The Disappearance of Tara Grinstead: The Glove
On the weekend of October 22, 2005, a school teacher and former beauty queen named Tara Grinstead disappeared from the small town of Ocilla, Georgia, and she has never been found. I graduated from high school in Ocilla, grew up 10 miles away, and I have covered her story as a newspaper reporter since the week of her disappearance. This is my examination of one particular clue in the case: A latex glove found in her yard. For more information on the case, links are provided at the bottom of the story.
Since the Up and Vanished podcast about Tara Grinstead began I feel like I learn something new about the disappearance of the Irwin County school teacher almost every day from both the podcast and the conversations the podcast has spurred in the Ocilla community. In the most recent episode, forensic investigator Dr. Maurice Godwin said that he believes there is a 50-50 chance the latex glove found in Tara's front yard was planted there.
Recently, I've put a lot of thought into that glove, and I respectfully and politely disagree, although the glove certainly could have been planted from what we know.
Here is what we know about the glove: On Monday, Oct. 24, 2005, shortly after she was discovered to be missing, a latex glove was found within a few feet of Tara's doorstep at her home in residential Ocilla, a town of about 3,000 people. Law enforcement officials have told me male DNA was found in the glove, and Godwin stated on Up and Vanished that it was white, male DNA and that about 200 men have submitted to DNA tests. I think it is a safe assumption that no match has been found.
Now let's examine the possibilities of the glove logically, examining what is probable or likely, and what is improbable or unlikely, as best we can.
First there are three basic options with the glove:
1. The glove had nothing to do with Tara's disappearance, such as that it was left there by someone doing yard work, or the wind blew it into her yard. This seems like too great a coincidence, and I consider this the least likely scenario.
2. The glove was planted, presumably by the person who abducted or killed her. This too seems unlikely because of a variety of reasons. First, someone would have to think of the idea to plant a glove to distract from their crime, which is, to my knowledge, unheard of. This is the sort of move one would expect from a villain in an Agatha Christie novel, not in real life. If the glove was planted, then the crime was almost certainly premeditated, because people don't just drive around with gloves containing other people's DNA. They must have deliberately found or saved some glove to use for this express purpose, which again seems unlikely.
And in that scenario, whoever the DNA actually belongs to might point in the direction of the actual culprit. If someone was found to be a DNA match, but did not make sense as a suspect, the gloves might point to someone else who made better sense as a suspect who also had access to the other person's latex gloves or their DNA.
Usually the most obvious answer is the most likely to be true, and in this case that is:
3. The glove was used in the disappearance of Tara Grinstead. In fact, the presence of the glove is one of the strongest indicators that something malevolent happened to Tara or that someone covered up what happened to her on that weekend in 2005. Whether a murder or abduction occurred or the gloves were worn to cover up an accidental death, it seems likely the gloves were used for something illegal.
The presence of DNA probably indicates the gloves were already worn. Unless the gloves were used to hide fingerprints at another location, such as a second site where a murder took place, it seems most likely that they were dropped as someone was leaving Tara's property.
If someone wore the gloves at a previous location, and they took them off and put them in their pocket for instance, it seems like a big coincidence that the glove randomly fell out of their pocket near her doorstep. Most likely the glove was found not due to some random drop from a pocket but during some sort of motion, such as taking the glove off or putting it in a pocket.
If the culprit meant to put the gloves on to hide their fingerprints as they entered Tara's home, and they acted to put the gloves on, they would have noticed that they dropped a glove and probably would have found and retrieved it, assuming it was not too dark. However, if they were leaving and taking the gloves off, someone might very well move to put the gloves in their pocket and not notice that one fell to the ground.
Considering all those factors, it seems most likely that the glove was dropped by someone who had finished using the gloves for whatever purpose they used the gloves for and that the gloves were used to hide the person's fingerprints which otherwise would have been left at Tara's home or on her car.
Still accepting that anything is possible, but trying to find the most likely scenario, I think we have narrowed down to one of two most likely scenarios, and I believe either one or the other, or a combination of the two, is the most probable explanation for the glove found in Tara's yard.
1. For years, I believed that the glove was probably used by someone who drove her car that weekend, and this still may be the most likely scenario. The sports car was found parked in her carport when Tara was reported missing.
One of the often discussed possible clues is that the driver's seat of her car was moved back, as if it was driven by someone taller than Tara, who was only slightly taller than 5 feet. A law enforcement officer familiar with the case has told me that this might be a false clue though, because the seat may have been moved back by a law enforcement officer processing the car for clues. Processing was not definitely the cause of the seat being moved back though, so it is still possible that someone taller drove the car. Of course, most men would be taller.
A friend of Tara's told me that Tara would not let anyone drive her car, which lends to the idea that if someone taller did drive it, that they were involved in her disappearance. The friend also told me that the car was very muddy at the time of the disappearance, which indicates the car was driven somewhere other than the paved streets of Ocilla or neighboring Fitzgerald.
I've also heard that someone had her car washed after it was processed, but I've also heard that the Georgia Bureau of Investigation confiscated the car and still has it in storage. Both could be true, I suppose, if the car was impounded after it was washed, but I don't understand why the GBI would allow it to be washed, if that is even true.
For years, based on these apparent clues, I found it most likely that someone wore latex gloves to drive the car back from some location and they dropped the glove when walking away from the car, probably toward the road. I've asked a law enforcement officer familiar with the scene and the location of the glove, and he said that scenario is possible.
The implications of this scenario are interesting, however. If someone drove the car back to Tara's house, they had to leave somehow. This indicates that if the person left with Tara, this person's car was left at Tara's home, such as the black truck that was reported, or they lived within walking distance of Tara's home. Otherwise, at least two people were involved in her disappearance, because someone had to be there to pick up the person that drove her car home.
If two people were involved, this might explain why a DNA match has never been found, assuming no DNA match has been found. The person who drove the car and who dropped the glove might be an accomplice with no obvious connection to Tara, while the person who picked them up might have a more obvious connection. There is a slight improbability about this scenario though, as we would assume that the person with the stronger connection is the likely killer or abductor, and why would the accomplice take on the riskier assignment of driving the car back to her home? This is not a strong improbability though, as it might be simply explained that the murderer or abductor had his own vehicle at the scene and thus preferred to drive it, or that neither of those involved was more or less involved in the crime than the other.
Another point of interest about the possibility that someone used gloves to drive the car back is why they would have hidden their fingerprints at all. It seems likely that the person was someone whose fingerprints should not have appeared in the car at all or it was someone who knew that Tara did not allow anyone else to drive her car so they believed they should hide their fingerprints. Of course, it is possible that someone just obliviously thought that if they were committing a crime they should wear gloves.
This entire car-glove connection scenario is predicated on the idea that whatever happened to Tara happened away from her home and that the car was driven back to her home. Presumably, in this scenario, if the car was left at its previous location it would have indicated something more about the case, such as what happened to her and where.
This separate location might have been the home of the culprit, which may add improbability that the culprit was someone who lived within walking distance of Tara's home.
There is also a possibility that Tara was abducted or killed at her home and the culprit used her own car to transport Tara to another location and then brought the car back. This is possible, but less likely than other options because someone would have likely had their own vehicle there, unless they lived within walking distance, which several men connected to the case did, but they all presumably were DNA tested and were not a match.
Furthermore, many men drive trucks which would probably be better suited for whatever purposes an abductor or killer would need a vehicle for, and if the culprit had options, they would have likely chosen their own vehicle rather than Tara's sports car simply because being caught in it would have been extremely suspicious.
So, if the glove is connected to the car and assuming that murder is what most likely happened, this is the most likely scenario:
One or more people murdered Tara Grinstead somewhere muddy or only accessible by a muddy road, and one of them, a taller white male, wore latex gloves to drive her car back to her home in Ocilla where he either retrieved his own vehicle or was picked up by an accomplice.
Of course, those are actually two scenarios, one with an accomplice and one without. If I had to choose, I would choose the one with the accomplice as the most likely because it would best explain the use of latex gloves to hide fingerprints and would best explain why a DNA match has not been found. But I consider either scenario nearly equally possible.
But there is another possible, even probable, explanation of the glove.
2. As I said, for years I thought the car-glove connection was the most likely explanation for the latex glove. Then, several weeks ago, I watched the British television show "The Fall," in which the star of "50 Shades of Grey," Jamie Dornan, plays a slightly less creepy role as a serial killer. In the show, there is a scene where he leaves a woman's house after burglarizing it, and after he shuts her door, he immediately starts to take his gloves off.
Chills ran down my spine like tremors down a fault line.
Yes. Absolutely someone who had just finished illegally entering a home and doing illegal things inside might take off their gloves as they exited if they were finished with whatever nefarious purposes they were up to inside. Outside, they would not want to be caught in suspicious gloves, so they would probably immediately take them off. They would likely stuff the gloves into a pocket, nervously, and in their anxiety they might not notice as one of those gloves fell to the ground. The scenario seems so likely that it is in fact rather obvious. It does not negate the car-glove connection, and in fact, someone who exited her home could also have driven her car, but dropping the glove after leaving the front door seems even more likely than dropping it leaving a car, at least on the surface, if for no other reason, the close proximity of the door to the glove.
I presented this idea to a friend, and they argued that someone would wait to take off the gloves until they reached their own car. It's possible, but not likely. If you were in the midst of committing a crime, you would not want to be caught with gloves on outside as that would be extremely suspicious. My friend said the person could have stuffed their hands into their pockets, and that is true, but that also seems a bit suspicious. If someone saw a person leaving Tara Grinstead's with their hands stuffed in their pockets that weekend that person would have probably already been arrested because it would look highly suspicious. Furthermore, if the person taking off the gloves risked running into someone as they walked back to their car, they might have had to shake hands with someone or might have even been obliged to wave. Remember that we do not know what time the glove was left in the yard. Taking off the gloves and slipping them into a pocket immediately would be the safest course.
Also, it's just natural, I believe, to take off gloves once you are done using them, at least that's my experience when I clean my bathroom. Once I am done cleaning, I want to immediately take them off, but this may just be a personal preference as I find gloves unwieldy and uncomfortable. I would be interested to hear some feedback on how others treat wearing gloves.
Furthermore, the simple fact that someone left a glove in the yard is highly indicative that someone did in fact take the glove off. Assuming the glove was not a plant, if they had stuffed their hands in their pockets, I would not be writing this because we would know nothing about a glove.
I picture someone closing the front door and using their body to shield themselves as they pull their gloves off and then they casually walk down the steps and push the gloves into their pocket, but one falls to the ground, or the glove falls after a second because it was not pushed deeply enough into the pocket. It certainly could have happened that way.
But why would someone wear gloves and take them off at all? Probability and logic are a bit limited here, as we need to use our imaginations more than with other scenarios because we know little about what happened inside the house.
Could there have been a struggle inside? I am a bit confused about the evidence as the facts have mixed with hearsay over the years. I've heard a lamp or clock was turned over. I've heard a bed's headboard was damaged. I've recently heard a necklace was found on the floor? I've heard that a very small amount of blood was found though I've also heard that might be explained through shaving or a household accident. None of that may be true.
The truth is, I don't know what was found in the house. I wasn't there, and I doubt law enforcement investigators have revealed everything that was found or that wasn't.
And what wasn't found may be more of a clue than what was, as I find it highly likely that if the glove was left when exiting the home that whoever dropped it was either covering up or removing some sort of evidence. I say this because someone who was abducting Tara would not have taken off the gloves while toting or otherwise moving her to a vehicle. They might have placed her in a vehicle and then went back to clean something up or remove some evidence, and then taken off the gloves, but they would not take the gloves off in the midst of moving her.
Since it is so improbable that someone took off the gloves while moving her there must have been some reason for them to go inside her home or to go back inside. To me it seems like the reason must have either been to cover up evidence at her home or remove evidence from it. Let us examine those two possibilities, although it certainly could be both. Someone might have cleaned up a blood stain and removed a murder weapon, for instance.
1. Covering up evidence: This, most likely, would be hiding signs of a crime. The culprit might have simply straightened up some overturned objects, although based on the clues I'm unsure about, there might have still been some overturned items that he missed.
He might have been cleaning a blood stain, but this seems unlikely for a few reasons. I think the GBI would have found some evidence that chemicals were used to clean up blood, and even though they might not have revealed that evidence to the public, that evidence would have changed the nature of the initial investigation. The case would have probably been announced as a murder investigation from early on, rather than a missing person case. The fact that it was a missing person investigation also makes it probable that there were no obvious signs of a struggle.
If an abduction or murder happened at her home, it seems likely that it was either bloodless, easily cleanable or was cleaned by someone who knew how to clean it properly. That last option of course suggests the possibility of someone with law enforcement knowledge, but I don't even find it all that probable that someone was even there to clean up the scene.
It would be a large risk to go back to the scene of the crime to clean up the scene, and probably not worth it considering that after she was gone a few days people would start assuming something criminal happened to her, which is exactly what happened. Now, someone might go back to remove evidence that pointed to them, so I find the second option at least somewhat more probable.
2. Removing evidence: If someone went inside Tara's home to remove evidence, then we can only speculate what was removed. I think the only safe assumption would be that whatever was removed would have somehow identified the culprit. For instance, it could have been a weapon with fingerprints, a glass that the culprit used when visiting her home, or evidence of a sexual encounter. It might have been a love letter, but although it was not as prevalent in 2005 as now, the use of digital communication was rising, so a physical love letter seems like a stretch. Most likely the thing or things removed would be something that contained DNA or fingerprint evidence.
But this brings us back to something discussed earlier in the car-glove connection scenarios. Why would someone whose DNA or fingerprints would be expected to be found inside Grinstead's home try to hide their DNA or fingerprints? Why would a boyfriend, a neighbor or a childhood friend we know was inside her home at some time in 2005 try to hide their fingerprints or DNA when they would likely be found inside the home anyway?
Of course, we assume that people would behave rationally, but that is only an assumption. Often people act far from rationally, especially in high pressure situations.
But assuming that the culprit or culprits were behaving rationally, if they were using gloves and if they were removing evidence, then they very well might not be someone that is an obvious suspect. Again, this is an assumption, but this would explain why no DNA match has been found to the glove.
I began writing this expecting that the glove-left-while-exiting-the-home scenario would be as probable as the car-glove connection, but I've convinced myself otherwise. I still believe the car-glove connection is more probable because it best fits the circumstances and any reason for someone to go inside the home seems improbable without further evidence. For instance, if a knife was found to be wiped down of prints that would highly indicate that someone went back inside the home, but no such evidence exists. Without corroborating evidence, all reasons for going inside the home are only speculation while the car-glove connection links to several clues or possible clues such as the car seat and the mud on the car.
This does not negate exiting the home scenarios, but it makes the car connection seem somewhat more likely. Nearly anything is possible, of course, but I still believe the most probable scenarios are those previously mentioned:
One or more people murdered Tara Grinstead somewhere muddy or only accessible by a muddy road, and one of them, a taller white male, wore latex gloves to drive her car back to her home in Ocilla where he either retrieved his own vehicle or was picked up by an accomplice.
Of course, many people already believe that is exactly what happened without attempting to analyze every detail. And it could be a combination in which someone drove the car and went inside. They could have covered up evidence and removed evidence. They could have driven the car to a place on a paved street or there could be six culprits rather than one or two.
A few points that I have not previously mentioned should be put forward. The presence of the latex glove does make the idea that whatever happened was a premeditated crime seem more likely, but if it was not premeditated, then it is more probable that the culprit was someone who had easy access to latex gloves, which would include people in law enforcement or medical professions, which includes several white males connected to Tara Grinstead. Of course, anyone can buy latex gloves, so this is not definitely true. For all we know, Tara could have died on Saturday night/Sunday morning and someone could have purchased latex gloves on Sunday and went back to clean up the scene.
I may later write a couple of similar examinations of other aspects of the case.
I would like to analyze what most likely happened to Tara Grinstead. I think most people believe she was murdered, and that is the most likely scenario, but the more I learn the more I think that suicide is a possibility, but I think someone covered it up if she did killer herself, probably because they were scared it would look like murder. And there are several other possibilities as well.
Assuming she was murdered, an examination of possible motives might prove interesting, but they would be less about probability and purely about speculation. Of course, this is all speculation to some extent.
I could say something is 30 percent probable or 90 percent probable, but the truth is, each scenario is either 100 percent probable because it is exactly what happened or it is 0 percent probable because it didn't happen that way at all. We simply don't know, so all this is just barely informed speculation measured by a modicum of logic, but hopefully someone will read this and will think of something I've missed or an investigator with more knowledge about the case will make a connection because of what I've written.
Maybe this will help solve whatever happened on that mysterious weekend in October 2005. I certainly hope it does.
For more information on the Disappearance of Tara Grinstead:
The Up and Vanished Podcast by Payne Lindsey.
The Web Sleuths Tara Grinstead forums.
Dr. Maurice Godwin's Tara Grinstead blog.
An award-winning Ocilla Star article I wrote on the fifth anniversary of Tara's disappearance.
An Ocilla Star article in which I interviewed friends of Tara Grinstead about who she was as a person.
An Ocilla Star article I wrote on the 10th anniversary that features a timeline of events.
The Wikipedia entry.
Since the Up and Vanished podcast about Tara Grinstead began I feel like I learn something new about the disappearance of the Irwin County school teacher almost every day from both the podcast and the conversations the podcast has spurred in the Ocilla community. In the most recent episode, forensic investigator Dr. Maurice Godwin said that he believes there is a 50-50 chance the latex glove found in Tara's front yard was planted there.
Recently, I've put a lot of thought into that glove, and I respectfully and politely disagree, although the glove certainly could have been planted from what we know.
Here is what we know about the glove: On Monday, Oct. 24, 2005, shortly after she was discovered to be missing, a latex glove was found within a few feet of Tara's doorstep at her home in residential Ocilla, a town of about 3,000 people. Law enforcement officials have told me male DNA was found in the glove, and Godwin stated on Up and Vanished that it was white, male DNA and that about 200 men have submitted to DNA tests. I think it is a safe assumption that no match has been found.
Now let's examine the possibilities of the glove logically, examining what is probable or likely, and what is improbable or unlikely, as best we can.
First there are three basic options with the glove:
1. The glove had nothing to do with Tara's disappearance, such as that it was left there by someone doing yard work, or the wind blew it into her yard. This seems like too great a coincidence, and I consider this the least likely scenario.
2. The glove was planted, presumably by the person who abducted or killed her. This too seems unlikely because of a variety of reasons. First, someone would have to think of the idea to plant a glove to distract from their crime, which is, to my knowledge, unheard of. This is the sort of move one would expect from a villain in an Agatha Christie novel, not in real life. If the glove was planted, then the crime was almost certainly premeditated, because people don't just drive around with gloves containing other people's DNA. They must have deliberately found or saved some glove to use for this express purpose, which again seems unlikely.
And in that scenario, whoever the DNA actually belongs to might point in the direction of the actual culprit. If someone was found to be a DNA match, but did not make sense as a suspect, the gloves might point to someone else who made better sense as a suspect who also had access to the other person's latex gloves or their DNA.
Usually the most obvious answer is the most likely to be true, and in this case that is:
3. The glove was used in the disappearance of Tara Grinstead. In fact, the presence of the glove is one of the strongest indicators that something malevolent happened to Tara or that someone covered up what happened to her on that weekend in 2005. Whether a murder or abduction occurred or the gloves were worn to cover up an accidental death, it seems likely the gloves were used for something illegal.
The presence of DNA probably indicates the gloves were already worn. Unless the gloves were used to hide fingerprints at another location, such as a second site where a murder took place, it seems most likely that they were dropped as someone was leaving Tara's property.
If someone wore the gloves at a previous location, and they took them off and put them in their pocket for instance, it seems like a big coincidence that the glove randomly fell out of their pocket near her doorstep. Most likely the glove was found not due to some random drop from a pocket but during some sort of motion, such as taking the glove off or putting it in a pocket.
If the culprit meant to put the gloves on to hide their fingerprints as they entered Tara's home, and they acted to put the gloves on, they would have noticed that they dropped a glove and probably would have found and retrieved it, assuming it was not too dark. However, if they were leaving and taking the gloves off, someone might very well move to put the gloves in their pocket and not notice that one fell to the ground.
Considering all those factors, it seems most likely that the glove was dropped by someone who had finished using the gloves for whatever purpose they used the gloves for and that the gloves were used to hide the person's fingerprints which otherwise would have been left at Tara's home or on her car.
Still accepting that anything is possible, but trying to find the most likely scenario, I think we have narrowed down to one of two most likely scenarios, and I believe either one or the other, or a combination of the two, is the most probable explanation for the glove found in Tara's yard.
1. For years, I believed that the glove was probably used by someone who drove her car that weekend, and this still may be the most likely scenario. The sports car was found parked in her carport when Tara was reported missing.
One of the often discussed possible clues is that the driver's seat of her car was moved back, as if it was driven by someone taller than Tara, who was only slightly taller than 5 feet. A law enforcement officer familiar with the case has told me that this might be a false clue though, because the seat may have been moved back by a law enforcement officer processing the car for clues. Processing was not definitely the cause of the seat being moved back though, so it is still possible that someone taller drove the car. Of course, most men would be taller.
A friend of Tara's told me that Tara would not let anyone drive her car, which lends to the idea that if someone taller did drive it, that they were involved in her disappearance. The friend also told me that the car was very muddy at the time of the disappearance, which indicates the car was driven somewhere other than the paved streets of Ocilla or neighboring Fitzgerald.
I've also heard that someone had her car washed after it was processed, but I've also heard that the Georgia Bureau of Investigation confiscated the car and still has it in storage. Both could be true, I suppose, if the car was impounded after it was washed, but I don't understand why the GBI would allow it to be washed, if that is even true.
For years, based on these apparent clues, I found it most likely that someone wore latex gloves to drive the car back from some location and they dropped the glove when walking away from the car, probably toward the road. I've asked a law enforcement officer familiar with the scene and the location of the glove, and he said that scenario is possible.
The implications of this scenario are interesting, however. If someone drove the car back to Tara's house, they had to leave somehow. This indicates that if the person left with Tara, this person's car was left at Tara's home, such as the black truck that was reported, or they lived within walking distance of Tara's home. Otherwise, at least two people were involved in her disappearance, because someone had to be there to pick up the person that drove her car home.
If two people were involved, this might explain why a DNA match has never been found, assuming no DNA match has been found. The person who drove the car and who dropped the glove might be an accomplice with no obvious connection to Tara, while the person who picked them up might have a more obvious connection. There is a slight improbability about this scenario though, as we would assume that the person with the stronger connection is the likely killer or abductor, and why would the accomplice take on the riskier assignment of driving the car back to her home? This is not a strong improbability though, as it might be simply explained that the murderer or abductor had his own vehicle at the scene and thus preferred to drive it, or that neither of those involved was more or less involved in the crime than the other.
Another point of interest about the possibility that someone used gloves to drive the car back is why they would have hidden their fingerprints at all. It seems likely that the person was someone whose fingerprints should not have appeared in the car at all or it was someone who knew that Tara did not allow anyone else to drive her car so they believed they should hide their fingerprints. Of course, it is possible that someone just obliviously thought that if they were committing a crime they should wear gloves.
This entire car-glove connection scenario is predicated on the idea that whatever happened to Tara happened away from her home and that the car was driven back to her home. Presumably, in this scenario, if the car was left at its previous location it would have indicated something more about the case, such as what happened to her and where.
This separate location might have been the home of the culprit, which may add improbability that the culprit was someone who lived within walking distance of Tara's home.
There is also a possibility that Tara was abducted or killed at her home and the culprit used her own car to transport Tara to another location and then brought the car back. This is possible, but less likely than other options because someone would have likely had their own vehicle there, unless they lived within walking distance, which several men connected to the case did, but they all presumably were DNA tested and were not a match.
Furthermore, many men drive trucks which would probably be better suited for whatever purposes an abductor or killer would need a vehicle for, and if the culprit had options, they would have likely chosen their own vehicle rather than Tara's sports car simply because being caught in it would have been extremely suspicious.
So, if the glove is connected to the car and assuming that murder is what most likely happened, this is the most likely scenario:
One or more people murdered Tara Grinstead somewhere muddy or only accessible by a muddy road, and one of them, a taller white male, wore latex gloves to drive her car back to her home in Ocilla where he either retrieved his own vehicle or was picked up by an accomplice.
Of course, those are actually two scenarios, one with an accomplice and one without. If I had to choose, I would choose the one with the accomplice as the most likely because it would best explain the use of latex gloves to hide fingerprints and would best explain why a DNA match has not been found. But I consider either scenario nearly equally possible.
But there is another possible, even probable, explanation of the glove.
2. As I said, for years I thought the car-glove connection was the most likely explanation for the latex glove. Then, several weeks ago, I watched the British television show "The Fall," in which the star of "50 Shades of Grey," Jamie Dornan, plays a slightly less creepy role as a serial killer. In the show, there is a scene where he leaves a woman's house after burglarizing it, and after he shuts her door, he immediately starts to take his gloves off.
Chills ran down my spine like tremors down a fault line.
Yes. Absolutely someone who had just finished illegally entering a home and doing illegal things inside might take off their gloves as they exited if they were finished with whatever nefarious purposes they were up to inside. Outside, they would not want to be caught in suspicious gloves, so they would probably immediately take them off. They would likely stuff the gloves into a pocket, nervously, and in their anxiety they might not notice as one of those gloves fell to the ground. The scenario seems so likely that it is in fact rather obvious. It does not negate the car-glove connection, and in fact, someone who exited her home could also have driven her car, but dropping the glove after leaving the front door seems even more likely than dropping it leaving a car, at least on the surface, if for no other reason, the close proximity of the door to the glove.
I presented this idea to a friend, and they argued that someone would wait to take off the gloves until they reached their own car. It's possible, but not likely. If you were in the midst of committing a crime, you would not want to be caught with gloves on outside as that would be extremely suspicious. My friend said the person could have stuffed their hands into their pockets, and that is true, but that also seems a bit suspicious. If someone saw a person leaving Tara Grinstead's with their hands stuffed in their pockets that weekend that person would have probably already been arrested because it would look highly suspicious. Furthermore, if the person taking off the gloves risked running into someone as they walked back to their car, they might have had to shake hands with someone or might have even been obliged to wave. Remember that we do not know what time the glove was left in the yard. Taking off the gloves and slipping them into a pocket immediately would be the safest course.
Also, it's just natural, I believe, to take off gloves once you are done using them, at least that's my experience when I clean my bathroom. Once I am done cleaning, I want to immediately take them off, but this may just be a personal preference as I find gloves unwieldy and uncomfortable. I would be interested to hear some feedback on how others treat wearing gloves.
Furthermore, the simple fact that someone left a glove in the yard is highly indicative that someone did in fact take the glove off. Assuming the glove was not a plant, if they had stuffed their hands in their pockets, I would not be writing this because we would know nothing about a glove.
I picture someone closing the front door and using their body to shield themselves as they pull their gloves off and then they casually walk down the steps and push the gloves into their pocket, but one falls to the ground, or the glove falls after a second because it was not pushed deeply enough into the pocket. It certainly could have happened that way.
But why would someone wear gloves and take them off at all? Probability and logic are a bit limited here, as we need to use our imaginations more than with other scenarios because we know little about what happened inside the house.
Could there have been a struggle inside? I am a bit confused about the evidence as the facts have mixed with hearsay over the years. I've heard a lamp or clock was turned over. I've heard a bed's headboard was damaged. I've recently heard a necklace was found on the floor? I've heard that a very small amount of blood was found though I've also heard that might be explained through shaving or a household accident. None of that may be true.
The truth is, I don't know what was found in the house. I wasn't there, and I doubt law enforcement investigators have revealed everything that was found or that wasn't.
And what wasn't found may be more of a clue than what was, as I find it highly likely that if the glove was left when exiting the home that whoever dropped it was either covering up or removing some sort of evidence. I say this because someone who was abducting Tara would not have taken off the gloves while toting or otherwise moving her to a vehicle. They might have placed her in a vehicle and then went back to clean something up or remove some evidence, and then taken off the gloves, but they would not take the gloves off in the midst of moving her.
Since it is so improbable that someone took off the gloves while moving her there must have been some reason for them to go inside her home or to go back inside. To me it seems like the reason must have either been to cover up evidence at her home or remove evidence from it. Let us examine those two possibilities, although it certainly could be both. Someone might have cleaned up a blood stain and removed a murder weapon, for instance.
1. Covering up evidence: This, most likely, would be hiding signs of a crime. The culprit might have simply straightened up some overturned objects, although based on the clues I'm unsure about, there might have still been some overturned items that he missed.
He might have been cleaning a blood stain, but this seems unlikely for a few reasons. I think the GBI would have found some evidence that chemicals were used to clean up blood, and even though they might not have revealed that evidence to the public, that evidence would have changed the nature of the initial investigation. The case would have probably been announced as a murder investigation from early on, rather than a missing person case. The fact that it was a missing person investigation also makes it probable that there were no obvious signs of a struggle.
If an abduction or murder happened at her home, it seems likely that it was either bloodless, easily cleanable or was cleaned by someone who knew how to clean it properly. That last option of course suggests the possibility of someone with law enforcement knowledge, but I don't even find it all that probable that someone was even there to clean up the scene.
It would be a large risk to go back to the scene of the crime to clean up the scene, and probably not worth it considering that after she was gone a few days people would start assuming something criminal happened to her, which is exactly what happened. Now, someone might go back to remove evidence that pointed to them, so I find the second option at least somewhat more probable.
2. Removing evidence: If someone went inside Tara's home to remove evidence, then we can only speculate what was removed. I think the only safe assumption would be that whatever was removed would have somehow identified the culprit. For instance, it could have been a weapon with fingerprints, a glass that the culprit used when visiting her home, or evidence of a sexual encounter. It might have been a love letter, but although it was not as prevalent in 2005 as now, the use of digital communication was rising, so a physical love letter seems like a stretch. Most likely the thing or things removed would be something that contained DNA or fingerprint evidence.
But this brings us back to something discussed earlier in the car-glove connection scenarios. Why would someone whose DNA or fingerprints would be expected to be found inside Grinstead's home try to hide their DNA or fingerprints? Why would a boyfriend, a neighbor or a childhood friend we know was inside her home at some time in 2005 try to hide their fingerprints or DNA when they would likely be found inside the home anyway?
Of course, we assume that people would behave rationally, but that is only an assumption. Often people act far from rationally, especially in high pressure situations.
But assuming that the culprit or culprits were behaving rationally, if they were using gloves and if they were removing evidence, then they very well might not be someone that is an obvious suspect. Again, this is an assumption, but this would explain why no DNA match has been found to the glove.
I began writing this expecting that the glove-left-while-exiting-the-home scenario would be as probable as the car-glove connection, but I've convinced myself otherwise. I still believe the car-glove connection is more probable because it best fits the circumstances and any reason for someone to go inside the home seems improbable without further evidence. For instance, if a knife was found to be wiped down of prints that would highly indicate that someone went back inside the home, but no such evidence exists. Without corroborating evidence, all reasons for going inside the home are only speculation while the car-glove connection links to several clues or possible clues such as the car seat and the mud on the car.
This does not negate exiting the home scenarios, but it makes the car connection seem somewhat more likely. Nearly anything is possible, of course, but I still believe the most probable scenarios are those previously mentioned:
One or more people murdered Tara Grinstead somewhere muddy or only accessible by a muddy road, and one of them, a taller white male, wore latex gloves to drive her car back to her home in Ocilla where he either retrieved his own vehicle or was picked up by an accomplice.
Of course, many people already believe that is exactly what happened without attempting to analyze every detail. And it could be a combination in which someone drove the car and went inside. They could have covered up evidence and removed evidence. They could have driven the car to a place on a paved street or there could be six culprits rather than one or two.
A few points that I have not previously mentioned should be put forward. The presence of the latex glove does make the idea that whatever happened was a premeditated crime seem more likely, but if it was not premeditated, then it is more probable that the culprit was someone who had easy access to latex gloves, which would include people in law enforcement or medical professions, which includes several white males connected to Tara Grinstead. Of course, anyone can buy latex gloves, so this is not definitely true. For all we know, Tara could have died on Saturday night/Sunday morning and someone could have purchased latex gloves on Sunday and went back to clean up the scene.
I may later write a couple of similar examinations of other aspects of the case.
I would like to analyze what most likely happened to Tara Grinstead. I think most people believe she was murdered, and that is the most likely scenario, but the more I learn the more I think that suicide is a possibility, but I think someone covered it up if she did killer herself, probably because they were scared it would look like murder. And there are several other possibilities as well.
Assuming she was murdered, an examination of possible motives might prove interesting, but they would be less about probability and purely about speculation. Of course, this is all speculation to some extent.
I could say something is 30 percent probable or 90 percent probable, but the truth is, each scenario is either 100 percent probable because it is exactly what happened or it is 0 percent probable because it didn't happen that way at all. We simply don't know, so all this is just barely informed speculation measured by a modicum of logic, but hopefully someone will read this and will think of something I've missed or an investigator with more knowledge about the case will make a connection because of what I've written.
Maybe this will help solve whatever happened on that mysterious weekend in October 2005. I certainly hope it does.
For more information on the Disappearance of Tara Grinstead:
The Up and Vanished Podcast by Payne Lindsey.
The Web Sleuths Tara Grinstead forums.
Dr. Maurice Godwin's Tara Grinstead blog.
An award-winning Ocilla Star article I wrote on the fifth anniversary of Tara's disappearance.
An Ocilla Star article in which I interviewed friends of Tara Grinstead about who she was as a person.
An Ocilla Star article I wrote on the 10th anniversary that features a timeline of events.
The Wikipedia entry.
