of the evidence- or does it leave significant evidence unexplained?
What I am working on right now: Weather and water conditions at the time and how they could have affected the investigation.