Sierra Lamar -- Missing 3/16/12 #2

Stolat wrote:

Typo Positive wrote:The Fifth Amendment is designed first and foremost as
a right to protect the innocent.

Not an escape clause for the guilty.

If you are innocent and wrongly arrested, the first thing you better do is keep your mouth shut.

Agreed. And when one is wrongly accused of having contact with a missing girl, it would be to their benefit not to have DNA evidence to the contrary in their car.

I guess the thousands of wrongly convicted individuals might beg to differ on that.
It depends whether or not there was any evidence tampering in their case that got them wrongly convicted in the first place.
It happens. A lot.

Typo Positive wrote:

Stolat wrote:

Typo Positive wrote:The Fifth Amendment is designed first and foremost as
a right to protect the innocent.

Not an escape clause for the guilty.

If you are innocent and wrongly arrested, the first thing you better do is keep your mouth shut.

Agreed. And when one is wrongly accused of having contact with a missing girl, it would be to their benefit not to have DNA evidence to the contrary in their car.

I guess the thousands of wrongly convicted individuals might beg to differ on that.
It depends whether or not there was any evidence tampering in their case that got them wrongly convicted in the first place.
It happens. A lot.

I'm sure that true. But in this pursuit of "innocent until proven guilty" then we must not be hyprocrits and only apply that to the accused and not the police as well.

Stolat wrote:

Typo Positive wrote:The Fifth Amendment is designed first and foremost as
a right to protect the innocent.

Not an escape clause for the guilty.

If you are innocent and wrongly arrested, the first thing you better do is keep your mouth shut.

Agreed. And when one is wrongly accused of having contact with a missing girl, it would be to their benefit not to have DNA evidence to the contrary in their car.

The evidence for this case was allegedly processed by the DA's Crime Lab of Santa Clara County.

That was stated in the PC after Torres arrest.

SC Crime Lab has repeatedly under scrutiny, as are many crime labs, including the FBI.

If I was Torres counsel, I would request independent review of ALL evidence in this case.

I think that is fair and in the best interest of public safety, whether Torres is guilty or innocent.

Many people spend a decade or so in jail for the mishandling or withholding of evidence that concludes in a wrongful conviction, while the real perp walks free.

Lash wrote:

Typo Positive wrote:At Stolat:

The reference to that intersection is pertaining to statements made that brought him up on their radar.
"He was seen on that route a fact that did not escape
LE notice".
Was that before or after they supposedly had his DNA in
her possessions?
I mean if before, why were they targeting him?
And if after, well if you've got his DNA and he drives to
work not avoiding the area as usual, it doesn't make sense really either.

If the lab doing the testing were already in trouble for
mishandling of evidence and wrongful convictions, I don't believe I'd be mistating any facts about that evidence in
public like I could lie because I'm LE.
There was no reason to lie about whether they were looking for the car or already had it.
The alleged perp knew they had his car.
So why lie to the public?
Why give a false picture of a car one day and an alleged
correct one the very next and say it is cctv footage that
conveniently has no date/time stamp?

If this were my case there wouldn't be a hint of lying to the public or making any false statements regarding the evidence, at all.
For any reason whatsoever.

BBM - I do believe they mislead the public, but they did not lie. They chose their words wisely. I also believe there was a reason and a hell of a good one. Smart. In my opinion they were looking for someone who could remember seeing this car in a specific location. A location that may point to the location of Sierra's body.

AGREED!

Lash wrote:

Typo Positive wrote:At Stolat:

The reference to that intersection is pertaining to statements made that brought him up on their radar.
"He was seen on that route a fact that did not escape
LE notice".
Was that before or after they supposedly had his DNA in
her possessions?
I mean if before, why were they targeting him?
And if after, well if you've got his DNA and he drives to
work not avoiding the area as usual, it doesn't make sense really either.

If the lab doing the testing were already in trouble for
mishandling of evidence and wrongful convictions, I don't believe I'd be mistating any facts about that evidence in
public like I could lie because I'm LE.
There was no reason to lie about whether they were looking for the car or already had it.
The alleged perp knew they had his car.
So why lie to the public?
Why give a false picture of a car one day and an alleged
correct one the very next and say it is cctv footage that
conveniently has no date/time stamp?

If this were my case there wouldn't be a hint of lying to the public or making any false statements regarding the evidence, at all.
For any reason whatsoever.

BBM - I do believe they mislead the public, but they did not lie. They chose their words wisely. I also believe there was a reason and a hell of a good one. Smart. In my opinion they were looking for someone who could remember seeing this car in a specific location. A location that may point to the location of Sierra's body.

That's purely semantics about whether misleading statements constitute deceit, isn't it?

Oh, so in your opinion there might have been a witness to where he left her body? You think if there were someone in a position to see his car, they might also be in a position to watch him lift his truck lid and take a body out or something?
That seems unlikely to me, that would happen on any case.
Not just this one.

SuperMom wrote:

Lash wrote:

Typo Positive wrote:At Stolat:

The reference to that intersection is pertaining to statements made that brought him up on their radar.
"He was seen on that route a fact that did not escape
LE notice".
Was that before or after they supposedly had his DNA in
her possessions?
I mean if before, why were they targeting him?
And if after, well if you've got his DNA and he drives to
work not avoiding the area as usual, it doesn't make sense really either.

If the lab doing the testing were already in trouble for
mishandling of evidence and wrongful convictions, I don't believe I'd be mistating any facts about that evidence in
public like I could lie because I'm LE.
There was no reason to lie about whether they were looking for the car or already had it.
The alleged perp knew they had his car.
So why lie to the public?
Why give a false picture of a car one day and an alleged
correct one the very next and say it is cctv footage that
conveniently has no date/time stamp?

If this were my case there wouldn't be a hint of lying to the public or making any false statements regarding the evidence, at all.
For any reason whatsoever.

BBM - I do believe they mislead the public, but they did not lie. They chose their words wisely. I also believe there was a reason and a hell of a good one. Smart. In my opinion they were looking for someone who could remember seeing this car in a specific location. A location that may point to the location of Sierra's body.

AGREED!

BBM

I am not sure of this.

The somber reality of the adversarial trial system:
one side controls the collection, protection, and release of almost ALL of the evidence.

I have to continue to question this investigation for the moment.

Lash wrote:

Typo Positive wrote:At Stolat:

The reference to that intersection is pertaining to statements made that brought him up on their radar.
"He was seen on that route a fact that did not escape
LE notice".
Was that before or after they supposedly had his DNA in
her possessions?
I mean if before, why were they targeting him?
And if after, well if you've got his DNA and he drives to
work not avoiding the area as usual, it doesn't make sense really either.

If the lab doing the testing were already in trouble for
mishandling of evidence and wrongful convictions, I don't believe I'd be mistating any facts about that evidence in
public like I could lie because I'm LE.
There was no reason to lie about whether they were looking for the car or already had it.
The alleged perp knew they had his car.
So why lie to the public?
Why give a false picture of a car one day and an alleged
correct one the very next and say it is cctv footage that
conveniently has no date/time stamp?

If this were my case there wouldn't be a hint of lying to the public or making any false statements regarding the evidence, at all.
For any reason whatsoever.

BBM - I do believe they mislead the public, but they did not lie. They chose their words wisely. I also believe there was a reason and a hell of a good one. Smart. In my opinion they were looking for someone who could remember seeing this car in a specific location. A location that may point to the location of Sierra's body.

Agreed. That's my understanding as well -- they knew they'd have a lock-in if he could lead them to her body.

I never once read where they were "looking for a car". not once.

They never said anything other than asking for inforamtion about the car or information about the driver. This was even discussed here the very next day after the public reslease went out. I would like to see the lie in that. It is exactly as they stated -- they truly were looking for information about the driver --to compare against any foreseable alibi he might provide -- and so in doing so they, in fact, spoke the absolute truth. No where did they owe it to the public (which might jeapardize their investigation) that they were looking for information to compare against an alibi. If anyone misinterpreted those words to mean something other than what the words indicated then that may be attributed to that person's preconceived notions about the intent of the inquiry. But to me, I've yet to see someone be able to produce the words that constituted any lie.

Tamta wrote:

SuperMom wrote:

Lash wrote:

Typo Positive wrote:At Stolat:

The reference to that intersection is pertaining to statements made that brought him up on their radar.
"He was seen on that route a fact that did not escape
LE notice".
Was that before or after they supposedly had his DNA in
her possessions?
I mean if before, why were they targeting him?
And if after, well if you've got his DNA and he drives to
work not avoiding the area as usual, it doesn't make sense really either.

If the lab doing the testing were already in trouble for
mishandling of evidence and wrongful convictions, I don't believe I'd be mistating any facts about that evidence in
public like I could lie because I'm LE.
There was no reason to lie about whether they were looking for the car or already had it.
The alleged perp knew they had his car.
So why lie to the public?
Why give a false picture of a car one day and an alleged
correct one the very next and say it is cctv footage that
conveniently has no date/time stamp?

If this were my case there wouldn't be a hint of lying to the public or making any false statements regarding the evidence, at all.
For any reason whatsoever.

BBM - I do believe they mislead the public, but they did not lie. They chose their words wisely. I also believe there was a reason and a hell of a good one. Smart. In my opinion they were looking for someone who could remember seeing this car in a specific location. A location that may point to the location of Sierra's body.

AGREED!

BBM

I am not sure of this.

The somber reality of the adversarial trial system:
one side controls the collection, protection, and release of almost ALL of the evidence.

I have to continue to question this investigation for the moment.

I think it's healthy to question and to challenge. But if we are to assume LE has planted evidence to close the case -- then why not assume all LE departments do that? Why stop at Morgan Hill (or FBI in this case)? What affords other LE the assumption that they correctly have the right person? If the basis of our doubt becomes the assumption that LE plants evidence, then all convictions (aside from confession) must be considered fraudulent and invalid by same token as it is only in balance and consistent to apply that assumption globally and not to a select few.

Stolat wrote:

Tamta wrote:

SuperMom wrote:

Lash wrote:

Typo Positive wrote:At Stolat:

The reference to that intersection is pertaining to statements made that brought him up on their radar.
"He was seen on that route a fact that did not escape
LE notice".
Was that before or after they supposedly had his DNA in
her possessions?
I mean if before, why were they targeting him?
And if after, well if you've got his DNA and he drives to
work not avoiding the area as usual, it doesn't make sense really either.

If the lab doing the testing were already in trouble for
mishandling of evidence and wrongful convictions, I don't believe I'd be mistating any facts about that evidence in
public like I could lie because I'm LE.
There was no reason to lie about whether they were looking for the car or already had it.
The alleged perp knew they had his car.
So why lie to the public?
Why give a false picture of a car one day and an alleged
correct one the very next and say it is cctv footage that
conveniently has no date/time stamp?

If this were my case there wouldn't be a hint of lying to the public or making any false statements regarding the evidence, at all.
For any reason whatsoever.

BBM - I do believe they mislead the public, but they did not lie. They chose their words wisely. I also believe there was a reason and a hell of a good one. Smart. In my opinion they were looking for someone who could remember seeing this car in a specific location. A location that may point to the location of Sierra's body.

AGREED!

BBM

I am not sure of this.

The somber reality of the adversarial trial system:
one side controls the collection, protection, and release of almost ALL of the evidence.

I have to continue to question this investigation for the moment.

I think it's healthy to question and to challenge. But if we are to assume LE has planted evidence to close the case -- then why not assume all LE departments do that? Why stop at Morgan Hill (or FBI in this case)? What affords other LE the assumption that they correctly have the right person? If the basis of our doubt becomes the assumption that LE plants evidence, then all convictions (aside from confession) must be considered fraudulent and invalid by same token as it is only in balance and consistent to apply that assumption globally and not to a select few.

I would not accuse the SO of planting evidence.

I speculate that ALL decisions on ALL aspects of this case remain under the discretion of the DA.

Typo Positive wrote:

Lash wrote:

Typo Positive wrote:At Stolat:

The reference to that intersection is pertaining to statements made that brought him up on their radar.
"He was seen on that route a fact that did not escape
LE notice".
Was that before or after they supposedly had his DNA in
her possessions?
I mean if before, why were they targeting him?
And if after, well if you've got his DNA and he drives to
work not avoiding the area as usual, it doesn't make sense really either.

If the lab doing the testing were already in trouble for
mishandling of evidence and wrongful convictions, I don't believe I'd be mistating any facts about that evidence in
public like I could lie because I'm LE.
There was no reason to lie about whether they were looking for the car or already had it.
The alleged perp knew they had his car.
So why lie to the public?
Why give a false picture of a car one day and an alleged
correct one the very next and say it is cctv footage that
conveniently has no date/time stamp?

If this were my case there wouldn't be a hint of lying to the public or making any false statements regarding the evidence, at all.
For any reason whatsoever.

BBM - I do believe they mislead the public, but they did not lie. They chose their words wisely. I also believe there was a reason and a hell of a good one. Smart. In my opinion they were looking for someone who could remember seeing this car in a specific location. A location that may point to the location of Sierra's body.

That's purely semantics about whether misleading statements constitute deceit, isn't it?

Oh, so in your opinion there might have been a witness to where he left her body? You think if there were someone in a position to see his car, they might also be in a position to watch him lift his truck lid and take a body out or something?
That seems unlikely to me, that would happen on any case.
Not just this one.

I think it could be a matter of personal opinion on what constitutes deceit.

Absolutely it is my opinion that anywhere this uniquely colored Jetta has been seen could be valuable information. If murderers always covered their tracks we might have less prisons. Are you saying it is impossible for another human being to set foot in the same area as the suspect or perp? Nonsensical. I'm not suggesting there was a witness to seeing a body in a trunk. I did not bloviate.

Unfortunately our Criminal justice system is not perfect. Sure some folks have been in prison wrongly accused, but there are many more that walk free, which is just as bad. The problem I see is that our Criminal Justice system is so worried about Criminals rights that they seem to forget about our victims. It should not take a video of someone being murdered to convict. I agree there should be some solid evidence, but most murders are done in private etc. I really get tired of hearing about how some poor person might be convicted of a crime or framed. I'm not buying it, Yes it happens but talk to the guys in prison, they will all tell you they are not guilty! I say SHOW ME PROOF of a conspiracy here, cause I am surely not seeing it!!!

Lash wrote:....I'm not suggesting there was a witness to seeing a body in a trunk. I did not bloviate.

Bloviate. damn. good word -- now I must use it in a sentence....

Typo Positive wrote:

Lash wrote:

Typo Positive wrote:At Stolat:

The reference to that intersection is pertaining to statements made that brought him up on their radar.
"He was seen on that route a fact that did not escape
LE notice".
Was that before or after they supposedly had his DNA in
her possessions?
I mean if before, why were they targeting him?
And if after, well if you've got his DNA and he drives to
work not avoiding the area as usual, it doesn't make sense really either.

If the lab doing the testing were already in trouble for
mishandling of evidence and wrongful convictions, I don't believe I'd be mistating any facts about that evidence in
public like I could lie because I'm LE.
There was no reason to lie about whether they were looking for the car or already had it.
The alleged perp knew they had his car.
So why lie to the public?
Why give a false picture of a car one day and an alleged
correct one the very next and say it is cctv footage that
conveniently has no date/time stamp?

If this were my case there wouldn't be a hint of lying to the public or making any false statements regarding the evidence, at all.
For any reason whatsoever.

BBM - I do believe they mislead the public, but they did not lie. They chose their words wisely. I also believe there was a reason and a hell of a good one. Smart. In my opinion they were looking for someone who could remember seeing this car in a specific location. A location that may point to the location of Sierra's body.

That's purely semantics about whether misleading statements constitute deceit, isn't it?

Oh, so in your opinion there might have been a witness to where he left her body? You think if there were someone in a position to see his car, they might also be in a position to watch him lift his truck lid and take a body out or something?
That seems unlikely to me, that would happen on any case.
Not just this one.

Some analysts pointed out earlier (I cannot lay claim to this observation) that they anticipated that Torres might/would supply an alibi. If the public were asked for information about the car or its driver, then basically what they are asking is for evidence of location that might contradict anything that the perp might provide once apprehended/charged. I don't think for a moment they thought someone would call in who saw the car involved in the disposal of her body. I think they were getting ducks in a row -- trying to gather evidence that says Witness A placed him at location B which contradicts the location he provided.

SweetT wrote:Unfortunately our Criminal justice system is not perfect. Sure some folks have been in prison wrongly accused, but there are many more that walk free, which is just as bad. The problem I see is that our Criminal Justice system is so worried about Criminals rights that they seem to forget about our victims. It should not take a video of someone being murdered to convict. I agree there should be some solid evidence, but most murders are done in private etc. I really get tired of hearing about how some poor person might be convicted of a crime or framed. I'm not buying it, Yes it happens but talk to the guys in prison, they will all tell you they are not guilty! I say SHOW ME PROOF of a conspiracy here, cause I am surely not seeing it!!!

Well I don't see anyone calling Torres a victim.

I don't see anything solid being out forth by the DA.

The truth is, if this went to trial sooner than later with an incomplete investigation, which both LE and the DA admit to, then the State may lose its chance in nabbing Torres if he's guilty.

And they don't get do-overs.

SweetT wrote:Unfortunately our Criminal justice system is not perfect. Sure some folks have been in prison wrongly accused, but there are many more that walk free, which is just as bad. The problem I see is that our Criminal Justice system is so worried about Criminals rights that they seem to forget about our victims. It should not take a video of someone being murdered to convict. I agree there should be some solid evidence, but most murders are done in private etc. I really get tired of hearing about how some poor person might be convicted of a crime or framed. I'm not buying it, Yes it happens but talk to the guys in prison, they will all tell you they are not guilty! I say SHOW ME PROOF of a conspiracy here, cause I am surely not seeing it!!!

And then there are those the judge only slaps the wrists for horrendous crimes.
Or the governor lets walk early releasing convicts, dangerous murderers, back into society.

Tamta wrote:

SweetT wrote:Unfortunately our Criminal justice system is not perfect. Sure some folks have been in prison wrongly accused, but there are many more that walk free, which is just as bad. The problem I see is that our Criminal Justice system is so worried about Criminals rights that they seem to forget about our victims. It should not take a video of someone being murdered to convict. I agree there should be some solid evidence, but most murders are done in private etc. I really get tired of hearing about how some poor person might be convicted of a crime or framed. I'm not buying it, Yes it happens but talk to the guys in prison, they will all tell you they are not guilty! I say SHOW ME PROOF of a conspiracy here, cause I am surely not seeing it!!!

Well I don't see anyone calling Torres a victim.

I don't see anything solid being out forth by the DA.

The truth is, if this went to trial sooner than later with an incomplete investigation, which both LE and the DA admit to, then the State may lose its chance in nabbing Torres if he's guilty.

And they don't get do-overs.

BBM - And that scares the HELL out of me because I can see it happening in this case. UGH!

Stolat wrote:

Lash wrote:

Typo Positive wrote:At Stolat:

The reference to that intersection is pertaining to statements made that brought him up on their radar.
"He was seen on that route a fact that did not escape
LE notice".
Was that before or after they supposedly had his DNA in
her possessions?
I mean if before, why were they targeting him?
And if after, well if you've got his DNA and he drives to
work not avoiding the area as usual, it doesn't make sense really either.

If the lab doing the testing were already in trouble for
mishandling of evidence and wrongful convictions, I don't believe I'd be mistating any facts about that evidence in
public like I could lie because I'm LE.
There was no reason to lie about whether they were looking for the car or already had it.
The alleged perp knew they had his car.
So why lie to the public?
Why give a false picture of a car one day and an alleged
correct one the very next and say it is cctv footage that
conveniently has no date/time stamp?

If this were my case there wouldn't be a hint of lying to the public or making any false statements regarding the evidence, at all.
For any reason whatsoever.

BBM - I do believe they mislead the public, but they did not lie. They chose their words wisely. I also believe there was a reason and a hell of a good one. Smart. In my opinion they were looking for someone who could remember seeing this car in a specific location. A location that may point to the location of Sierra's body.

Agreed. That's my understanding as well -- they knew they'd have a lock-in if he could lead them to her body.

I never once read where they were "looking for a car". not once.

They never said anything other than asking for inforamtion about the car or information about the driver. This was even discussed here the very next day after the public reslease went out. I would like to see the lie in that. It is exactly as they stated -- they truly were looking for information about the driver --to compare against any foreseable alibi he might provide -- and so in doing so they, in fact, spoke the absolute truth. No where did they owe it to the public (which might jeapardize their investigation) that they were looking for information to compare against an alibi. If anyone misinterpreted those words to mean something other than what the words indicated then that may be attributed to that person's preconceived notions about the intent of the inquiry. But to me, I've yet to see someone be able to produce the words that constituted any lie.

Huh? Why else put out news media stating they were seeking info on a red car seen in the area.
Then, a red car with a black hood seen in the area.
Then, a red Jetta car with a black hood seen in the area.
Then, a red Jetta car with a black hood seen in the area AND caught on video.
Then, a red Jetta car with a black hood seen in the area and caught on video AND looks like THIS!

Ooops! Someone forgot to tell me! We already have taken control of THAT vehicle!

I am not convinced he did this crime.
There was plenty of time to plant evidence BEFORE they told anyone they had the car.
Yes, I think it IS probable he committed the Safeway crimes : They had the artist sketches up shortly after the crimes were committed and it does appear to be him for those crimes.

We STILL don't know WHAT HAPPENED to Sierra; WHEN did it happened; WHERE is she?

Give me more evidence to make me a believer. (DNA IS transferable or could be planted later, right Det. Van Allen???)

Freckles wrote:

SweetT wrote:Unfortunately our Criminal justice system is not perfect. Sure some folks have been in prison wrongly accused, but there are many more that walk free, which is just as bad. The problem I see is that our Criminal Justice system is so worried about Criminals rights that they seem to forget about our victims. It should not take a video of someone being murdered to convict. I agree there should be some solid evidence, but most murders are done in private etc. I really get tired of hearing about how some poor person might be convicted of a crime or framed. I'm not buying it, Yes it happens but talk to the guys in prison, they will all tell you they are not guilty! I say SHOW ME PROOF of a conspiracy here, cause I am surely not seeing it!!!

And then there are those the judge only slaps the wrists for horrendous crimes.
Or the governor lets walk early releasing convicts, dangerous murderers, back into society.

yeah, that one is always a favorite of mine. not.

Freckles wrote:

Stolat wrote:

Lash wrote:

Typo Positive wrote:At Stolat:

The reference to that intersection is pertaining to statements made that brought him up on their radar.
"He was seen on that route a fact that did not escape
LE notice".
Was that before or after they supposedly had his DNA in
her possessions?
I mean if before, why were they targeting him?
And if after, well if you've got his DNA and he drives to
work not avoiding the area as usual, it doesn't make sense really either.

If the lab doing the testing were already in trouble for
mishandling of evidence and wrongful convictions, I don't believe I'd be mistating any facts about that evidence in
public like I could lie because I'm LE.
There was no reason to lie about whether they were looking for the car or already had it.
The alleged perp knew they had his car.
So why lie to the public?
Why give a false picture of a car one day and an alleged
correct one the very next and say it is cctv footage that
conveniently has no date/time stamp?

If this were my case there wouldn't be a hint of lying to the public or making any false statements regarding the evidence, at all.
For any reason whatsoever.

BBM - I do believe they mislead the public, but they did not lie. They chose their words wisely. I also believe there was a reason and a hell of a good one. Smart. In my opinion they were looking for someone who could remember seeing this car in a specific location. A location that may point to the location of Sierra's body.

Agreed. That's my understanding as well -- they knew they'd have a lock-in if he could lead them to her body.

I never once read where they were "looking for a car". not once.

They never said anything other than asking for inforamtion about the car or information about the driver. This was even discussed here the very next day after the public reslease went out. I would like to see the lie in that. It is exactly as they stated -- they truly were looking for information about the driver --to compare against any foreseable alibi he might provide -- and so in doing so they, in fact, spoke the absolute truth. No where did they owe it to the public (which might jeapardize their investigation) that they were looking for information to compare against an alibi. If anyone misinterpreted those words to mean something other than what the words indicated then that may be attributed to that person's preconceived notions about the intent of the inquiry. But to me, I've yet to see someone be able to produce the words that constituted any lie.

Huh? Why else put out news media stating they were seeking info on a red car seen in the area.
Then, a red car with a black hood seen in the area.
Then, a red Jetta car with a black hood seen in the area.
Then, a red Jetta car with a black hood seen in the area AND caught on video.
Then, a red Jetta car with a black hood seen in the area and caught on video AND looks like THIS!

Ooops! Someone forgot to tell me! We already have taken control of THAT vehicle!

I am not convinced he did this crime.
There was plenty of time to plant evidence BEFORE they told anyone they had the car.
Yes, I think it IS probable he committed the Safeway crimes : They had the artist sketches up shortly after the crimes were committed and it does appear to be him for those crimes.

We STILL don't know WHAT HAPPENED to Sierra; WHEN did it happened; WHERE is she?

Give me more evidence to make me a believer. (DNA IS transferable or could be planted later, right Det. Van Allen???)

I agree.

It's like the statements where the scent stopped.
LE made statements that it ended at her driveway.
Then they stated that it ended near the front door area.
Now they say it ended in the halfway down Paquita Espana.

Do we hold our breaths until we see whether next week they
decide well, it really ended at her bus stop?

I mean come on.
This makes them look like they are skewing evidence to suit
their perp now.
Because if that is where it ended it is amazing to me we never saw news clips of LE or the FBI combing the areas on the street or near the middle of the street.
But, we sure as heck saw them shoulder to shoulder going over every inch of her home and yard area.
We sure as shooting read where they had a backhoe digging up said backyard.

I'd like to know why that was if they knew that her scent ended where a car picked her up in the middle of her street, all along.

Typo Positive wrote:

Freckles wrote:

Stolat wrote:

Lash wrote:

Typo Positive wrote:At Stolat:

The reference to that intersection is pertaining to statements made that brought him up on their radar.
"He was seen on that route a fact that did not escape
LE notice".
Was that before or after they supposedly had his DNA in
her possessions?
I mean if before, why were they targeting him?
And if after, well if you've got his DNA and he drives to
work not avoiding the area as usual, it doesn't make sense really either.

If the lab doing the testing were already in trouble for
mishandling of evidence and wrongful convictions, I don't believe I'd be mistating any facts about that evidence in
public like I could lie because I'm LE.
There was no reason to lie about whether they were looking for the car or already had it.
The alleged perp knew they had his car.
So why lie to the public?
Why give a false picture of a car one day and an alleged
correct one the very next and say it is cctv footage that
conveniently has no date/time stamp?

If this were my case there wouldn't be a hint of lying to the public or making any false statements regarding the evidence, at all.
For any reason whatsoever.

BBM - I do believe they mislead the public, but they did not lie. They chose their words wisely. I also believe there was a reason and a hell of a good one. Smart. In my opinion they were looking for someone who could remember seeing this car in a specific location. A location that may point to the location of Sierra's body.

Agreed. That's my understanding as well -- they knew they'd have a lock-in if he could lead them to her body.

I never once read where they were "looking for a car". not once.

They never said anything other than asking for inforamtion about the car or information about the driver. This was even discussed here the very next day after the public reslease went out. I would like to see the lie in that. It is exactly as they stated -- they truly were looking for information about the driver --to compare against any foreseable alibi he might provide -- and so in doing so they, in fact, spoke the absolute truth. No where did they owe it to the public (which might jeapardize their investigation) that they were looking for information to compare against an alibi. If anyone misinterpreted those words to mean something other than what the words indicated then that may be attributed to that person's preconceived notions about the intent of the inquiry. But to me, I've yet to see someone be able to produce the words that constituted any lie.

Huh? Why else put out news media stating they were seeking info on a red car seen in the area.
Then, a red car with a black hood seen in the area.
Then, a red Jetta car with a black hood seen in the area.
Then, a red Jetta car with a black hood seen in the area AND caught on video.
Then, a red Jetta car with a black hood seen in the area and caught on video AND looks like THIS!

Ooops! Someone forgot to tell me! We already have taken control of THAT vehicle!

I am not convinced he did this crime.
There was plenty of time to plant evidence BEFORE they told anyone they had the car.
Yes, I think it IS probable he committed the Safeway crimes : They had the artist sketches up shortly after the crimes were committed and it does appear to be him for those crimes.

We STILL don't know WHAT HAPPENED to Sierra; WHEN did it happened; WHERE is she?

Give me more evidence to make me a believer. (DNA IS transferable or could be planted later, right Det. Van Allen???)

I agree.

It's like the statements where the scent stopped.
LE made statements that it ended at her driveway.
Then they stated that it ended near the front door area.
Now they say it ended in the halfway down Paquita Espana.

Do we hold our breaths until we see whether next week they
decide well, it really ended at her bus stop?

I mean come on.
This makes them look like they are skewing evidence to suit
their perp now.
Because if that is where it ended it is amazing to me we never saw news clips of LE or the FBI combing the areas on the street or near the middle of the street.
But, we sure as heck saw them shoulder to shoulder going over every inch of her home and yard area.
We sure as shooting read where they had a backhoe digging up said backyard.

I'd like to know why that was if they knew that her scent ended where a car picked her up in the middle of her street, all along.

Technically they said 150 yards down. Now, whether or not that constitutes "half" of Paquita Espana, i do not have the measurements to be able to tell if that is close or way off. But interpretting statements like 150 yards as "half way down" is very likely how the press interpreted and reported the statements into "end of her driveway". Also, if cops said "end of her drive" (which is how I describe my cul du sac that I live ) then it could easily be picked up by a reporter as end of her driveway.


"When Santa Clara County sheriff's deputies put a trained dog on Sierra's scent soon afterward, the trail went cold just 150 yards from her house on Paquita Espana Court, investigative documents released Thursday show."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/05/24/BA281ON11J.DTL#ixzz1wI4qDiC6

Typo Positive wrote:

Freckles wrote:

Stolat wrote:

Lash wrote:

Typo Positive wrote:At Stolat:

The reference to that intersection is pertaining to statements made that brought him up on their radar.
"He was seen on that route a fact that did not escape
LE notice".
Was that before or after they supposedly had his DNA in
her possessions?
I mean if before, why were they targeting him?
And if after, well if you've got his DNA and he drives to
work not avoiding the area as usual, it doesn't make sense really either.

If the lab doing the testing were already in trouble for
mishandling of evidence and wrongful convictions, I don't believe I'd be mistating any facts about that evidence in
public like I could lie because I'm LE.
There was no reason to lie about whether they were looking for the car or already had it.
The alleged perp knew they had his car.
So why lie to the public?
Why give a false picture of a car one day and an alleged
correct one the very next and say it is cctv footage that
conveniently has no date/time stamp?

If this were my case there wouldn't be a hint of lying to the public or making any false statements regarding the evidence, at all.
For any reason whatsoever.

BBM - I do believe they mislead the public, but they did not lie. They chose their words wisely. I also believe there was a reason and a hell of a good one. Smart. In my opinion they were looking for someone who could remember seeing this car in a specific location. A location that may point to the location of Sierra's body.

Agreed. That's my understanding as well -- they knew they'd have a lock-in if he could lead them to her body.

I never once read where they were "looking for a car". not once.

They never said anything other than asking for inforamtion about the car or information about the driver. This was even discussed here the very next day after the public reslease went out. I would like to see the lie in that. It is exactly as they stated -- they truly were looking for information about the driver --to compare against any foreseable alibi he might provide -- and so in doing so they, in fact, spoke the absolute truth. No where did they owe it to the public (which might jeapardize their investigation) that they were looking for information to compare against an alibi. If anyone misinterpreted those words to mean something other than what the words indicated then that may be attributed to that person's preconceived notions about the intent of the inquiry. But to me, I've yet to see someone be able to produce the words that constituted any lie.

Huh? Why else put out news media stating they were seeking info on a red car seen in the area.
Then, a red car with a black hood seen in the area.
Then, a red Jetta car with a black hood seen in the area.
Then, a red Jetta car with a black hood seen in the area AND caught on video.
Then, a red Jetta car with a black hood seen in the area and caught on video AND looks like THIS!

Ooops! Someone forgot to tell me! We already have taken control of THAT vehicle!

I am not convinced he did this crime.
There was plenty of time to plant evidence BEFORE they told anyone they had the car.
Yes, I think it IS probable he committed the Safeway crimes : They had the artist sketches up shortly after the crimes were committed and it does appear to be him for those crimes.

We STILL don't know WHAT HAPPENED to Sierra; WHEN did it happened; WHERE is she?

Give me more evidence to make me a believer. (DNA IS transferable or could be planted later, right Det. Van Allen???)

I agree.

It's like the statements where the scent stopped.
LE made statements that it ended at her driveway.
Then they stated that it ended near the front door area.
Now they say it ended in the halfway down Paquita Espana.

Do we hold our breaths until we see whether next week they
decide well, it really ended at her bus stop?

I mean come on.
This makes them look like they are skewing evidence to suit
their perp now.
Because if that is where it ended it is amazing to me we never saw news clips of LE or the FBI combing the areas on the street or near the middle of the street.
But, we sure as heck saw them shoulder to shoulder going over every inch of her home and yard area.
We sure as shooting read where they had a backhoe digging up said backyard.

I'd like to know why that was if they knew that her scent ended where a car picked her up in the middle of her street, all along.

I question the necessity and benefit to the case in these 'malleable' facts.

At least in thinking from a defense atty perspective,
It sets the stage to undermine the States case by calling their evidence into question.
They opened the door to having credibility questioned regardless of their intent.

Whether Sierra disappeared at her door, in her driveway or on the road is totally irrelevant to the stranger abduction theory: she was alone at 715sm allegedly , isolated and vulnerable in both locations.

Her actual location is only important in regard to placing her as close as possible to the red Jetta.

Stolat wrote:

Typo Positive wrote:

Freckles wrote:

Stolat wrote:

Lash wrote:

Typo Positive wrote:At Stolat:

The reference to that intersection is pertaining to statements made that brought him up on their radar.
"He was seen on that route a fact that did not escape
LE notice".
Was that before or after they supposedly had his DNA in
her possessions?
I mean if before, why were they targeting him?
And if after, well if you've got his DNA and he drives to
work not avoiding the area as usual, it doesn't make sense really either.

If the lab doing the testing were already in trouble for
mishandling of evidence and wrongful convictions, I don't believe I'd be mistating any facts about that evidence in
public like I could lie because I'm LE.
There was no reason to lie about whether they were looking for the car or already had it.
The alleged perp knew they had his car.
So why lie to the public?
Why give a false picture of a car one day and an alleged
correct one the very next and say it is cctv footage that
conveniently has no date/time stamp?

If this were my case there wouldn't be a hint of lying to the public or making any false statements regarding the evidence, at all.
For any reason whatsoever.

BBM - I do believe they mislead the public, but they did not lie. They chose their words wisely. I also believe there was a reason and a hell of a good one. Smart. In my opinion they were looking for someone who could remember seeing this car in a specific location. A location that may point to the location of Sierra's body.

Agreed. That's my understanding as well -- they knew they'd have a lock-in if he could lead them to her body.

I never once read where they were "looking for a car". not once.

They never said anything other than asking for inforamtion about the car or information about the driver. This was even discussed here the very next day after the public reslease went out. I would like to see the lie in that. It is exactly as they stated -- they truly were looking for information about the driver --to compare against any foreseable alibi he might provide -- and so in doing so they, in fact, spoke the absolute truth. No where did they owe it to the public (which might jeapardize their investigation) that they were looking for information to compare against an alibi. If anyone misinterpreted those words to mean something other than what the words indicated then that may be attributed to that person's preconceived notions about the intent of the inquiry. But to me, I've yet to see someone be able to produce the words that constituted any lie.

Huh? Why else put out news media stating they were seeking info on a red car seen in the area.
Then, a red car with a black hood seen in the area.
Then, a red Jetta car with a black hood seen in the area.
Then, a red Jetta car with a black hood seen in the area AND caught on video.
Then, a red Jetta car with a black hood seen in the area and caught on video AND looks like THIS!

Ooops! Someone forgot to tell me! We already have taken control of THAT vehicle!

I am not convinced he did this crime.
There was plenty of time to plant evidence BEFORE they told anyone they had the car.
Yes, I think it IS probable he committed the Safeway crimes : They had the artist sketches up shortly after the crimes were committed and it does appear to be him for those crimes.

We STILL don't know WHAT HAPPENED to Sierra; WHEN did it happened; WHERE is she?

Give me more evidence to make me a believer. (DNA IS transferable or could be planted later, right Det. Van Allen???)

I agree.

It's like the statements where the scent stopped.
LE made statements that it ended at her driveway.
Then they stated that it ended near the front door area.
Now they say it ended in the halfway down Paquita Espana.

Do we hold our breaths until we see whether next week they
decide well, it really ended at her bus stop?

I mean come on.
This makes them look like they are skewing evidence to suit
their perp now.
Because if that is where it ended it is amazing to me we never saw news clips of LE or the FBI combing the areas on the street or near the middle of the street.
But, we sure as heck saw them shoulder to shoulder going over every inch of her home and yard area.
We sure as shooting read where they had a backhoe digging up said backyard.

I'd like to know why that was if they knew that her scent ended where a car picked her up in the middle of her street, all along.

Technically they said 150 yards down. Now, whether or not that constitutes "half" of Paquita Espana, i do not have the measurements to be able to tell if that is close or way off. But interpretting statements like 150 yards as "half way down" is very likely how the press interpreted and reported the statements into "end of her driveway". Also, if cops said "end of her drive" (which is how I describe my cul du sac that I live ) then it could easily be picked up by a reporter as end of her driveway.


"When Santa Clara County sheriff's deputies put a trained dog on Sierra's scent soon afterward, the trail went cold just 150 yards from her house on Paquita Espana Court, investigative documents released Thursday show."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/05/24/BA281ON11J.DTL#ixzz1wI4qDiC6

Well, 150 yards from door.
That's only 50' from
Front door.
About 19 paces.

I don't place that 1/2 way down Paquita Espana.
I saw her drive way.

1yd = 3ft so 150 yds would be 450 Ft.

SweetT wrote:1yd = 3ft so 150 yds would be 450 Ft.

ugh!

thank you!!

Tamta wrote:

SweetT wrote:1yd = 3ft so 150 yds would be 450 Ft.

ugh!

thank you!!

LOL! No problem, I figured it was a math oversight.

SweetT wrote:

Tamta wrote:

SweetT wrote:1yd = 3ft so 150 yds would be 450 Ft.

ugh!

thank you!!

LOL! No problem, I figured it was a math oversight.

Note: Do not post right before 3 year old and 16mos old head to nap time!!!

I must disagree.
IF a person "disappears" at the end of a drive/in front of their own home as opposed to disappearing 150 yards (450 ft) away from their home, it COULD indicate two different things.

!. In front of the house would indicate the perp KNEW where the house was; possibly cased the home; had an opportunity to rape the person IN the home; could have robbed the home; could have raped and murdered the person in the home prior to robbing it. He would have had leisure time to commit crimes. She may also have known the person or have arranged for a ride.

2. A short distance from the home. Makes greater the possibility the perp did NOT know where she lived. Reduces the opportunity for a home "invasion" type of set up--- rape, murder, robbery.

Was any ID to be had? I would think she carried something with her home addy, phone, etc. Not located in or near her person would indicate someone either tossed it (but not the purse?) or removed it and kept it apart, or she never had it when she last left the house.

Freckles wrote:

Stolat wrote:

Lash wrote:

Typo Positive wrote:At Stolat:

The reference to that intersection is pertaining to statements made that brought him up on their radar.
"He was seen on that route a fact that did not escape
LE notice".
Was that before or after they supposedly had his DNA in
her possessions?
I mean if before, why were they targeting him?
And if after, well if you've got his DNA and he drives to
work not avoiding the area as usual, it doesn't make sense really either.

If the lab doing the testing were already in trouble for
mishandling of evidence and wrongful convictions, I don't believe I'd be mistating any facts about that evidence in
public like I could lie because I'm LE.
There was no reason to lie about whether they were looking for the car or already had it.
The alleged perp knew they had his car.
So why lie to the public?
Why give a false picture of a car one day and an alleged
correct one the very next and say it is cctv footage that
conveniently has no date/time stamp?

If this were my case there wouldn't be a hint of lying to the public or making any false statements regarding the evidence, at all.
For any reason whatsoever.

BBM - I do believe they mislead the public, but they did not lie. They chose their words wisely. I also believe there was a reason and a hell of a good one. Smart. In my opinion they were looking for someone who could remember seeing this car in a specific location. A location that may point to the location of Sierra's body.

Agreed. That's my understanding as well -- they knew they'd have a lock-in if he could lead them to her body.

I never once read where they were "looking for a car". not once.

They never said anything other than asking for inforamtion about the car or information about the driver. This was even discussed here the very next day after the public reslease went out. I would like to see the lie in that. It is exactly as they stated -- they truly were looking for information about the driver --to compare against any foreseable alibi he might provide -- and so in doing so they, in fact, spoke the absolute truth. No where did they owe it to the public (which might jeapardize their investigation) that they were looking for information to compare against an alibi. If anyone misinterpreted those words to mean something other than what the words indicated then that may be attributed to that person's preconceived notions about the intent of the inquiry. But to me, I've yet to see someone be able to produce the words that constituted any lie.

Huh? Why else put out news media stating they were seeking info on a red car seen in the area.
Then, a red car with a black hood seen in the area.
Then, a red Jetta car with a black hood seen in the area.
Then, a red Jetta car with a black hood seen in the area AND caught on video.
Then, a red Jetta car with a black hood seen in the area and caught on video AND looks like THIS!

Ooops! Someone forgot to tell me! We already have taken control of THAT vehicle!

I am not convinced he did this crime.
There was plenty of time to plant evidence BEFORE they told anyone they had the car.
Yes, I think it IS probable he committed the Safeway crimes : They had the artist sketches up shortly after the crimes were committed and it does appear to be him for those crimes.

We STILL don't know WHAT HAPPENED to Sierra; WHEN did it happened; WHERE is she?

Give me more evidence to make me a believer. (DNA IS transferable or could be planted later, right Det. Van Allen???)

Freckles BBM - I don't understand. What are you saying? LE said they were looking for any information pertaining to the Jetta. They shared it had been seen in key locations. They also said they knew the owner. They did not say if you know the location of this vehicle, call us. They did not say, if you find this vehicle call us.

You believe it is probable the suspect committed the Safeway crimes based on a sketch? The sketch isn't enough evidence in my opinion.

You believe the suspects DNA, which would also mean Sierra's DNA were transferred or planted? Really?

Freckles wrote:I must disagree.
IF a person "disappears" at the end of a drive/in front of their own home as opposed to disappearing 150 yards (450 ft) away from their home, it COULD indicate two different things.

!. In front of the house would indicate the perp KNEW where the house was; possibly cased the home; had an opportunity to rape the person IN the home; could have robbed the home; could have raped and murdered the person in the home prior to robbing it. He would have had leisure time to commit crimes. She may also have known the person or have arranged for a ride.

2. A short distance from the home. Makes greater the possibility the perp did NOT know where she lived. Reduces the opportunity for a home "invasion" type of set up--- rape, murder, robbery.

Was any ID to be had? I would think she carried something with her home addy, phone, etc. Not located in or near her person would indicate someone either tossed it (but not the purse?) or removed it and kept it apart, or she never had it when she last left the house.

BBM - Sierra is 15. Most kids that age do not have a state id (unless they work) and obviously no drivers license. Her home and address most likely were contained in her cell phone which was tossed, removed and kept apart. Her house keys were found inside her purse, along with her inhaler and the clothing she was wearing the day she disappeared.

http://www.kron.com/Article.aspx?ArticleID=4232

Lash wrote:

Freckles wrote:I must disagree.
IF a person "disappears" at the end of a drive/in front of their own home as opposed to disappearing 150 yards (450 ft) away from their home, it COULD indicate two different things.

!. In front of the house would indicate the perp KNEW where the house was; possibly cased the home; had an opportunity to rape the person IN the home; could have robbed the home; could have raped and murdered the person in the home prior to robbing it. He would have had leisure time to commit crimes. She may also have known the person or have arranged for a ride.

2. A short distance from the home. Makes greater the possibility the perp did NOT know where she lived. Reduces the opportunity for a home "invasion" type of set up--- rape, murder, robbery.

Was any ID to be had? I would think she carried something with her home addy, phone, etc. Not located in or near her person would indicate someone either tossed it (but not the purse?) or removed it and kept it apart, or she never had it when she last left the house.

BBM - Sierra is 15. Most kids that age do not have a state id (unless they work) and obviously no drivers license. Her home and address most likely were contained in her cell phone which was tossed, removed and kept apart. Her house keys were found inside her purse, along with her inhaler and the clothing she was wearing the day she disappeared.

http://www.kron.com/Article.aspx?ArticleID=4232

BBM

Other scenarios:

Yes technically.

However, and maybe I am assuming here and I am unaware of something that was reported, that there were no signs of foreign entry (?), struggle or break in(assuming the house was locked and she stepped out), therefore the scenario of her being taken against her will was the only one in my mind that I could operate from in speculating about the relevance of Sierra's location.

Is there reason to think someone may have accessed the house?

Lash-
IIRC, most jh and hs students in CA are issued student ID cards and are supposed to carry them at all times. I would think she had a wallet for her money, pics, student ID, etc.. There is no mention of the wallet.

IF the perp wanted to get rid of her purse, clothing, make-up, inhaler, etc., why did he not leave the wallet in the purse? Why not put the phone there as well?

The perp had no need or no intentions of going to the home. The keys, we now hear, were located with the purse. Because the house's location, it would be easy to keep the keys, return to the home, ring a doorbell a few times, then open the door and steal it blind. (Does the perp now have morals after supposedly abducting and possibly killing someone? Such high morals he would not stoop to robbing an empty home squirreled a distance away? I don't think so.)

My son is 15 and does not carry any ID on him, he doesnt even carry a wallet or any student ID. Most his friends don't either. When my daughter was that age she sometimes would carry a purse but still no ID. Any ID they would have would have been in their cell phones. Or maybe a paper from school work but thats about it.

SweetT wrote:My son is 15 and does not carry any ID on him, he doesnt even carry a wallet or any student ID. Most his friends don't either. When my daughter was that age she sometimes would carry a purse but still no ID. Any ID they would have would have been in their cell phones. Or maybe a paper from school work but thats about it.

In my day we had a DL at 15!!!

Eek.

tamta: The Drivers Ed teacher died and they never got a replacement till now, so he has to wait till Fall to get his now. But the school never issued him an ID or offered to. He will be 10th grade next fall. My daughters school also never issued a school ID. In fact I think I finally had to go get her a state issue ID at the DL place so she could work a little part time job and cash her checks.

From another site someone just posted this:


"Something on twitter about a body in a pond in South San Jose...have no idea how far away that is..."

SweetT wrote:tamta: The Drivers Ed teacher died and they never got a replacement till now, so he has to wait till Fall to get his now. But the school never issued him an ID or offered to. He will be 10th grade next fall. My daughters school also never issued a school ID. In fact I think I finally had to go get her a state issue ID at the DL place so she could work a little part time job and cash her checks.

I can see teenagers in certain areas not having an ID.

These days it seems like many states have moved up the age when someone can get a DL.

Back in the '60s, we were issued student photo ids for jh and hs.
Midwestern state.

My children, in CA, were required to have jh and hs ids with them at ALL times. Needed it to get on the bus, school lunches, after school sports events, etc. (What irked me the most was the children were not permitted to go to the schools to play on weekends, holidays, etc. That and the tall fences capped with barbed wire. Then, they had put in metal detectors for the kids to walk though to get on campus. Then, parents and returning students had heavy scrutiny in the office. And it continues to degrade the joy of learning.)

I remember when the vice-principal and the custodian took care of any needed problems on the campus. (When I was a senior, they started bringing PD dogs for locker "sniffs" to try to find marijuana. But when the smoke bomb went off in German class, lol, we just simply stood in the hall until the air cleared!!!)

Ok,

the dogs:

-How much can that be relied upon?
-How can it be known for sure that scent was from that day and not the preceding day?
-To what extent is this viable forensic evidence?

Laurie Smith had said on NG about the dogs and the weather that they were "weighing that".


I found this early this morning:

October 2010

From the SelectedWorks of John Ensminger
SCENT IDENTIFICATION IN CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS AND PROSECUTIONS: NEW PROTOCOL DESIGNS IMPROVE FORENSIC RELIABILITY


BBM
Snipped

-Scent lineups are a powerful tool in the investigation of crimes. With proper procedures, both forensic and judicial, scent lineups can be valuable evidence for a jury to consider.

-Because the possibility of a false identification cannot be completely eliminated, corroboration by other evidence should be required, probably at a clear and convincing level.

-In tracking, a dog is following disturbances to the ground surface, crushed vegetation, a person’s body odor, and/or sweat that has gone through the person’s shoes. In trailing, a dog is thought to be following the odor of volatile substances that flow off human skin every minute containing organic compounds and bacteria, leaving a trail often described as a plume.

-Although dogs in modern scent lineups may be “scented to” Courts seldom distinguish tracking and trailing, particularly from a legal perspective an item from a crime scene in the same way as tracking and trailing dogs are scented before they begin following a path, scent identification dogs do not follow footsteps or a plume, but rather are presented with (usually) five to seven objects that individuals including a suspect have handled and must choose the object that has a similar scent on it, or some of the same components to the scent, as an item taken from the crime scene.

-It is the opinion of the authors that scent lineups are a significant forensic and evidentiary tool that should not be dismissed as “junk science.” That said, with the resources available to many U.S. law enforcement agencies, lineups should remain at best part of the investigative process as the procedures presently being used cannot assure sufficiently low error rates for a positive identification to be admitted as evidence in a criminal prosecution.

-In order for the error rates to be made low enough for admissibility in court, a number of procedures must be implemented. For instance, at least two dogs (ideally three) would have to pass control trials, including zero trials in which no alert would be correct, trials would have to be conducted with the handler and everyone in the handler’s vision blind to which stations contained scent from suspects, controls, and decoys, decoy samples would have to take into account characteristics of the subject and would have to be prepared in a narrow time frame when samples were acquired from the suspect, and so forth.

This goes on and is very interesting.

-How much should we weigh where Sierra was last located by the dogs?

-Also, if Torres' DNA was found right after forensics from the bag was returned, was he put at the crime scene too by the dogs? He allegedly stashed her belongings at that shed.


More@ link.

http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=john_ensminger&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dscent%2520dog%2520tracking%2520accuracy%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D3%26ved%3D0CFsQFjAC%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fworks.bepress.com%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1000%2526context%253Djohn_ensminger%26ei%3DlzXFT7r1O6re2AXjqqDaAQ%26usg%3DAFQjCNHR2jRWl22gQFmBuZI7xFN131AnPQ%26sig2%3DQzYrI3ktjVN0WIcRJFevPA#search=%22scent%20dog%20tracking%20accuracy%22

Freckles wrote:Lash-
IIRC, most jh and hs students in CA are issued student ID cards and are supposed to carry them at all times. I would think she had a wallet for her money, pics, student ID, etc.. There is no mention of the wallet.

IF the perp wanted to get rid of her purse, clothing, make-up, inhaler, etc., why did he not leave the wallet in the purse? Why not put the phone there as well?

The perp had no need or no intentions of going to the home. The keys, we now hear, were located with the purse. Because the house's location, it would be easy to keep the keys, return to the home, ring a doorbell a few times, then open the door and steal it blind. (Does the perp now have morals after supposedly abducting and possibly killing someone? Such high morals he would not stoop to robbing an empty home squirreled a distance away? I don't think so.)

I can't speak for the CA kids. I do know a lot of 15 yo girls that do no carry wallets or Id's. Pictures are stored on cell phones these days, unlike the days when we had actual prints to put in our wallets. Marlene also said that she put Sierra's lunch money in the inside zipper of Sierra's purse every morning. I think it is fair to say she did not have a wallet. The phone was probably discarded immediately because of GPS tracking concerns.

I think a murderer and burglar can be put in different criminal categories. I highly doubt in most cases, after abducting and murdering someone's child, a perpetrator is going to take the chance of being caught over an attempted home robbery. In my opinion it is not about morales, it is getting away with the murder.

SweetT wrote:From another site someone just posted this:


"Something on twitter about a body in a pond in South San Jose...have no idea how far away that is..."

It was a man.....not Sierra.

http://www.ktvu.com/news/news/crime-law/divers-searching-missing-person-find-mans-body-san/nPGhr/

SuperMom wrote:

SweetT wrote:From another site someone just posted this:


"Something on twitter about a body in a pond in South San Jose...have no idea how far away that is..."

It was a man.....not Sierra.

http://www.ktvu.com/news/news/crime-law/divers-searching-missing-person-find-mans-body-san/nPGhr/

Yea caught that later, too late to edit though..Thanks

Prosecutors confident in LaMar case, search for teen continues

Snipped
BBM

-While an arrest has been made in connection with the disappearance, the case will remain open until she is found.

-Garcia-Torres made a brief court appearance Thursday when he was appointed a public defender. While he has been charged with one count each of kidnapping and murder, his arraignment was continued to May 31. He remains behind bars in Santa Clara County Jail without bail and has thus far failed to lead investigators to LaMar’s location. Prosecutors, however, are confident they can get a conviction even if a body is never found.


http://crimevoice.com/prosecutors-confident-in-lamar-case-search-for-teen-continues-12555/

Looks like the person deleted the comment about accomplices in the support page for AGT on facebook.


Kids her age with no state id would only have a student id, and that would not show an address. Only name and photo.

senseigurl wrote:Looks like the person deleted the comment about accomplices in the support page for AGT on facebook.


Kids her age with no state id would only have a student id, and that would not show an address. Only name and photo.

Where are her shoes and make up?

Tamta wrote:Prosecutors confident in LaMar case, search for teen continues

Snipped
BBM

-While an arrest has been made in connection with the disappearance, the case will remain open until she is found.

-Garcia-Torres made a brief court appearance Thursday when he was appointed a public defender. While he has been charged with one count each of kidnapping and murder, his arraignment was continued to May 31. He remains behind bars in Santa Clara County Jail without bail and has thus far failed to lead investigators to LaMar’s location. Prosecutors, however, are confident they can get a conviction even if a body is never found.


http://crimevoice.com/prosecutors-confident-in-lamar-case-search-for-teen-continues-12555/

It is really good to see that Prosecutors are confident of a conviction. However, I am certain that the family would just want her found so that she can have a proper burial. I know that I would always hold some small hope even if faced with mountains of evidence to the contrary that somehow there was a mistake... I pray that they find this girl and that the family can know what happened.

Freckles wrote:Lash-
IIRC, most jh and hs students in CA are issued student ID cards and are supposed to carry them at all times. I would think she had a wallet for her money, pics, student ID, etc.. There is no mention of the wallet.

that is interesting. I'd be interested to know what standard at Morgan Hill was -- where's that mom on Twitter who has the daughter who went to school with Sierra -- that's something I'd like to ask her...

Here in our city (lots of elementary/Jr/HS) -- there is no such requirement for ID cards. A handful of schools do it if they want to fork up the money - but unless the school enforces the ID card be used regularly to access rooms, there is no reason for kids to cart it around if they even have one at all.

Sierra LaMar Abduction Case: Authorities Believe Teenager Was Murdered


According to the State of California Department of Justice, there were 467 missing children in 2011 in Santa Clara County, 72 family or parental abductions and one abduction by a stranger in that year alone.


http://global.christianpost.com/news/sierra-lamar-abduction-case-authorities-believe-teenager-was-murdered-75520/

Tamta: So the other almost 400 missing kids were just written off as runaways? Hmmmm

SweetT wrote:Tamta: So the other almost 400 missing kids were just written off as runaways? Hmmmm

you beat me to that question SweetT.... when reading numbers, I need to see the full equation so it totals to 100%. Otherwise I'm only getting a partial picture of the stats.

SweetT wrote:Tamta: So the other almost 400 missing kids were just written off as runaways? Hmmmm

I'm just starting to look into this.

I hope not all of them.