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

Chickenbutt wrote:What I see in the photo is a doorway....at the top right of the photo (Sierras left) is the darkened room beyond her. The very straight lie of the left of her head is the doorjamb, So at the top her hair blends with the darkness of the room beyond and then her hair blends downward until it meets the doorjamb at about earlobe level.

IMO

The main issues at the very least with this photo is that there has been a refusal by the investigation to clarify and commit to what Sierra actually did with this photo on 3/16.

I have an iPhone 4 and MacBook .
I played with them both in the way of photo taking screen shot taking reversal blah blah blah .

I do not agree that this photo could have been taken by her at her laptop.

She is holding a phone or a camera, IMO.

Statement of Facts

http://ftpcontent.worldnow.com/kion/statement_of_fact.pdf

NO WHERE ON THIS DOCUMENT DOES IT MENTION THAT SIERRA SENT A TWEET AT 632AM.

This has been a consistent part of her timeline from day one, and anyone who looked at her Twitter saw this Tweet.

WHY IS THE TWEET SENT AT 632AM MISSING FROM THE STATEMENT OF FACTS.

Is is it a disputable fact now for some reason??

Tamta wrote:Statement of Facts

http://ftpcontent.worldnow.com/kion/statement_of_fact.pdf

NO WHERE ON THIS DOCUMENT DOES IT MENTION THAT SIERRA SENT A TWEET AT 632AM.

This has been a consistent part of her timeline from day one, and anyone who looked at her Twitter saw this Tweet.

WHY IS THE TWEET SENT AT 632AM MISSING FROM THE STATEMENT OF FACTS.

Is is it a disputable fact now for some reason??

I think so. But, it's a mere technicality on the part of LE, I suppose. in that I'm sure anyone who has tried knows that is not a valid address for the Tweet that morning.
So therefore, it wasn't actually "sent" anywhere.
This could be a problem, so they don't mention it in their Statement of Facts.

"The sheriff's department maintained it has not focused on Uvas Reservoir just because the suspect's mother said her son told her he was at Uvas around the time of sierra's disappearance."

http://www.ktvu.com/news/news/crime-law/another-water-search-uvas-reservoir-turns-empty/nPFL2/

Tamta wrote:

"The sheriff's department maintained it has not focused on Uvas Reservoir just because the suspect's mother said her son told her he was at Uvas around the time of sierra's disappearance."

http://www.ktvu.com/news/news/crime-law/another-water-search-uvas-reservoir-turns-empty/nPFL2/

Oh no indeed! Of course not.
A bit misleading. His mom said he went fishing on Saturday, not Friday, I suppose you COULD say it was around that time.
But, what are we supposed to think, he was allegedly driving around with her in his trunk or he had her stashed somewhere just waiting for the opportunity to dump her in his favorite public fishing hole!?
Good grief.
Oi!

Typo Positive wrote:

Tamta wrote:Statement of Facts

http://ftpcontent.worldnow.com/kion/statement_of_fact.pdf

NO WHERE ON THIS DOCUMENT DOES IT MENTION THAT SIERRA SENT A TWEET AT 632AM.

This has been a consistent part of her timeline from day one, and anyone who looked at her Twitter saw this Tweet.

WHY IS THE TWEET SENT AT 632AM MISSING FROM THE STATEMENT OF FACTS.

Is is it a disputable fact now for some reason??

I think so. But, it's a mere technicality on the part of LE, I suppose. in that I'm sure anyone who has tried knows that is not a valid address for the Tweet that morning.
So therefore, it wasn't actually "sent" anywhere.
This could be a problem, so they don't mention it in their Statement of Facts.

So Sierra just sent a Tweet out into the ether?

OK.

"We have her at her computer at 632 that morning."
"And that's pretty standard."

Laurie Smith, NG Show

Tamta wrote:

Typo Positive wrote:

Tamta wrote:Statement of Facts

http://ftpcontent.worldnow.com/kion/statement_of_fact.pdf

NO WHERE ON THIS DOCUMENT DOES IT MENTION THAT SIERRA SENT A TWEET AT 632AM.

This has been a consistent part of her timeline from day one, and anyone who looked at her Twitter saw this Tweet.

WHY IS THE TWEET SENT AT 632AM MISSING FROM THE STATEMENT OF FACTS.

Is is it a disputable fact now for some reason??

I think so. But, it's a mere technicality on the part of LE, I suppose. in that I'm sure anyone who has tried knows that is not a valid address for the Tweet that morning.
So therefore, it wasn't actually "sent" anywhere.
This could be a problem, so they don't mention it in their Statement of Facts.

So Sierra just sent a Tweet out into the ether?

OK.

"We have her at her computer at 632 that morning."
"And that's pretty standard."

Laurie Smith, NG Show

No. It was "supposed" to go to one of Sierra's friends.
But, that's not her correct address. You'd think Sierra would
have known that.

Typo Positive wrote:

Tamta wrote:

"The sheriff's department maintained it has not focused on Uvas Reservoir just because the suspect's mother said her son told her he was at Uvas around the time of sierra's disappearance."

http://www.ktvu.com/news/news/crime-law/another-water-search-uvas-reservoir-turns-empty/nPFL2/

Oh no indeed! Of course not.
A bit misleading. His mom said he went fishing on Saturday, not Friday, I suppose you COULD say it was around that time.
But, what are we supposed to think, he was allegedly driving around with her in his trunk or he had her stashed somewhere just waiting for the opportunity to dump her in his favorite public fishing hole!?
Good grief.
Oi!

They may want to do a re-enactment just to firm things up.

Typo Positive wrote:

Tamta wrote:

Typo Positive wrote:

Tamta wrote:Statement of Facts

http://ftpcontent.worldnow.com/kion/statement_of_fact.pdf

NO WHERE ON THIS DOCUMENT DOES IT MENTION THAT SIERRA SENT A TWEET AT 632AM.

This has been a consistent part of her timeline from day one, and anyone who looked at her Twitter saw this Tweet.

WHY IS THE TWEET SENT AT 632AM MISSING FROM THE STATEMENT OF FACTS.

Is is it a disputable fact now for some reason??

I think so. But, it's a mere technicality on the part of LE, I suppose. in that I'm sure anyone who has tried knows that is not a valid address for the Tweet that morning.
So therefore, it wasn't actually "sent" anywhere.
This could be a problem, so they don't mention it in their Statement of Facts.

So Sierra just sent a Tweet out into the ether?

OK.

"We have her at her computer at 632 that morning."
"And that's pretty standard."

Laurie Smith, NG Show

No. It was "supposed" to go to one of Sierra's friends.
But, that's not her correct address. You'd think Sierra would
have known that.

A ha.
Hence omission of Twitter.

It goes to a 'person' rather than just a 'site' that circumvents the human.

Tamta wrote:

Typo Positive wrote:

Tamta wrote:

"The sheriff's department maintained it has not focused on Uvas Reservoir just because the suspect's mother said her son told her he was at Uvas around the time of sierra's disappearance."

http://www.ktvu.com/news/news/crime-law/another-water-search-uvas-reservoir-turns-empty/nPFL2/

Oh no indeed! Of course not.
A bit misleading. His mom said he went fishing on Saturday, not Friday, I suppose you COULD say it was around that time.
But, what are we supposed to think, he was allegedly driving around with her in his trunk or he had her stashed somewhere just waiting for the opportunity to dump her in his favorite public fishing hole!?
Good grief.
Oi!

They may want to do a re-enactment just to firm things up.

You reckon they got around to 'testing' his alibi yet?
That just floored me when the Sheriff said they hadn't "firmed"
that up yet.

Or even arrested him on their alleged "slam dunk" assault charges rather than go with the kidnapping and murder charges.
I think to myself, hmmm, they must not have video of him actually taking her into his car against her will or they would press "that" slam dunk charge, just to hold him.

A reenactment would be nice. I hope half of Paquita Espana court goes follows along with cellphone cameras out if they do, especially when they go from there to the shed. That would be VERY interesting to see how that figures in.

Tamta wrote:

Typo Positive wrote:

Tamta wrote:

Typo Positive wrote:

Tamta wrote:Statement of Facts

http://ftpcontent.worldnow.com/kion/statement_of_fact.pdf

NO WHERE ON THIS DOCUMENT DOES IT MENTION THAT SIERRA SENT A TWEET AT 632AM.

This has been a consistent part of her timeline from day one, and anyone who looked at her Twitter saw this Tweet.

WHY IS THE TWEET SENT AT 632AM MISSING FROM THE STATEMENT OF FACTS.

Is is it a disputable fact now for some reason??

I think so. But, it's a mere technicality on the part of LE, I suppose. in that I'm sure anyone who has tried knows that is not a valid address for the Tweet that morning.
So therefore, it wasn't actually "sent" anywhere.
This could be a problem, so they don't mention it in their Statement of Facts.

So Sierra just sent a Tweet out into the ether?

OK.

"We have her at her computer at 632 that morning."
"And that's pretty standard."

Laurie Smith, NG Show

No. It was "supposed" to go to one of Sierra's friends.
But, that's not her correct address. You'd think Sierra would
have known that.

A ha.
Hence omission of Twitter.

It goes to a 'person' rather than just a 'site' that circumvents the human.

It might have "bounced".
I know I've looked to see if it showed up on her real address and it's not there.
Who knows?

Typo Positive wrote:

Tamta wrote:

Typo Positive wrote:

Tamta wrote:

"The sheriff's department maintained it has not focused on Uvas Reservoir just because the suspect's mother said her son told her he was at Uvas around the time of sierra's disappearance."

http://www.ktvu.com/news/news/crime-law/another-water-search-uvas-reservoir-turns-empty/nPFL2/

Oh no indeed! Of course not.
A bit misleading. His mom said he went fishing on Saturday, not Friday, I suppose you COULD say it was around that time.
But, what are we supposed to think, he was allegedly driving around with her in his trunk or he had her stashed somewhere just waiting for the opportunity to dump her in his favorite public fishing hole!?
Good grief.
Oi!

They may want to do a re-enactment just to firm things up.

You reckon they got around to 'testing' his alibi yet?
That just floored me when the Sheriff said they hadn't "firmed"
that up yet.

Or even arrested him on their alleged "slam dunk" assault charges rather than go with the kidnapping and murder charges.
I think to myself, hmmm, they must not have video of him actually taking her into his car against her will or they would press "that" slam dunk charge, just to hold him.

A reenactment would be nice. I hope half of Paquita Espana court goes follows along with cellphone cameras out if they do, especially when they go from there to the shed. That would be VERY interesting to see how that figures in.

BBM

-I did not know what to make of her saying that.

Seeing as they had their eye on him since 3/28 and had questioned him when, for the first time?

-The strategy is baffling, in that respect.

Typo Positive wrote:

Tamta wrote:

Typo Positive wrote:

Tamta wrote:

Typo Positive wrote:

Tamta wrote:Statement of Facts

http://ftpcontent.worldnow.com/kion/statement_of_fact.pdf

NO WHERE ON THIS DOCUMENT DOES IT MENTION THAT SIERRA SENT A TWEET AT 632AM.

This has been a consistent part of her timeline from day one, and anyone who looked at her Twitter saw this Tweet.

WHY IS THE TWEET SENT AT 632AM MISSING FROM THE STATEMENT OF FACTS.

Is is it a disputable fact now for some reason??

I think so. But, it's a mere technicality on the part of LE, I suppose. in that I'm sure anyone who has tried knows that is not a valid address for the Tweet that morning.
So therefore, it wasn't actually "sent" anywhere.
This could be a problem, so they don't mention it in their Statement of Facts.

So Sierra just sent a Tweet out into the ether?

OK.

"We have her at her computer at 632 that morning."
"And that's pretty standard."

Laurie Smith, NG Show

No. It was "supposed" to go to one of Sierra's friends.
But, that's not her correct address. You'd think Sierra would
have known that.

A ha.
Hence omission of Twitter.

It goes to a 'person' rather than just a 'site' that circumvents the human.

It might have "bounced".
I know I've looked to see if it showed up on her real address and it's not there.
Who knows?

I could not find the Tweet on the other end either.

Tamta wrote:

Typo Positive wrote:

Tamta wrote:

Typo Positive wrote:

Tamta wrote:

"The sheriff's department maintained it has not focused on Uvas Reservoir just because the suspect's mother said her son told her he was at Uvas around the time of sierra's disappearance."

http://www.ktvu.com/news/news/crime-law/another-water-search-uvas-reservoir-turns-empty/nPFL2/

Oh no indeed! Of course not.
A bit misleading. His mom said he went fishing on Saturday, not Friday, I suppose you COULD say it was around that time.
But, what are we supposed to think, he was allegedly driving around with her in his trunk or he had her stashed somewhere just waiting for the opportunity to dump her in his favorite public fishing hole!?
Good grief.
Oi!

They may want to do a re-enactment just to firm things up.

You reckon they got around to 'testing' his alibi yet?
That just floored me when the Sheriff said they hadn't "firmed"
that up yet.

Or even arrested him on their alleged "slam dunk" assault charges rather than go with the kidnapping and murder charges.
I think to myself, hmmm, they must not have video of him actually taking her into his car against her will or they would press "that" slam dunk charge, just to hold him.

A reenactment would be nice. I hope half of Paquita Espana court goes follows along with cellphone cameras out if they do, especially when they go from there to the shed. That would be VERY interesting to see how that figures in.

BBM

-I did not know what to make of her saying that.

Seeing as they had their eye on him since 3/28 and had questioned him when, for the first time?

-The strategy is baffling, in that respect.

Well maybe she was just being coy, for the media.
But, honestly, I thought, WHAT?
You didn't know when you arrested him whether 40 or 2 or 10 people not related could place him somewhere else on that Friday??
So, it must have been disingenuous, right?

Typo Positive wrote:

Tamta wrote:

Typo Positive wrote:

Tamta wrote:

Typo Positive wrote:

Tamta wrote:

"The sheriff's department maintained it has not focused on Uvas Reservoir just because the suspect's mother said her son told her he was at Uvas around the time of sierra's disappearance."

http://www.ktvu.com/news/news/crime-law/another-water-search-uvas-reservoir-turns-empty/nPFL2/

Oh no indeed! Of course not.
A bit misleading. His mom said he went fishing on Saturday, not Friday, I suppose you COULD say it was around that time.
But, what are we supposed to think, he was allegedly driving around with her in his trunk or he had her stashed somewhere just waiting for the opportunity to dump her in his favorite public fishing hole!?
Good grief.
Oi!

They may want to do a re-enactment just to firm things up.

You reckon they got around to 'testing' his alibi yet?
That just floored me when the Sheriff said they hadn't "firmed"
that up yet.

Or even arrested him on their alleged "slam dunk" assault charges rather than go with the kidnapping and murder charges.
I think to myself, hmmm, they must not have video of him actually taking her into his car against her will or they would press "that" slam dunk charge, just to hold him.

A reenactment would be nice. I hope half of Paquita Espana court goes follows along with cellphone cameras out if they do, especially when they go from there to the shed. That would be VERY interesting to see how that figures in.

BBM

-I did not know what to make of her saying that.

Seeing as they had their eye on him since 3/28 and had questioned him when, for the first time?

-The strategy is baffling, in that respect.

Well maybe she was just being coy, for the media.
But, honestly, I thought, WHAT?
You didn't know when you arrested him whether 40 or 2 or 10 people not related could place him somewhere else on that Friday??
So, it must have been disingenuous, right?

The way it was handled did nothing for me in terms of feeling confident that he is the one.

Tamta wrote:

Typo Positive wrote:

Tamta wrote:

Typo Positive wrote:

Tamta wrote:

Typo Positive wrote:

Tamta wrote:

"The sheriff's department maintained it has not focused on Uvas Reservoir just because the suspect's mother said her son told her he was at Uvas around the time of sierra's disappearance."

http://www.ktvu.com/news/news/crime-law/another-water-search-uvas-reservoir-turns-empty/nPFL2/

Oh no indeed! Of course not.
A bit misleading. His mom said he went fishing on Saturday, not Friday, I suppose you COULD say it was around that time.
But, what are we supposed to think, he was allegedly driving around with her in his trunk or he had her stashed somewhere just waiting for the opportunity to dump her in his favorite public fishing hole!?
Good grief.
Oi!

They may want to do a re-enactment just to firm things up.

You reckon they got around to 'testing' his alibi yet?
That just floored me when the Sheriff said they hadn't "firmed"
that up yet.

Or even arrested him on their alleged "slam dunk" assault charges rather than go with the kidnapping and murder charges.
I think to myself, hmmm, they must not have video of him actually taking her into his car against her will or they would press "that" slam dunk charge, just to hold him.

A reenactment would be nice. I hope half of Paquita Espana court goes follows along with cellphone cameras out if they do, especially when they go from there to the shed. That would be VERY interesting to see how that figures in.

BBM

-I did not know what to make of her saying that.

Seeing as they had their eye on him since 3/28 and had questioned him when, for the first time?

-The strategy is baffling, in that respect.

Well maybe she was just being coy, for the media.
But, honestly, I thought, WHAT?
You didn't know when you arrested him whether 40 or 2 or 10 people not related could place him somewhere else on that Friday??
So, it must have been disingenuous, right?

The way it was handled did nothing for me in terms of feeling confident that he is the one.

Same here.

Look at what it has you choose between by saying that:
They really have tested his alibi and were being cutesy about it.
Not an inspiring ploy.
Or they really HADN'T tested his alibi which again, less than awe inspiring.
It was one or the other and the Sheriff is uninformed about which.
Same conclusion as the above!
No way it looks good for LE anyway you slice it.

Tamta wrote:

Typo Positive wrote:

Tamta wrote:

Typo Positive wrote:

Tamta wrote:

Typo Positive wrote:

Tamta wrote:Statement of Facts

http://ftpcontent.worldnow.com/kion/statement_of_fact.pdf

NO WHERE ON THIS DOCUMENT DOES IT MENTION THAT SIERRA SENT A TWEET AT 632AM.

This has been a consistent part of her timeline from day one, and anyone who looked at her Twitter saw this Tweet.

WHY IS THE TWEET SENT AT 632AM MISSING FROM THE STATEMENT OF FACTS.

Is is it a disputable fact now for some reason??

I think so. But, it's a mere technicality on the part of LE, I suppose. in that I'm sure anyone who has tried knows that is not a valid address for the Tweet that morning.
So therefore, it wasn't actually "sent" anywhere.
This could be a problem, so they don't mention it in their Statement of Facts.

So Sierra just sent a Tweet out into the ether?

OK.

"We have her at her computer at 632 that morning."
"And that's pretty standard."

Laurie Smith, NG Show

No. It was "supposed" to go to one of Sierra's friends.
But, that's not her correct address. You'd think Sierra would
have known that.

A ha.
Hence omission of Twitter.

It goes to a 'person' rather than just a 'site' that circumvents the human.

It might have "bounced".
I know I've looked to see if it showed up on her real address and it's not there.
Who knows?

I could not find the Tweet on the other end either.

Sierra re-tweeted at 6:32, her friend exists just at a different twitter acct., she changed it right after Sierra disappeared...i believe she has changed it yet again, haven't looked in a while.

Honeysage wrote:

Tamta wrote:

Typo Positive wrote:

Tamta wrote:

Typo Positive wrote:

Tamta wrote:

Typo Positive wrote:

Tamta wrote:Statement of Facts

http://ftpcontent.worldnow.com/kion/statement_of_fact.pdf

NO WHERE ON THIS DOCUMENT DOES IT MENTION THAT SIERRA SENT A TWEET AT 632AM.

This has been a consistent part of her timeline from day one, and anyone who looked at her Twitter saw this Tweet.

WHY IS THE TWEET SENT AT 632AM MISSING FROM THE STATEMENT OF FACTS.

Is is it a disputable fact now for some reason??

I think so. But, it's a mere technicality on the part of LE, I suppose. in that I'm sure anyone who has tried knows that is not a valid address for the Tweet that morning.
So therefore, it wasn't actually "sent" anywhere.
This could be a problem, so they don't mention it in their Statement of Facts.

So Sierra just sent a Tweet out into the ether?

OK.

"We have her at her computer at 632 that morning."
"And that's pretty standard."

Laurie Smith, NG Show

No. It was "supposed" to go to one of Sierra's friends.
But, that's not her correct address. You'd think Sierra would
have known that.

A ha.
Hence omission of Twitter.

It goes to a 'person' rather than just a 'site' that circumvents the human.

It might have "bounced".
I know I've looked to see if it showed up on her real address and it's not there.
Who knows?

I could not find the Tweet on the other end either.

Sierra re-tweeted at 6:32, her friend exists just at a different twitter acct., she changed it right after Sierra disappeared...i believe she has changed it yet again, haven't looked in a while.

I didn't know that.
Did you read that in an interview or learn it by checking their twitters.

Freckles wrote:I KNOW I heard early on Sierra HAD sent the pic to her mother that AM.
(This is way back, when Marlene was saying she had left at 6 AM, no--- 6:30 AM. And Marlene said Rick had already left--- no, he left later, etc..)

She spins so much she's got be be dizzy by now.

Why spin? That is what bugs me. When someone spins they are hiding something.

Freckles, I think we've seen from several weeks ago that this *entire* case has been about hiding something. And because LE has been in on it on many occassions, it's like crying wolf. We no longer can tell if someone is hiding something because they are *hiding something* or because they were instructed by LE to distort the truth for the sake of the investigation. SO frustrating!!! My head spins too!

Tamta wrote:

Typo Positive wrote:

Tamta wrote:

CA Lady wrote:In the Statement of Facts released, this is how what they stated about picture and posting:

"At 7 a.m., Sierra posted a photograph of herself on a social media website. At 7:11 a.m., Sierra exchanged a test message with a classmate,..................."

Of course, this doesn't identify which or what picture was posted.

Sorry I didn't save the pdf of the Statement of Facts for a site to quote.

This photo, as a piece if evidence snd as part if the immediate circumstances that surrounds Sierras disappearance, continues to be handled in the manner of 'craft' thus rendering it in my mind HINKY, and worthy of further scrutiny.

There is no reason to persist in concealing the context of which this photo exists.


Was she at her driveway or down the road?
Was this photo texted emailed or posted to an SM account?

Really.

The Sheriff sidesteps any details about this pic on NG.
She merely says the pic is seperate from the text sent.

But, if it is just an instance of "Sierra changed her profile pic" kind of thing on FB. Why the need for being so secretive about it?
It has to be because the photo is blatantly been photoedited and there is no reasonable explanation for that in the short time span.
Now it's done before the text sent, when Marlene gives the impression it was the last thing she did practically before she left for the bus stop.
Marlene's taking a screen shot of the photo to give the media on the 18th is a bit hard to figure for me also.
I would have thought that would be under the purview of LE.
Because they also released a DIFFERENT pic to the media.
I'll have to go look for it.

1. I think it was taken by phone . She's holding it.

2. What's the point behind a private FB, yet a public twitter and tumblr?
Was the FB private at the time she was reported disappearing?

3. Anyone recall the FB hacking dates?

I disagree.

She has a blue cast to her neck and lower face, there was no flash used, or the immediate background would not be so dark and we would see more details in the darker spaces behind her and we would see far more lighter areas to her full face, not just a portion of it as cellphone flashes are very bright at only 6-18" away.

Other details that make this most plausible:
-The shadow is projected *upward* FROM her chest level, and her shirt is highlighted the most, with the light fading more at her neck and upward -- this device is most certainly at desk or chest level
-The shadow at her neckline cast by her collar is *very* sharp and very contrasted == this means the light source was at quite an angle from her collar. A handheld device would have created a more subtle shadow with less angular and deep contrast line if it were held up at her lower chest/neck level or higher
-Alternate light source is cast *upward* from her chest up, not downward.
-This is NOT a flash from a handheld device - otherwise her ENTIRE shirt would be illuminated at that close of range -- but it's not, only half of her shirt is highlighted with heavy shadowing - proving that the light source is not very strong or can project too far at close range.
-This means she could not be holding a camera device at head level or else the alternate light source would not be coming from her chest/neck area, but rather be cast downward or at least straight on.
-Further proof that it is not a handheld is the very subtle but revealing position of the light source in her eyes. (my mom's an art teacher and light source direction is one of her class subjects)
Her eyes are looking most certainly downward, and in fact, they are not looking directly at *you* meaning they are not focused on the iris of the device lense, but rather a monitor below it to see her own reflection. Also, in addition to her eyes cast downward - most importantly, the light source is in the middle of her downcast eyes -- this means it could not be a device held at head level or higher or else the white reflection spot in her eyes would be much higher on her pupils.
-To further reflect on this light spot in her eyes -- I magnified the photo and the light source reflected in her eyes is *square* almost perfectly square - not round like a flash, but rather square- as in a square monitor.
-The alternate light source is bluish - just like the light source projected by a computer screen. You can almost always tell when someone takes a photo from their computer (blue cast) vs. from a camera (whitish or yellowish cast, rarely blue)

This is obviously only my analysis and I could be wrong, but I used to work with graphics and flash design for a computer firm as my few years as a web developer, and we used to use Dreamweaver suite (pro equivalent to Photoshop) to modify stock photos. When removing focal points out of their original backgrounds we had to be cognizent of the light sources to make the new backgrounds appear credible.

Sheriff's Sgt. Jose Cardoza told the newspaper that the reservoir, along with Chesbro Reservoir, was one of the first searched after the girl's disappearance because they were closest to her home. Since then, he said, investigators have combed "just about every waterway" within a 12-mile radius of where the teenager was last seen.

Divers used side-scan sonar to search Coyote, Anderson and Almaden reservoirs, along with several small lakes and ponds on private property, but found no evidence related to the case, Cardoza said.

He said the Polly Klaas Foundation will continue organized land searches.



http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/06/sierra-lamar-divers-final-search.html

Stolat wrote:

Tamta wrote:

Typo Positive wrote:

Tamta wrote:

CA Lady wrote:In the Statement of Facts released, this is how what they stated about picture and posting:

"At 7 a.m., Sierra posted a photograph of herself on a social media website. At 7:11 a.m., Sierra exchanged a test message with a classmate,..................."

Of course, this doesn't identify which or what picture was posted.

Sorry I didn't save the pdf of the Statement of Facts for a site to quote.

This photo, as a piece if evidence snd as part if the immediate circumstances that surrounds Sierras disappearance, continues to be handled in the manner of 'craft' thus rendering it in my mind HINKY, and worthy of further scrutiny.

There is no reason to persist in concealing the context of which this photo exists.


Was she at her driveway or down the road?
Was this photo texted emailed or posted to an SM account?

Really.

The Sheriff sidesteps any details about this pic on NG.
She merely says the pic is seperate from the text sent.

But, if it is just an instance of "Sierra changed her profile pic" kind of thing on FB. Why the need for being so secretive about it?
It has to be because the photo is blatantly been photoedited and there is no reasonable explanation for that in the short time span.
Now it's done before the text sent, when Marlene gives the impression it was the last thing she did practically before she left for the bus stop.
Marlene's taking a screen shot of the photo to give the media on the 18th is a bit hard to figure for me also.
I would have thought that would be under the purview of LE.
Because they also released a DIFFERENT pic to the media.
I'll have to go look for it.

1. I think it was taken by phone . She's holding it.

2. What's the point behind a private FB, yet a public twitter and tumblr?
Was the FB private at the time she was reported disappearing?

3. Anyone recall the FB hacking dates?

I disagree.

She has a blue cast to her neck and lower face, there was no flash used, or the immediate background would not be so dark and we would see more details in the darker spaces behind her and we would see far more lighter areas to her full face, not just a portion of it as cellphone flashes are very bright at only 6-18" away.

Other details that make this most plausible:
-The shadow is projected *upward* FROM her chest level, and her shirt is highlighted the most, with the light fading more at her neck and upward -- this device is most certainly at desk or chest level
-The shadow at her neckline cast by her collar is *very* sharp and very contrasted == this means the light source was at quite an angle from her collar. A handheld device would have created a more subtle shadow with less angular and deep contrast line if it were held up at her lower chest/neck level or higher
-Alternate light source is cast *upward* from her chest up, not downward.
-This is NOT a flash from a handheld device - otherwise her ENTIRE shirt would be illuminated at that close of range -- but it's not, only half of her shirt is highlighted with heavy shadowing - proving that the light source is not very strong or can project too far at close range.
-This means she could not be holding a camera device at head level or else the alternate light source would not be coming from her chest/neck area, but rather be cast downward or at least straight on.
-Further proof that it is not a handheld is the very subtle but revealing position of the light source in her eyes. (my mom's an art teacher and light source direction is one of her class subjects)
Her eyes are looking most certainly downward, and in fact, they are not looking directly at *you* meaning they are not focused on the iris of the device lense, but rather a monitor below it to see her own reflection. Also, in addition to her eyes cast downward - most importantly, the light source is in the middle of her downcast eyes -- this means it could not be a device held at head level or higher or else the white reflection spot in her eyes would be much higher on her pupils.
-To further reflect on this light spot in her eyes -- I magnified the photo and the light source reflected in her eyes is *square* almost perfectly square - not round like a flash, but rather square- as in a square monitor.
-The alternate light source is bluish - just like the light source projected by a computer screen. You can almost always tell when someone takes a photo from their computer (blue cast) vs. from a camera (whitish or yellowish cast, rarely blue)

This is obviously only my analysis and I could be wrong, but I used to work with graphics and flash design for a computer firm as my few years as a web developer, and we used to use Dreamweaver suite (pro equivalent to Photoshop) to modify stock photos. When removing focal points out of their original backgrounds we had to be cognizent of the light sources to make the new backgrounds appear credible.

Interesting.
I am not a professional. I did think from a layman's pov that the
light reflections in the pupils should look the same. When they don't, it's often a sign that the photo has been edited in some way because you have to go back and add the light dots.
In this case her left eye is clearly squarish, in the right dimmer and more rounded. The "shadowing" effect on the right side of her face is understandable because of her hair hanging over.
The left side, it's falling away and makes the "shadow" there seem out of place.

Maybe if the photo were reversed to it's normal orientation, it would make sense. Could you flip it for us?

Which device flipped it to start with? The webcam, or when a
picture of the screen was taken with the i-phone camera?

Do they not have a printer?
I don't really understand taking a photo of the screen to give to
the media anyway. Oh well.

Thanks

just for comparison...this photo is almost identical-she uploaded it to her twitter acct on March 14-looks to be same area of her room except in this one the door behind her is closed.
i think the photo with Sharks Jersey is distorted because we are dealing with at least 3rd generation photo-from computer-to phone- to a printed copy.
i can't think of why someone would photoshop her ? though i also do not understand why there has been so much mystery around that photo either-having trouble thinking outside of the box.

https://twitter.com/#!/cccairuh
Sierra Lamar twitter account

just bringing this link up for anyone to review-someone asked if there were photos of Sierra with other purses-in a few of the photos on her twitter acct you can see some. in one she has a pink strap across her chest, then there are a few where she seems to be on top of what may be a bag with thick black shoulder straps.

Typo Positive wrote:

Stolat wrote:

Tamta wrote:
1. I think it was taken by phone . She's holding it.

2. What's the point behind a private FB, yet a public twitter and tumblr?
Was the FB private at the time she was reported disappearing?

3. Anyone recall the FB hacking dates?

I disagree.

She has a blue cast to her neck and lower face, there was no flash used, or the immediate background would not be so dark and we would see more details in the darker spaces behind her and we would see far more lighter areas to her full face, not just a portion of it as cellphone flashes are very bright at only 6-18" away.

Other details that make this most plausible:
-The shadow is projected *upward* FROM her chest level, and her shirt is highlighted the most, with the light fading more at her neck and upward -- this device is most certainly at desk or chest level
-The shadow at her neckline cast by her collar is *very* sharp and very contrasted == this means the light source was at quite an angle from her collar. A handheld device would have created a more subtle shadow with less angular and deep contrast line if it were held up at her lower chest/neck level or higher
-Alternate light source is cast *upward* from her chest up, not downward.
-This is NOT a flash from a handheld device - otherwise her ENTIRE shirt would be illuminated at that close of range -- but it's not, only half of her shirt is highlighted with heavy shadowing - proving that the light source is not very strong or can project too far at close range.
-This means she could not be holding a camera device at head level or else the alternate light source would not be coming from her chest/neck area, but rather be cast downward or at least straight on.
-Further proof that it is not a handheld is the very subtle but revealing position of the light source in her eyes. (my mom's an art teacher and light source direction is one of her class subjects)
Her eyes are looking most certainly downward, and in fact, they are not looking directly at *you* meaning they are not focused on the iris of the device lense, but rather a monitor below it to see her own reflection. Also, in addition to her eyes cast downward - most importantly, the light source is in the middle of her downcast eyes -- this means it could not be a device held at head level or higher or else the white reflection spot in her eyes would be much higher on her pupils.
-To further reflect on this light spot in her eyes -- I magnified the photo and the light source reflected in her eyes is *square* almost perfectly square - not round like a flash, but rather square- as in a square monitor.
-The alternate light source is bluish - just like the light source projected by a computer screen. You can almost always tell when someone takes a photo from their computer (blue cast) vs. from a camera (whitish or yellowish cast, rarely blue)

This is obviously only my analysis and I could be wrong, but I used to work with graphics and flash design for a computer firm as my few years as a web developer, and we used to use Dreamweaver suite (pro equivalent to Photoshop) to modify stock photos. When removing focal points out of their original backgrounds we had to be cognizent of the light sources to make the new backgrounds appear credible.

Interesting.
I am not a professional. I did think from a layman's pov that the
light reflections in the pupils should look the same. When they don't, it's often a sign that the photo has been edited in some way because you have to go back and add the light dots.
In this case her left eye is clearly squarish, in the right dimmer and more rounded. The "shadowing" effect on the right side of her face is understandable because of her hair hanging over.
The left side, it's falling away and makes the "shadow" there seem out of place.

Maybe if the photo were reversed to it's normal orientation, it would make sense. Could you flip it for us?

Which device flipped it to start with? The webcam, or when a
picture of the screen was taken with the i-phone camera?

Do they not have a printer?
I don't really understand taking a photo of the screen to give to
the media anyway. Oh well.

Thanks

I missed the part about it being a picture taken facing a screen, but I'm also doing a lot of catchup myself. I've taken a picture of a computer monitor -- still images of computer monitors often produces little lines going across because of the rapid refresh of the screen, I'm hesitant to conceive this is an image produced by someone photographing the computer screen. I do see faint little lines which *could* be indicative of computer refresh, but they're so faint, it's almost hard to tell. It could also just be the quality of the photo and how many different times it was saved -- each "save" of a jpg format completely degrades in quality. Only a .BMP is "lossless" quality and does not errode with each subsequent save or passing it on via email transmission.

I don't know if the image has been "flipped" but flipping it back would not change any of the orientation of the 2 lightings sources (the overhead room light and the uplight from the laptop monitor screen). I can't flip from here but I can play with it at home.

I was going to say the opposite about the eyes. If a tool is used to produce light reflections in eyes, the result is often identical formations, typically a sign of photo editing. I attribute the difference in size to the natural variations of the eye curvature - as such, you can see that Sierra's eyes are not perfectly aligned, they're a bit.... crossed, typical of focusing on a close object. With her eyes slightly focused in different directions it would be completely natural for the light reflection in each pupil to differ a bit as the surface of each eye would bounce the light off differently. There defintely is a secondary light source shining up into her face so the question becomes is it a cameraphone flash or is it computer monitor glare. There is also an overhead room light on because we see that the background walls are quite well lit with no shadows and we also see a very light whitish glare cast down on one side of the bridge of her nose, this produces a very slight shadow on the other side of her bridge in the corner of her eye with a clear line going down the bridge of her nose defining light vs darker side. This light is coming fom *above*

I might test this at home - but you can take a webcam photo of yourself at your desk from your computer and then take a hand-held photo of yourself if you have a phone with a flash -- and also make sure to have an overhead room light to replicate what Sierra had. Compare the two. The phone/flash shouold produce much greater light exposure on your immediate face and body. There should be very little "shadowing" on your face if the phonecamera device is directly in front of you. I suspect this because at arm's length the brightness of a phone flash in a normally well-lit room would not produce the heavy shadowing we see on her shirt and face. At the hairline yes, but I'm even seeing "up-shadows" created from the eyelashes of her one eye that is not evident in the other eye -- I would not expect to see the fine upshadows of eyelashes from a bright phone flash.

The possibility exists that the original was flipped - that I do not know. I do not however, think that she has been removed from a previous background. The fine fuzziness of her hair on the outter fringe would be too hard to retain the quality of without showing tell-tale pixalation marks if she had been superimposed into a different background. I too suspect the white frame we see behind her to be a doorjamb, not the frame of a mirror -- the paint color is almost an identical match to the wall color. Also, if it were a mirror, at the angle it is sitting, it would be reflecting the brightness of the room across from it which it opposes. Instead, we see that it is quite dark, implying a darker room or hallway beyond this background.

Honeysage wrote:

just for comparison...this photo is almost identical-she uploaded it to her twitter acct on March 14-looks to be same area of her room except in this one the door behind her is closed.
i think the photo with Sharks Jersey is distorted because we are dealing with at least 3rd generation photo-from computer-to phone- to a printed copy.
i can't think of why someone would photoshop her ? though i also do not understand why there has been so much mystery around that photo either-having trouble thinking outside of the box.

Thanks Honeysage - very helpful. Interesting....hmm.... so the photo *has* been flipped. Otherwise i'd doubt Sierra would have a sweatshirt where the wording was reversed. I'm trying to think of the reasons this might happen digitally.... I know it would happen if she were taking a picture in front of a mirror, but in those cases, the camera is also included in the shot. I must be forgetting something. there must be a reason. I can't think why *both* photos would be flipped.

Stolat wrote:

Typo Positive wrote:

Stolat wrote:

Tamta wrote:
1. I think it was taken by phone . She's holding it.

2. What's the point behind a private FB, yet a public twitter and tumblr?
Was the FB private at the time she was reported disappearing?

3. Anyone recall the FB hacking dates?

I disagree.

She has a blue cast to her neck and lower face, there was no flash used, or the immediate background would not be so dark and we would see more details in the darker spaces behind her and we would see far more lighter areas to her full face, not just a portion of it as cellphone flashes are very bright at only 6-18" away.

Other details that make this most plausible:
-The shadow is projected *upward* FROM her chest level, and her shirt is highlighted the most, with the light fading more at her neck and upward -- this device is most certainly at desk or chest level
-The shadow at her neckline cast by her collar is *very* sharp and very contrasted == this means the light source was at quite an angle from her collar. A handheld device would have created a more subtle shadow with less angular and deep contrast line if it were held up at her lower chest/neck level or higher
-Alternate light source is cast *upward* from her chest up, not downward.
-This is NOT a flash from a handheld device - otherwise her ENTIRE shirt would be illuminated at that close of range -- but it's not, only half of her shirt is highlighted with heavy shadowing - proving that the light source is not very strong or can project too far at close range.
-This means she could not be holding a camera device at head level or else the alternate light source would not be coming from her chest/neck area, but rather be cast downward or at least straight on.
-Further proof that it is not a handheld is the very subtle but revealing position of the light source in her eyes. (my mom's an art teacher and light source direction is one of her class subjects)
Her eyes are looking most certainly downward, and in fact, they are not looking directly at *you* meaning they are not focused on the iris of the device lense, but rather a monitor below it to see her own reflection. Also, in addition to her eyes cast downward - most importantly, the light source is in the middle of her downcast eyes -- this means it could not be a device held at head level or higher or else the white reflection spot in her eyes would be much higher on her pupils.
-To further reflect on this light spot in her eyes -- I magnified the photo and the light source reflected in her eyes is *square* almost perfectly square - not round like a flash, but rather square- as in a square monitor.
-The alternate light source is bluish - just like the light source projected by a computer screen. You can almost always tell when someone takes a photo from their computer (blue cast) vs. from a camera (whitish or yellowish cast, rarely blue)

This is obviously only my analysis and I could be wrong, but I used to work with graphics and flash design for a computer firm as my few years as a web developer, and we used to use Dreamweaver suite (pro equivalent to Photoshop) to modify stock photos. When removing focal points out of their original backgrounds we had to be cognizent of the light sources to make the new backgrounds appear credible.

Interesting.
I am not a professional. I did think from a layman's pov that the
light reflections in the pupils should look the same. When they don't, it's often a sign that the photo has been edited in some way because you have to go back and add the light dots.
In this case her left eye is clearly squarish, in the right dimmer and more rounded. The "shadowing" effect on the right side of her face is understandable because of her hair hanging over.
The left side, it's falling away and makes the "shadow" there seem out of place.

Maybe if the photo were reversed to it's normal orientation, it would make sense. Could you flip it for us?

Which device flipped it to start with? The webcam, or when a
picture of the screen was taken with the i-phone camera?

Do they not have a printer?
I don't really understand taking a photo of the screen to give to
the media anyway. Oh well.

Thanks

I missed the part about it being a picture taken facing a screen, but I'm also doing a lot of catchup myself. I've taken a picture of a computer monitor -- still images of computer monitors often produces little lines going across because of the rapid refresh of the screen, I'm hesitant to conceive this is an image produced by someone photographing the computer screen. I do see faint little lines which *could* be indicative of computer refresh, but they're so faint, it's almost hard to tell. It could also just be the quality of the photo and how many different times it was saved -- each "save" of a jpg format completely degrades in quality. Only a .BMP is "lossless" quality and does not errode with each subsequent save or passing it on via email transmission.

I don't know if the image has been "flipped" but flipping it back would not change any of the orientation of the 2 lightings sources (the overhead room light and the uplight from the laptop monitor screen). I can't flip from here but I can play with it at home.

I was going to say the opposite about the eyes. If a tool is used to produce light reflections in eyes, the result is often identical formations, typically a sign of photo editing. I attribute the difference in size to the natural variations of the eye curvature - as such, you can see that Sierra's eyes are not perfectly aligned, they're a bit.... crossed, typical of focusing on a close object. With her eyes slightly focused in different directions it would be completely natural for the light reflection in each pupil to differ a bit as the surface of each eye would bounce the light off differently. There defintely is a secondary light source shining up into her face so the question becomes is it a cameraphone flash or is it computer monitor glare. There is also an overhead room light on because we see that the background walls are quite well lit with no shadows and we also see a very light whitish glare cast down on one side of the bridge of her nose, this produces a very slight shadow on the other side of her bridge in the corner of her eye with a clear line going down the bridge of her nose defining light vs darker side. This light is coming fom *above*

I might test this at home - but you can take a webcam photo of yourself at your desk from your computer and then take a hand-held photo of yourself if you have a phone with a flash -- and also make sure to have an overhead room light to replicate what Sierra had. Compare the two. The phone/flash shouold produce much greater light exposure on your immediate face and body. There should be very little "shadowing" on your face if the phonecamera device is directly in front of you. I suspect this because at arm's length the brightness of a phone flash in a normally well-lit room would not produce the heavy shadowing we see on her shirt and face. At the hairline yes, but I'm even seeing "up-shadows" created from the eyelashes of her one eye that is not evident in the other eye -- I would not expect to see the fine upshadows of eyelashes from a bright phone flash.

The possibility exists that the original was flipped - that I do not know. I do not however, think that she has been removed from a previous background. The fine fuzziness of her hair on the outter fringe would be too hard to retain the quality of without showing tell-tale pixalation marks if she had been superimposed into a different background. I too suspect the white frame we see behind her to be a doorjamb, not the frame of a mirror -- the paint color is almost an identical match to the wall color. Also, if it were a mirror, at the angle it is sitting, it would be reflecting the brightness of the room across from it which it opposes. Instead, we see that it is quite dark, implying a darker room or hallway beyond this background.

Excellent! I hope you do play with it at home and when you do to try to align the photo Honeysage posted and this one side by side in a separate study you post!
We only "know" it was taken on the computer and not with a camera because Marlene said it was taken on the computer.

The "shown" image is reversed. The logo on the shirt gives it away. I was told that the Apple laptop photo would do that.
But, then so does the i-phone camera.
So, I was wondering why it did not end up correctly oriented.
Reverse image + reverse image, should = right side orientation
again. Wouldn't it? I compared Honeysage's pic with this one and still had problems with the "shadow effect" on the right side of Sierra's face.
I actually agree with Tamta that the lift of the right arm seems to indicate the photo was taken with a camera phone.
But, that would be why you would change the light pixels in the eyes to make it appear it was taken while looking at a monitor instead. Or she did both. As I have seen in another photo where she takes a picture of herself, taking a picture of herself.
But, that would mean there would be two images on two different devices.

I can't wait to see what you come up with!

It's going to take me a half a day to catch up and digest this photo discussion!!

Stolat, are you going to get in trouble at work?????
In depth responses!

Great analysis of the photos. Thought I'd post them together. I'm mobile & can't post side by side like I want to.

Tamta wrote:It's going to take me a half a day to catch up and digest this photo discussion!!

Stolat, are you going to get in trouble at work?????
In depth responses!

Ah, the blessing of dual-monitors! I can run reports in one and type into the other. Being a fast typist doesn't hurt either ;-)

Stolat wrote:

Honeysage wrote:

just for comparison...this photo is almost identical-she uploaded it to her twitter acct on March 14-looks to be same area of her room except in this one the door behind her is closed.
i think the photo with Sharks Jersey is distorted because we are dealing with at least 3rd generation photo-from computer-to phone- to a printed copy.
i can't think of why someone would photoshop her ? though i also do not understand why there has been so much mystery around that photo either-having trouble thinking outside of the box.

Thanks Honeysage - very helpful. Interesting....hmm.... so the photo *has* been flipped. Otherwise i'd doubt Sierra would have a sweatshirt where the wording was reversed. I'm trying to think of the reasons this might happen digitally.... I know it would happen if she were taking a picture in front of a mirror, but in those cases, the camera is also included in the shot. I must be forgetting something. there must be a reason. I can't think why *both* photos would be flipped.

when i google..."webcam mirror image" and "samsung galaxy mirror image" there are tons of people having this issue, so it's not weird for her to be taking mirror images with either device. and if she uses iPhoto i know there is an option to flip photo.

kimi_SFC wrote:Great analysis of the photos. Thought I'd post them together. I'm mobile & can't post side by side like I want to.

Thanks kimi! Boy, she sure does like that tonge shot, doesn't she?

I guess the photos have been flipped -- because I completely forgot that the San Jose Sharks mascot logo points in the other direction on all the other t-shirts. Or is her t-shirt a different team or brand logo?

This is just me, but I now see a complete difference in the two shoulder positions - much higher shoulder position on the phone photo, the other photo she looks like she's hunched over more and leaning toward the mouse or keyboark to click the camera shutter key on her keyboard.

And if that photo was taken at 6am, she sure does have her hair curled and styled way early in the morning...

Stolat wrote:

Tamta wrote:

Typo Positive wrote:

Tamta wrote:

CA Lady wrote:In the Statement of Facts released, this is how what they stated about picture and posting:

"At 7 a.m., Sierra posted a photograph of herself on a social media website. At 7:11 a.m., Sierra exchanged a test message with a classmate,..................."

Of course, this doesn't identify which or what picture was posted.

Sorry I didn't save the pdf of the Statement of Facts for a site to quote.

This photo, as a piece if evidence snd as part if the immediate circumstances that surrounds Sierras disappearance, continues to be handled in the manner of 'craft' thus rendering it in my mind HINKY, and worthy of further scrutiny.

There is no reason to persist in concealing the context of which this photo exists.


Was she at her driveway or down the road?
Was this photo texted emailed or posted to an SM account?

Really.

The Sheriff sidesteps any details about this pic on NG.
She merely says the pic is seperate from the text sent.

But, if it is just an instance of "Sierra changed her profile pic" kind of thing on FB. Why the need for being so secretive about it?
It has to be because the photo is blatantly been photoedited and there is no reasonable explanation for that in the short time span.
Now it's done before the text sent, when Marlene gives the impression it was the last thing she did practically before she left for the bus stop.
Marlene's taking a screen shot of the photo to give the media on the 18th is a bit hard to figure for me also.
I would have thought that would be under the purview of LE.
Because they also released a DIFFERENT pic to the media.
I'll have to go look for it.

1. I think it was taken by phone . She's holding it.

2. What's the point behind a private FB, yet a public twitter and tumblr?
Was the FB private at the time she was reported disappearing?

3. Anyone recall the FB hacking dates?

I disagree.

She has a blue cast to her neck and lower face, there was no flash used, or the immediate background would not be so dark and we would see more details in the darker spaces behind her and we would see far more lighter areas to her full face, not just a portion of it as cellphone flashes are very bright at only 6-18" away.

Other details that make this most plausible:
-The shadow is projected *upward* FROM her chest level, and her shirt is highlighted the most, with the light fading more at her neck and upward -- this device is most certainly at desk or chest level
-The shadow at her neckline cast by her collar is *very* sharp and very contrasted == this means the light source was at quite an angle from her collar. A handheld device would have created a more subtle shadow with less angular and deep contrast line if it were held up at her lower chest/neck level or higher
-Alternate light source is cast *upward* from her chest up, not downward.
-This is NOT a flash from a handheld device - otherwise her ENTIRE shirt would be illuminated at that close of range -- but it's not, only half of her shirt is highlighted with heavy shadowing - proving that the light source is not very strong or can project too far at close range.
-This means she could not be holding a camera device at head level or else the alternate light source would not be coming from her chest/neck area, but rather be cast downward or at least straight on.
-Further proof that it is not a handheld is the very subtle but revealing position of the light source in her eyes. (my mom's an art teacher and light source direction is one of her class subjects)
Her eyes are looking most certainly downward, and in fact, they are not looking directly at *you* meaning they are not focused on the iris of the device lense, but rather a monitor below it to see her own reflection. Also, in addition to her eyes cast downward - most importantly, the light source is in the middle of her downcast eyes -- this means it could not be a device held at head level or higher or else the white reflection spot in her eyes would be much higher on her pupils.
-To further reflect on this light spot in her eyes -- I magnified the photo and the light source reflected in her eyes is *square* almost perfectly square - not round like a flash, but rather square- as in a square monitor.
-The alternate light source is bluish - just like the light source projected by a computer screen. You can almost always tell when someone takes a photo from their computer (blue cast) vs. from a camera (whitish or yellowish cast, rarely blue)

This is obviously only my analysis and I could be wrong, but I used to work with graphics and flash design for a computer firm as my few years as a web developer, and we used to use Dreamweaver suite (pro equivalent to Photoshop) to modify stock photos. When removing focal points out of their original backgrounds we had to be cognizent of the light sources to make the new backgrounds appear credible.

WHOA! AWESOME ANALYSIS, STO!THIS IS A KEEPER!!!

it's definitey San Jose Sharks logo (in reverse) they are very popular across US because of cool shark logo! my nephew has one back east and he's not even into hockey.

Honeysage wrote:

it's definitey San Jose Sharks logo (in reverse) they are very popular across US because of cool shark logo! my nephew has one back east and he's not even into hockey.

I have an older iPhone - I'm thrifty to a fault and won't fork up for a new one because my 3GS does everything I need it to (ain't broke, don't need fixin'). It only has one camera lense. The newer model has two lenses -- one on each side of the phone. I don't have experience with the newest model. So does the new iPhone reverse the image if you use the "inside" lense (the lense on the side of the phone that has the sreen)? is that even possible?

Thought I'd post this for comparative purposes only. Unfortunately, I can't post a link because Sierra's friend has now locked her twitter feed (made it private). When I saved the image, I didn't screen cap the tweet. It's from her best friend in Fremont, who is a minor. For that reason alone, perhaps it's best NOT to link back.....?

Anyhow, back then Sierra's twitter handle was different, and her friend asked for a pic. Sierra sent this via twitter and her friend commented at how different she looked.

Stolat wrote:

Honeysage wrote:

it's definitey San Jose Sharks logo (in reverse) they are very popular across US because of cool shark logo! my nephew has one back east and he's not even into hockey.

I have an older iPhone - I'm thrifty to a fault and won't fork up for a new one because my 3GS does everything I need it to (ain't broke, don't need fixin'). It only has one camera lense. The newer model has two lenses -- one on each side of the phone. I don't have experience with the newest model. So does the new iPhone reverse the image if you use the "inside" lense (the lense on the side of the phone that has the sreen)? is that even possible?

i believe so...it's the FFC (front facing camera), Sierra had Samsung Galaxy which i also believe has FFC...i know she has photos she took from iPhone but those were probably friend's phone, dad, mom??

There has been so much "subtle" handling of the news/events of this case.
I was rather alarmed we were ALL supposed to be looking for a red car, a red car with a black hood, etc., when the LE HAD THAT CAR in their custody for several weeks AND they KNEW they had it!

So I went back to Square One and did not Go To Jail--- yet.
I asked myself what was the first thing that concerned me with omission of statements/events, and commission of statement/events.

1. Location of items
2. Reported finding of items
-- Possible planting of items to deflect, ie, handcuffs, condoms
3. What was NOT found

4. Test messages sent/rec
--Language, timing, subject
5. Pics
-- Sent by computer, phone
-- Times, clothing

6. Custody issues (not yet disclosed but hinted at)
7. The move

8. Family reaction to Sierra missing
9. Friends reactions to Sierra missing
10. Accounting for the 24 hour prior to Sierra missing


I would feel more confident IF we knew for sure:
Sierra sent a current picture of herself;

Marlene would account for interactions with Sierra that morning, the night before. (I don't know I believe Sierra was in the home that morning. Did the bf have ANY convo with her? Any interaction at all? Did he see her? Why isn't he talking????)

Why did mother wait to notify anyone of her missing dau IF she had tried to call her several times earlier and could not reach her? (IMO, that phone was being used as a prop.)

Until I feel comfortable I can not remove all suspicions from other ans place it totally upon this outsider while I do believe he was probably involved in the Safeway incidents. Too much Marlene/bf has left unsaid.

Honeysage wrote:

Stolat wrote:

Honeysage wrote:

it's definitey San Jose Sharks logo (in reverse) they are very popular across US because of cool shark logo! my nephew has one back east and he's not even into hockey.

I have an older iPhone - I'm thrifty to a fault and won't fork up for a new one because my 3GS does everything I need it to (ain't broke, don't need fixin'). It only has one camera lense. The newer model has two lenses -- one on each side of the phone. I don't have experience with the newest model. So does the new iPhone reverse the image if you use the "inside" lense (the lense on the side of the phone that has the sreen)? is that even possible?

i believe so...it's the FFC (front facing camera), Sierra had Samsung Galaxy which i also believe has FFC...i know she has photos she took from iPhone but those were probably friend's phone, dad, mom??

Sierra's mom had an iPhone 4.
And maybe her sister and/or dad too.

She had used one often it seemed on her SM.

On the THM I was able to replicate this photo deal but did not save my 'report'.

I have the iPhone 4 and the MacBook.
I will go thru it again tonight.

I also need to look at a lot of her photos and backgrounds and such to get a sense of
how authentic the released 3/18 may or may not be.
I am just not a pro and need to go over it.

I had always thought that the Sharks photo released to the press looked very similar to her 3/14 Twitter photo.
Thank you Honeysage for bringing that up.

What is strange to me, is that this photo of Sierra in the Sharks Jersey was released 3/18 to the press.
-At that point no one was to have known what she was wearing.
-Marlene saw her only in her jammies.
-Rick was already gone.
-Her bag was found 3/17, but no one was told about it and no one knew what was in it.
-Then this photo hits the press with the clothes that she was alleged to be wearing that day.
-Some comments of Cordoza say there was a folded t shirt in the bag.
-SOme comments refer to a San Jose sharks jersey.
-LE would never clarify or commit to what Sierra had allegedly done with a photo that she took of herself that morning, until we see the SOF, which mentions the photo but not the SM to where it was posted, and the SOF also does not mention her Twitter activity at 630.

The total of this is IMO, a bit hinky to me.

Freckles wrote:There has been so much "subtle" handling of the news/events of this case.
I was rather alarmed we were ALL supposed to be looking for a red car, a red car with a black hood, etc., when the LE HAD THAT CAR in their custody for several weeks AND they KNEW they had it!

So I went back to Square One and did not Go To Jail--- yet.
I asked myself what was the first thing that concerned me with omission of statements/events, and commission of statement/events.

1. Location of items
2. Reported finding of items
-- Possible planting of items to deflect, ie, handcuffs, condoms
3. What was NOT found

4. Test messages sent/rec
--Language, timing, subject
5. Pics
-- Sent by computer, phone
-- Times, clothing

6. Custody issues (not yet disclosed but hinted at)
7. The move

8. Family reaction to Sierra missing
9. Friends reactions to Sierra missing
10. Accounting for the 24 hour prior to Sierra missing


I would feel more confident IF we knew for sure:
Sierra sent a current picture of herself;

Marlene would account for interactions with Sierra that morning, the night before. (I don't know I believe Sierra was in the home that morning. Did the bf have ANY convo with her? Any interaction at all? Did he see her? Why isn't he talking????)

Why did mother wait to notify anyone of her missing dau IF she had tried to call her several times earlier and could not reach her? (IMO, that phone was being used as a prop.)

Until I feel comfortable I can not remove all suspicions from other ans place it totally upon this outsider while I do believe he was probably involved in the Safeway incidents. Too much Marlene/bf has left unsaid.

I agree Freckles - it's been difficult and frustrating when we feel like we've been working with a moving target. I'm outta breath from all the zigging and zagging.

I differ on the opinion that we were ever asked to "look" for a car. In fact we were never asked to look for a car. We were asked specifically for 2 pieces of information: on where the car may have been or who may have driven the car. They even said at that point that they knew who the owner was. Well how the heck does someone know that if they don't already have the plates or the car? But agreed on all the rest -- very difficult to sift through what was planted, leaked or omitted...

Tamta wrote:

Honeysage wrote:

Stolat wrote:

Honeysage wrote:

it's definitey San Jose Sharks logo (in reverse) they are very popular across US because of cool shark logo! my nephew has one back east and he's not even into hockey.

I have an older iPhone - I'm thrifty to a fault and won't fork up for a new one because my 3GS does everything I need it to (ain't broke, don't need fixin'). It only has one camera lense. The newer model has two lenses -- one on each side of the phone. I don't have experience with the newest model. So does the new iPhone reverse the image if you use the "inside" lense (the lense on the side of the phone that has the sreen)? is that even possible?

i believe so...it's the FFC (front facing camera), Sierra had Samsung Galaxy which i also believe has FFC...i know she has photos she took from iPhone but those were probably friend's phone, dad, mom??

Sierra's mom had an iPhone 4.
And maybe her sister and/or dad too.

She had used one often it seemed on her SM.

On the THM I was able to replicate this photo deal but did not save my 'report'.

I have the iPhone 4 and the MacBook.
I will go thru it again tonight.

I also need to look at a lot of her photos and backgrounds and such to get a sense of
how authentic the released 3/18 may or may not be.
I am just not a pro and need to go over it.

I had always thought that the Sharks photo released to the press looked very similar to her 3/14 Twitter photo.
Thank you Honeysage for bringing that up.

What is strange to me, is that this photo of Sierra in the Sharks Jersey was released 3/18 to the press.
-At that point no one was to have known what she was wearing.
-Marlene saw her only in her jammies.
-Rick was already gone.
-Her bag was found 3/17, but no one was told about it and no one knew what was in it.
-Then this photo hits the press with the clothes that she was alleged to be wearing that day.
-Some comments of Cordoza say there was a folded t shirt in the bag.
-SOme comments refer to a San Jose sharks jersey.
-LE would never clarify or commit to what Sierra had allegedly done with a photo that she took of herself that morning, until we see the SOF, which mentions the photo but not the SM to where it was posted, and the SOF also does not mention her Twitter activity at 630.

The total of this is IMO, a bit hinky to me.

My brain hurts.....

Stolat wrote:

Tamta wrote:

Honeysage wrote:

Stolat wrote:

Honeysage wrote:

it's definitey San Jose Sharks logo (in reverse) they are very popular across US because of cool shark logo! my nephew has one back east and he's not even into hockey.

I have an older iPhone - I'm thrifty to a fault and won't fork up for a new one because my 3GS does everything I need it to (ain't broke, don't need fixin'). It only has one camera lense. The newer model has two lenses -- one on each side of the phone. I don't have experience with the newest model. So does the new iPhone reverse the image if you use the "inside" lense (the lense on the side of the phone that has the sreen)? is that even possible?

i believe so...it's the FFC (front facing camera), Sierra had Samsung Galaxy which i also believe has FFC...i know she has photos she took from iPhone but those were probably friend's phone, dad, mom??

Sierra's mom had an iPhone 4.
And maybe her sister and/or dad too.

She had used one often it seemed on her SM.

On the THM I was able to replicate this photo deal but did not save my 'report'.

I have the iPhone 4 and the MacBook.
I will go thru it again tonight.

I also need to look at a lot of her photos and backgrounds and such to get a sense of
how authentic the released 3/18 may or may not be.
I am just not a pro and need to go over it.

I had always thought that the Sharks photo released to the press looked very similar to her 3/14 Twitter photo.
Thank you Honeysage for bringing that up.

What is strange to me, is that this photo of Sierra in the Sharks Jersey was released 3/18 to the press.
-At that point no one was to have known what she was wearing.
-Marlene saw her only in her jammies.
-Rick was already gone.
-Her bag was found 3/17, but no one was told about it and no one knew what was in it.
-Then this photo hits the press with the clothes that she was alleged to be wearing that day.
-Some comments of Cordoza say there was a folded t shirt in the bag.
-SOme comments refer to a San Jose sharks jersey.
-LE would never clarify or commit to what Sierra had allegedly done with a photo that she took of herself that morning, until we see the SOF, which mentions the photo but not the SM to where it was posted, and the SOF also does not mention her Twitter activity at 630.

The total of this is IMO, a bit hinky to me.

My brain hurts.....

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Sierra-Lamar-Search-Enters-Third-Day-in-Morgan-Hill-143104226.html

this is first article i believe in which Sierra's shark jersey photo was shown...it was Monday March 19, i can't find anything showing it earlier than that. they would need her purse (found on the 18th) to verify what she was wearing.

Sierra disappeared: March 16
phone found: March 17
purse/clothing found: March 18
1st photo of Sierra in shirt: March 19
news conference of purse/clothing found: March 22

Tamta wrote:

Stolat wrote:

Tamta wrote:

Honeysage wrote:

Stolat wrote:

Honeysage wrote:

it's definitey San Jose Sharks logo (in reverse) they are very popular across US because of cool shark logo! my nephew has one back east and he's not even into hockey.

I have an older iPhone - I'm thrifty to a fault and won't fork up for a new one because my 3GS does everything I need it to (ain't broke, don't need fixin'). It only has one camera lense. The newer model has two lenses -- one on each side of the phone. I don't have experience with the newest model. So does the new iPhone reverse the image if you use the "inside" lense (the lense on the side of the phone that has the sreen)? is that even possible?

i believe so...it's the FFC (front facing camera), Sierra had Samsung Galaxy which i also believe has FFC...i know she has photos she took from iPhone but those were probably friend's phone, dad, mom??

Sierra's mom had an iPhone 4.
And maybe her sister and/or dad too.

She had used one often it seemed on her SM.

On the THM I was able to replicate this photo deal but did not save my 'report'.

I have the iPhone 4 and the MacBook.
I will go thru it again tonight.

I also need to look at a lot of her photos and backgrounds and such to get a sense of
how authentic the released 3/18 may or may not be.
I am just not a pro and need to go over it.

I had always thought that the Sharks photo released to the press looked very similar to her 3/14 Twitter photo.
Thank you Honeysage for bringing that up.

What is strange to me, is that this photo of Sierra in the Sharks Jersey was released 3/18 to the press.
-At that point no one was to have known what she was wearing.
-Marlene saw her only in her jammies.
-Rick was already gone.
-Her bag was found 3/17, but no one was told about it and no one knew what was in it.
-Then this photo hits the press with the clothes that she was alleged to be wearing that day.
-Some comments of Cordoza say there was a folded t shirt in the bag.
-SOme comments refer to a San Jose sharks jersey.
-LE would never clarify or commit to what Sierra had allegedly done with a photo that she took of herself that morning, until we see the SOF, which mentions the photo but not the SM to where it was posted, and the SOF also does not mention her Twitter activity at 630.

The total of this is IMO, a bit hinky to me.

My brain hurts.....

LOL!! It's all the Twitter/Tumbler/SMS stuff, and the times of the day -- getting jumbled in my head. I think you're right though, very elusive about both the photo and SM. I'm still not sure we yet have all the facts, as you pointed out the SOF did not specify *which* photo was allegdly sent.

I still question if the sharks photo really was the one taken that morning -- OR if a photo ever *was* taken that morning. I still have seen no proof of that yet

My head hurts from reading the camera details too!

IIRC...Her tweet was at 6:29 and it was the Tumblr post that was at 6:32, neither of these SM accounts included a photo. I assumed too the photo must have been posted to FB because it is the only private account that we know about. I cannot recall The Tumblr post ever being mentioned by LE nor the media. I personally have always found that to be odd. Maybe she has another SM account we haven't found?

Sierra LaMar: Divers End Search for Murdered Teen's Body


Garcia-Torres' mother confirmed to authorities that her son went fishing the same day the Morgan Hill teen disappeared.

"There has been some information out there as far as Garcia-Torres' hobbies or activities and fishing. We just can't comment on that one way or another," Cardoza said. "The case does remain open; we're still focused and targeted on finding Sierra and locating her."


http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2012/06/sierra_lamar_divers_end_search.php

Lash wrote:My head hurts from reading the camera details too!

IIRC...Her tweet was at 6:29 and it was the Tumblr post that was at 6:32, neither of these SM accounts included a photo. I assumed too the photo must have been posted to FB because it is the only private account that we know about. I cannot recall The Tumblr post ever being mentioned by LE nor the media. I personally have always found that to be odd. Maybe she has another SM account we haven't found?

BBM

You are right.

And...Maybe we need to do a timeline!

http://cccairuh.tumblr.com/
Sierra Lamar Tumblr

okay i'm totally lost-all i get is a static page, i used to be able to scroll through all her tumblr posts. am i doing something wrong?

Honeysage wrote:http://cccairuh.tumblr.com/
Sierra Lamar Tumblr

okay i'm totally lost-all i get is a static page, i used to be able to scroll through all her tumblr posts. am i doing something wrong?

I can view it without a problem.

This is a little OT, but on the Site Help and Suggestion Thread, J4A is asking about setting up a library and if anyone has any ideas. Since lots of you are about maps, docs, timelines etc, this would be a place to store them. Please drop by the thread and voice your opinions and give suggestions so you can save your hard work, and make it available to everyone to look at.