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

Stolat: That seems like an abnormally high amount of runaways for one county in a yrs time. Seriously I would never move to that area with children because something is definately not right. Seems your almost guaranteed your teenager will run away.

SweetT wrote:Stolat: That seems like an abnormally high amount of runaways for one county in a yrs time. Seriously I would never move to that area with children because something is definately not right. Seems your almost guaranteed your teenager will run away.

It's a lot for one county.
Which is why I posted that- something to explore further


It demands looking into more,
However CA in general has a big problem with missing
Children.

Tamta wrote:

SweetT wrote:Stolat: That seems like an abnormally high amount of runaways for one county in a yrs time. Seriously I would never move to that area with children because something is definately not right. Seems your almost guaranteed your teenager will run away.

It's a lot for one county.
Which is why I posted that- something to explore further


It demands looking into more,
However CA in general has a big problem with missing
Children.

I posed the question intentionally to highlight what i suspect and see every day in my job. Stats are often stated <>100% That is because there is usually a spin to the numbers - some story that someone wants told that *some* of the stats support. A good article will account for all remainders. A poor article will highlight only one or two stats, which only begs you to question what they are *not* telling you. Perhaps it is quite intentional that the stat is reported in partiality because the totality of the numbers would make the observation (ie., observation = whatever point the author is trying to highlight) less significant.

Stolat wrote:

Tamta wrote:

SweetT wrote:Stolat: That seems like an abnormally high amount of runaways for one county in a yrs time. Seriously I would never move to that area with children because something is definately not right. Seems your almost guaranteed your teenager will run away.

It's a lot for one county.
Which is why I posted that- something to explore further


It demands looking into more,
However CA in general has a big problem with missing
Children.

I posed the question intentionally to highlight what i suspect and see every day in my job. Stats are often stated <>100% That is because there is usually a spin to the numbers - some story that someone wants told that *some* of the stats support. A good article will account for all remainders. A poor article will highlight only one or two stats, which only begs you to question what they are *not* telling you. Perhaps it is quite intentional that the stat is reported in partiality because the totality of the numbers would make the observation (ie., observation = whatever point the author is trying to highlight) less significant.

San Jose did not appreciate Smith's misrepresentation of missing person statistics.
She did a similar thing recently when speaking about Sierra's murder she stated 63 girls were missing in SC County.

However I think it was the Sheriff of Gilroy that said many of those girls were juvenile runaways, not abducted, and did not understand why she was 'raising an alarm about runaways' when specifically addressing a murder.

I am on my phone and can post links in a while but not now.

You know what is scary is that even if a girl starts out being a run away or is suspected of it, how many of those girls end up permanently missing to be later found dead? How many are never found? How many pervs get away with murder because no one is looking for this run away. ?

Many of Santa Clara County sheriff's 'missing girls' aren't really missing

In announcing the arrest in the case of missing teen Sierra LaMar, Sheriff Laurie Smith raised a stir when she asserted that 43 girls in Santa Clara County remain missing since January 2011.

"You wonder whether any of those are also abductions," she said.

If the sheriff alarmed the public, she also caught local police agencies by surprise when on Wednesday she upped the number of missing to 63 and listed them by city. And while the number may be technically accurate, it does not reflect the number of children in danger, they say. Most of those on the list are runaways.

More @ link - http://www.mercurynews.com/campbell/ci_20711534/many-santa-clara-county-sheriffs-missing-girls-arent

SweetT wrote:You know what is scary is that even if a girl starts out being a run away or is suspected of it, how many of those girls end up permanently missing to be later found dead? How many are never found? How many pervs get away with murder because no one is looking for this run away. ?

As a parent, I would like to think that at least a minor suspected to have run away would continued to be sought after and located.

If someone can be charged with unlawful intercourse and stat rape for having consensual sex with someone under 18, then I feel that minors, willingly or unwillingly, unaccounted for should be located because they are not of the age to 'care' for themselves and may ultimately end up in the dead or abducted category.

However it cost a lot of resources to locate missing people we are being told in Celis case and Ayla Reynolds case.

Agencies are also SLOW at updating stats.

What's the TRUTH???!!!

Lash wrote:Many of Santa Clara County sheriff's 'missing girls' aren't really missing

In announcing the arrest in the case of missing teen Sierra LaMar, Sheriff Laurie Smith raised a stir when she asserted that 43 girls in Santa Clara County remain missing since January 2011.

"You wonder whether any of those are also abductions," she said.

If the sheriff alarmed the public, she also caught local police agencies by surprise when on Wednesday she upped the number of missing to 63 and listed them by city. And while the number may be technically accurate, it does not reflect the number of children in danger, they say. Most of those on the list are runaways.

More @ link - http://www.mercurynews.com/campbell/ci_20711534/many-santa-clara-county-sheriffs-missing-girls-arent

Thanks Lash!

43 is a far cry from 400 something.
(I'm wondering I'd the Christian Post was a misprint. I was floored when I read that sentence.)

Tamta wrote:

SweetT wrote:You know what is scary is that even if a girl starts out being a run away or is suspected of it, how many of those girls end up permanently missing to be later found dead? How many are never found? How many pervs get away with murder because no one is looking for this run away. ?

As a parent, I would like to think that at least a minor suspected to have run away would continued to be sought after and located.

If someone can be charged with unlawful intercourse and stat rape for having consensual sex with someone under 18, then I feel that minors, willingly or unwillingly, unaccounted for should be located because they are not of the age to 'care' for themselves and may ultimately end up in the dead or abducted category.

However it cost a lot of resources to locate missing people we are being told in Celis case and Ayla Reynolds case.

Agencies are also SLOW at updating stats.

What's the TRUTH???!!!

Unfortunately a lot of runaway teens *are* runways because they have no one at home who is sober or straight enough to care that they're even missing and/or have any motivation to do any followup with police. It seems to follow suit that once police feel it is a runaway situation - they consider it a domesitc situation and they look to the parents for queues as to how aggressive to pursue or not. If the parents don't give a crap, then cops won't either and they'll just move on to bigger fish. I think the sheer volume of teen prostitutes (who often are runaways) are indicative of the lack of concern of someone back at home.

My experience with friends etc who have had runaway teens, and some of them I have to say were excellent parents. But in the state where I saw this, the LE did not really take them all that seriously. In one case the runaway was 16 or maybe 17 and they pretty much told them that she was close enough to age to do what she wanted. Another the girl was 14 and moved in with a 19 yr old. Le told them that since the parents knew where the girl was, she technically was not a run away. They would and offered to go get her, but she could continue to run away and unless her parents wanted her locked up in juvenille detention there was not a lot they could do about it. Now to note, the 19 yr old did live with his parents also..WHo also called LE and let them know she was at their home. But in both cases there was no rush to help, or even any sense of danger on the part of LE in regard to these girls.

SweetT wrote:My experience with friends etc who have had runaway teens, and some of them I have to say were excellent parents. But in the state where I saw this, the LE did not really take them all that seriously. In one case the runaway was 16 or maybe 17 and they pretty much told them that she was close enough to age to do what she wanted. Another the girl was 14 and moved in with a 19 yr old. Le told them that since the parents knew where the girl was, she technically was not a run away. They would and offered to go get her, but she could continue to run away and unless her parents wanted her locked up in juvenille detention there was not a lot they could do about it. Now to note, the 19 yr old did live with his parents also..WHo also called LE and let them know she was at their home. But in both cases there was no rush to help, or even any sense of danger on the part of LE in regard to these girls.

I think what both you and Stolat mention is true.

What is the criteria for deciding who gets searched for and located and who does not?

Been away from the site and I'm just reading back through a few days. I see that someone posted a PDF of the complaint and it discusses AGT being charged with being involved in and BEING AN ACCOMPLICE to Sierra's kidnapping/murder.

Wuh?

Has this been discussed more here? Is the accomplice charge just a cover all the bases kind of charge, or is there something more here?

ExerSarah: My take on it is that it is normal procedure or verbage. But that is my opinion, and I think it is to cover all their bases.
I will give an example: In my state if you are not married but file a petition for child support, even though you were never married the paperwork will state that you are having a divorce from this other person. WEIRD, but thats just how the paperwork reads.

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

RE: DNA

Strong association does not imply a clear, linear connection to me.

If it is a clear and distinct match, why is not referred to a strong correlation?

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

RE: DNA

Strong association does not imply a clear, linear connection to me.

If it is a clear and distinct match, why is not referred to a strong correlation?

I'm curious - is "association" and "correlation" used to denote distinctly different degrees of likeness? Or are those interchangeable terms? Because in stats world, they often are interchangeable. If an observation has a correlation coefficient close to "1.0" then we can say the "association" of the two variables is quite "strong" or "highly probable". In the stats world we greatly shy from saying "perfect match" or "absolute", because in nature there *always* exists some outliers or "+/- degree of tolerance" (ie., "wiggle room" for unexplained error). We say "strong" "probable" "high degree certainty" -- words like that. Rarely say "done deal, no doubt about it". In the stat world, we *always* entertain room for doubt. They're called "standard deviations".

Stolat wrote:

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

RE: DNA

Strong association does not imply a clear, linear connection to me.

If it is a clear and distinct match, why is not referred to a strong correlation?

I'm curious - is "association" and "correlation" used to denote distinctly different degrees of likeness? Or are those interchangeable terms? Because in stats world, they often are interchangeable. If an observation has a correlation coefficient close to "1.0" then we can say the "association" of the two variables is quite "strong" or "highly probable". In the stats world we greatly shy from saying "perfect match" or "absolute", because in nature there *always* exists some outliers or "+/- degree of tolerance" (ie., "wiggle room" for unexplained error). We say "strong" "probable" "high degree certainty" -- words like that. Rarely say "done deal, no doubt about it". In the stat world, we *always* entertain room for doubt. They're called "standard deviations".

My basic understanding, is that association can imply another qulatative relationship that is not direct.

We can say 'strong association and weak correlation' which represents a non linear relationship.

If we say 'strong correlation' that to me represents a linear (and therefore stronger) relationship.

I know that DNA is not 100% purely and that they do have to give room for error.

I also do not know if when speaking about DNA if it would be said to be a correlation.

I would have to look into that.

I just re-read the SOF and it made me think.

Tamta wrote:

Stolat wrote:

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

RE: DNA

Strong association does not imply a clear, linear connection to me.

If it is a clear and distinct match, why is not referred to a strong correlation?

I'm curious - is "association" and "correlation" used to denote distinctly different degrees of likeness? Or are those interchangeable terms? Because in stats world, they often are interchangeable. If an observation has a correlation coefficient close to "1.0" then we can say the "association" of the two variables is quite "strong" or "highly probable". In the stats world we greatly shy from saying "perfect match" or "absolute", because in nature there *always* exists some outliers or "+/- degree of tolerance" (ie., "wiggle room" for unexplained error). We say "strong" "probable" "high degree certainty" -- words like that. Rarely say "done deal, no doubt about it". In the stat world, we *always* entertain room for doubt. They're called "standard deviations".

My basic understanding, is that association can imply another qulatative relationship that is not direct.

We can say 'strong association and weak correlation' which represents a non linear relationship.

If we say 'strong correlation' that to me represents a linear (and therefore stronger) relationship.

I know that DNA is not 100% purely and that they do have to give room for error.

I also do not know if when speaking about DNA if it would be said to be a correlation.

I would have to look into that.

I just re-read the SOF and it made me think.

I would like to be educated as well as it relates to DNA, so appreciate anything you find. As it relates to stats, a correlation would more appropriately be used to describe the relative closeness of two variables, two events, etc. For example: Does the rise in inflation adequately or strongly explain the decrease in consumer spending,....etc. A correlation coefficient of 1.0 would indicate that the relationship of inflation to consumer spending is so strong that one could suggest that any movement in inflation would sufficiently explain the subsequent movement in consumer spending as well. But an "association" may possibly be more appropriate when describing "likeness", so the likeness between the composition of Sierra's DNA taken from her hairbrush or toothbrush is very much like the composition of the DNA matter found in Torre's car. Anyway -- that's my analytical interpretation - but I'd be happy to learn more.

http://twitter.com/#!/karinanews

Karina Rusk ‏@karinanews
Sheriff dive team not in the water today in Sierra LaMar case but community volunteers are out once again looking for missing 15 year old.
_________________________________

where are you Sierra???

Stolat wrote:

Tamta wrote:

Stolat wrote:

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

RE: DNA

Strong association does not imply a clear, linear connection to me.

If it is a clear and distinct match, why is not referred to a strong correlation?

I'm curious - is "association" and "correlation" used to denote distinctly different degrees of likeness? Or are those interchangeable terms? Because in stats world, they often are interchangeable. If an observation has a correlation coefficient close to "1.0" then we can say the "association" of the two variables is quite "strong" or "highly probable". In the stats world we greatly shy from saying "perfect match" or "absolute", because in nature there *always* exists some outliers or "+/- degree of tolerance" (ie., "wiggle room" for unexplained error). We say "strong" "probable" "high degree certainty" -- words like that. Rarely say "done deal, no doubt about it". In the stat world, we *always* entertain room for doubt. They're called "standard deviations".

My basic understanding, is that association can imply another qulatative relationship that is not direct.

We can say 'strong association and weak correlation' which represents a non linear relationship.

If we say 'strong correlation' that to me represents a linear (and therefore stronger) relationship.

I know that DNA is not 100% purely and that they do have to give room for error.

I also do not know if when speaking about DNA if it would be said to be a correlation.

I would have to look into that.

I just re-read the SOF and it made me think.

I would like to be educated as well as it relates to DNA, so appreciate anything you find. As it relates to stats, a correlation would more appropriately be used to describe the relative closeness of two variables, two events, etc. For example: Does the rise in inflation adequately or strongly explain the decrease in consumer spending,....etc. A correlation coefficient of 1.0 would indicate that the relationship of inflation to consumer spending is so strong that one could suggest that any movement in inflation would sufficiently explain the subsequent movement in consumer spending as well. But an "association" may possibly be more appropriate when describing "likeness", so the likeness between the composition of Sierra's DNA taken from her hairbrush or toothbrush is very much like the composition of the DNA matter found in Torre's car. Anyway -- that's my analytical interpretation - but I'd be happy to learn more.

i will follow up for sure!

Honeysage wrote:http://twitter.com/#!/karinanews

Karina Rusk ‏@karinanews
Sheriff dive team not in the water today in Sierra LaMar case but community volunteers are out once again looking for missing 15 year old.
_________________________________

where are you Sierra???

I kept wondering who might best know this guy's inner workings, his routines, his patterns. I'm starting to think the answer is "no one."

This guy has the most pictures I've ever seen a man post of "pets" or "animals" on his MySpace account. IIRC he has something like 21 photos under "pets". He does not identify well with humans - but rather, more closely to animals, or so it seems to lend itself nonverbally. The implication is a disconnect to people - a tendancy to conceal and hugely internalize. I don't think there's a soul alive who knows where he's truly been when he's alone and doesn't want to be found. Or doesn't want something else found.

Stolat wrote:

Honeysage wrote:http://twitter.com/#!/karinanews

Karina Rusk ‏@karinanews
Sheriff dive team not in the water today in Sierra LaMar case but community volunteers are out once again looking for missing 15 year old.
_________________________________

where are you Sierra???

I kept wondering who might best know this guy's inner workings, his routines, his patterns. I'm starting to think the answer is "no one."

This guy has the most pictures I've ever seen a man post of "pets" or "animals" on his MySpace account. IIRC he has something like 21 photos under "pets". He does not identify well with humans - but rather, more closely to animals, or so it seems to lend itself nonverbally. The implication is a disconnect to people - a tendancy to conceal and hugely internalize. I don't think there's a soul alive who knows where he's truly been when he's alone and doesn't want to be found. Or doesn't want something else found.

Ugh.

Machista?


My husband posts photos of himself, the animals he butchers , and his food.
(chef)

You wouldn't know that we were even together by a look at his page sometimes.

I think its safe to say Machista has Strong correlation with minimal interpersonal skills.

Tamta wrote:

Stolat wrote:

Honeysage wrote:http://twitter.com/#!/karinanews

Karina Rusk ‏@karinanews
Sheriff dive team not in the water today in Sierra LaMar case but community volunteers are out once again looking for missing 15 year old.
_________________________________

where are you Sierra???

I kept wondering who might best know this guy's inner workings, his routines, his patterns. I'm starting to think the answer is "no one."

This guy has the most pictures I've ever seen a man post of "pets" or "animals" on his MySpace account. IIRC he has something like 21 photos under "pets". He does not identify well with humans - but rather, more closely to animals, or so it seems to lend itself nonverbally. The implication is a disconnect to people - a tendancy to conceal and hugely internalize. I don't think there's a soul alive who knows where he's truly been when he's alone and doesn't want to be found. Or doesn't want something else found.

Ugh.

Machista?


My husband posts photos of himself, the animals he butchers , and his food.
(chef)

You wouldn't know that we were even together by a look at his page sometimes.

as long as it's not before/after animal butcher shots... lol This guy Torres has mostly animals pictured -- they outnumber by far any other category of photo -- self, friends, landscape, drinking/smoking etc -- mostly just animals. and they're usually just pictured alone. It may say nothing, it may say something. But when the photos of animals far outnumber photos of human I question where the connection ties are.

Stolat wrote:

Tamta wrote:

SweetT wrote:You know what is scary is that even if a girl starts out being a run away or is suspected of it, how many of those girls end up permanently missing to be later found dead? How many are never found? How many pervs get away with murder because no one is looking for this run away. ?

As a parent, I would like to think that at least a minor suspected to have run away would continued to be sought after and located.

If someone can be charged with unlawful intercourse and stat rape for having consensual sex with someone under 18, then I feel that minors, willingly or unwillingly, unaccounted for should be located because they are not of the age to 'care' for themselves and may ultimately end up in the dead or abducted category.

However it cost a lot of resources to locate missing people we are being told in Celis case and Ayla Reynolds case.

Agencies are also SLOW at updating stats.

What's the TRUTH???!!!

Unfortunately a lot of runaway teens *are* runways because they have no one at home who is sober or straight enough to care that they're even missing and/or have any motivation to do any followup with police. It seems to follow suit that once police feel it is a runaway situation - they consider it a domesitc situation and they look to the parents for queues as to how aggressive to pursue or not. If the parents don't give a crap, then cops won't either and they'll just move on to bigger fish. I think the sheer volume of teen prostitutes (who often are runaways) are indicative of the lack of concern of someone back at home.

While I know most of you are out of state, I have to speak up here and give my take on this. Santa Clara county covers a big area and a lot of it is the city of San Jose (just North of Morgan Hill). It's a big city with a lot of Hispanic population, MANY low income families, LOTS of gang activities, etc. The unfortunate truth is that these kids do not have someone home who cares enough to follow up or even contact police in the first place. To many of these parents it's just one less voice to hear, one less person taking up occassional space in an already crowded house. JMO

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

Hmm. So they want me to believe 400 runaways and one POSSIBLE homicide?

Right.

Freckles: Well you know what they say..They can want in one hand..

Can Sierra LaMar prosecutors convict with no body?

Snipped

Do Prosecutors Have Enough?

Boyd, the prosecutor, is likely to argue that Sierra is dead by pointing to a conspicuous lack of activity on her part. A girl devoted to social media has been silent on Twitter since the day she disappeared, authorities say, and Sierra broke a scheduled rendezvous with a classmate to compare homework and share makeup.

Prosecutors are taking a risk by moving forward. Should Garcia-Torres be acquitted, he could never be retried - even if Sierra's body is found and evidence points directly at him.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/05/30/BA1J1OPGMH.DTL#ixzz1wPO4OZOl

Volunteers Continue Search for Sierra LaMar

Klaas Kids Foundation volunteers are continuing their search for missing Morgan Hill teen Sierra LaMar today.

http://milpitas.patch.com/articles/volunteers-continue-search-for-sierra-lamar-ec5b949e

Searchers still hopeful of finding Sierra LaMar


"Just because we have him, we don't have her yet, so it's not over," said Davina Joy of Fremont. Many volunteers are more dedicated than ever to resolving unanswered questions. Every Wednesday, Toni Richey drives to the search center from Vallejo. "People are wanting some kind of closure to this and they're just worried about the family and they just want to bring Sierra home," he said.


http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/south_bay&id=8681966

SweetT wrote:ExerSarah: My take on it is that it is normal procedure or verbage. But that is my opinion, and I think it is to cover all their bases.
I will give an example: In my state if you are not married but file a petition for child support, even though you were never married the paperwork will state that you are having a divorce from this other person. WEIRD, but thats just how the paperwork reads.

I agree. I looked at the complaint again, and the first charge is indeed murder. The additional charge is kidnapping and that is where the accomplice language comes in. That is the special circumstances charge and the accomplice language seems to come right out of the penal code:

CA Penal Code section 190.2:
(a) The penalty for a defendant who is found guilty of
murder in the first degree is death or imprisonment in the state
prison for life without the possibility of parole if one or more of
the following special circumstances has been found under Section
190.4 to be true:
....
(17) The murder was committed while the defendant was engaged in,
or was an accomplice in, the commission of, attempted commission of,
or the immediate flight after committing, or attempting to commit,
the following felonies:
(A) Robbery in violation of Section 211 or 212.5.
(B) Kidnapping in violation of Section 207, 209, or 209.5.
(C) Rape in violation of Section 261.
(D) Sodomy in violation of Section 286.
(E) The performance of a lewd or lascivious act upon the person of
a child under the age of 14 years in violation of Section 288.
(F) Oral copulation in violation of Section 288a.
(G) Burglary in the first or second degree in violation of Section
460.
(H) Arson in violation of subdivision (b) of Section 451.
(I) Train wrecking in violation of Section 219.
(J) Mayhem in violation of Section 203.
(K) Rape by instrument in violation of Section 289.
(L) Carjacking, as defined in Section 215.
(M) To prove the special circumstances of kidnapping in
subparagraph (B), or arson in subparagraph (H), if there is specific
intent to kill, it is only required that there be proof of the
elements of those felonies. If so established, those two special
circumstances are proven even if the felony of kidnapping or arson is
committed primarily or solely for the purpose of facilitating the
murder.

Tamta wrote:Can Sierra LaMar prosecutors convict with no body?

Snipped

Do Prosecutors Have Enough?

Boyd, the prosecutor, is likely to argue that Sierra is dead by pointing to a conspicuous lack of activity on her part. A girl devoted to social media has been silent on Twitter since the day she disappeared, authorities say, and Sierra broke a scheduled rendezvous with a classmate to compare homework and share makeup.

Prosecutors are taking a risk by moving forward. Should Garcia-Torres be acquitted, he could never be retried - even if Sierra's body is found and evidence points directly at him.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/05/30/BA1J1OPGMH.DTL#ixzz1wPO4OZOl

I really hope they are not hanging their hats primarily on the lack of social media activity. I know they have DNA, which is definitely good evidence, but hopefully they have developed more than just that and the sudden lack of social media activity.

ExerSarah wrote:

Tamta wrote:Can Sierra LaMar prosecutors convict with no body?

Snipped

Do Prosecutors Have Enough?

Boyd, the prosecutor, is likely to argue that Sierra is dead by pointing to a conspicuous lack of activity on her part. A girl devoted to social media has been silent on Twitter since the day she disappeared, authorities say, and Sierra broke a scheduled rendezvous with a classmate to compare homework and share makeup.

Prosecutors are taking a risk by moving forward. Should Garcia-Torres be acquitted, he could never be retried - even if Sierra's body is found and evidence points directly at him.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/05/30/BA1J1OPGMH.DTL#ixzz1wPO4OZOl

I really hope they are not hanging their hats primarily on the lack of social media activity. I know they have DNA, which is definitely good evidence, but hopefully they have developed more than just that and the sudden lack of social media activity.

I am looking forward to further elaboration on the evidence of her homicide and the direct evidence of Torres' involvement.

DNA: SOME DETAILS

It's a match!
by Philip Dawid and Rachel Thomas


Snippets
BBM

-the evidence that often closes the case is a DNA match.

-Our DNA is almost always unique, so at first glance it might seem that if the police have matched a suspect's DNA to evidence from the crime scene, then the case is closed. But it isn't as simple as that.

-In a criminal case we'll typically have two profiles, one from the scene of the crime and one from the suspect. And if it's come to court they probably look identical.

-Because we're only looking at something like 13 different places on the genome, it's not logically impossible for two entirely unrelated people to match just by chance. We need to know roughly how unlikely that is.

-The match probabilities calculated for DNA profiles today are usually in the order of 1 in a billion.

-The obvious but absolutely wrong thing to do is to say: "The rarity of this profile is 1 in 2 million. So there's only a 1 in 2 million chance that it came from someone other than the suspect... We've got him!"

-Imagine you are in the jury for a criminal trial. We'll use a real case as an example: the trial of Denis John Adams for sexual assault in 1995. The only incriminating evidence presented by the prosecution was that Adams' DNA profile matched a crime sample taken from the victim that was accepted as coming from the culprit. The estimates of the match probability in this case ranged from 1 in 2 million, to 1 in 200 million. For the moment we'll use the value of 1 in 2 million.

-This error is a form of the Prosecutor's Fallacy — misinterpreting the match probability (the probability that a random person's profile matches the crime sample) as the probability this particular person is innocent on the basis of the evidence. And as the match probability is very small, just 1 in 2 million, then we mistakenly think that:
Probability that Adams is guilty

-So what should you do with the match probability?

-We have a particular profile that happens to be identical to both Adams and the sample taken from the victim. Whether the crime sample came from Adams or not we don't know, but it has the same DNA profile. But that profile also exists in the population at large. And the question is, who else could there be out there with that profile?

-You can't treat the match probability as meaningful in itself. The match probability tells how likely it is that a random person's DNA profile will match the crime sample. To take the match probability into account we need to calculate the likelihood ratio:

LR =
(Probability of observing the evidence if the defendant is GUILTY)
_______________________________________________
(Probability of observing the evidence if the defendant is INNOCENT)


The likelihood ratio measures the impact of the evidence.

This gives:
LR = 1 / (Match probability) ~ 2 million

-So, the likelihood ratio tells us that we are 2 million times more likely to observe the evidence if Adams is guilty than if he is innocent. However, by considering the match probability in isolation we are only looking at the probability of the DNA profile evidence. And as it might be possible that this evidence could occur even if Adams is innocent, it is only indirectly related to the probability of his guilt.


-Before introducing any evidence, the accused should be considered as no more likely to be guilty that any other 'random' member of the appropriate population.

-This initial figure of 1 in 200,000 is called the prior odds of his guilt. Starting from this position of presumed innocence, we can now use the likelihood ratio, LR, to take into account the DNA profile evidence. (The following is a restatement of Bayes Theorem of conditional probability — you can read more about Bayes Theorem andconditional probability in Plus.)
From the facts of the crime it is reasonable to suppose that the culprit was a man aged between 18 and 60 who is likely to live locally. There were about 150,000 of these, and we could expand this to, say, 200,000 to allow some possibility of a non-local culprit. Before any explicit evidence is presented all that is known about Adams at this point is that he matches these characteristics. Therefore, assuming that Adams is no more likely to be guilty than any man in the local area we can estimate that there is a 1 in 200,000 chance that he is guilty.

Posterior odds of guilt = LR x prior odds = 2 million x (1/200,000) = 10

This is the posterior odds of guilt:, it's the ratio of chances favouring guilt to chances favouring innocence. The posterior odds is 10 chances to 1, so 10 chances out of a total of 11, giving a probability of about 91% that he is guilty. In the court of public opinion he is probably guilty, it's beyond 90%.

But is that good enough for a court of law, is that beyond reasonable doubt?


http://plus.maths.org/content/os/issue55/features/dnacourt/index

South Bay News Searchers still hopeful of finding Sierra LaMar
Wednesday, May 30th, 2012- Karina Rusk

MORGAN HILL, Calif. (KGO) -- Search teams went out again in the South Bay Wednesday in a scheduled search for missing Morgan Hill teenager Sierra LaMar. They've searched lakes, reservoirs, and ponds for her. She disappeared March 16 and her parents refuse to give up hope, even though a suspect has been arrested for murder.

Wednesday was the first time Rommel Estrada has helped with the search to find Sierra and yet there was no questioning his commitment. It was a 6-hour drive to get to Morgan Hill. "I came all the way from LA, [left at] 3 a.m. this morning. It's sad, but it's unfortunate... if I can be of any help, that would be great," he told ABC7 News. Rommel has been following Sierra LaMar's case since the teenager disappeared March 16.

More @ link- http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/south_bay&id=8681966

Garcia-Torres set to enter plea in Sierra LaMar case
May 31, 2012

Snipped-

--The suspect in the Sierra LaMar case is expected to enter a plea when he returns to court Thursday afternoon.

--Garcia-Torres, who is facing one count of murder and one count of kidnapping, only appeared for a few moments and his public defender asked Santa Clara Superior Court Judge Jerome Nadler to continue the case for a week.

--DNA collected from the clothing was found to have a "strong association" to that of Antolin Garcia-Torres, who lived 7 miles from Sierra's home, according to the statement.

More @ link - http://www.ktvu.com/news/news/crime-law/garcia-torres-set-enter-plea-sierra-lamar-case/nPH2D/

Color me a skeptic. Show me a very, very strong evidence chain.

I want to know why that mother did NOT go looking for a missing child until the school called.

I want to know why, when the school called, the mother did not first call Sierra's classmates, her ex-, the neighbors, etc. PRIOR to calling 911.

The woman did not panic over a missing daughter. For hours she even enjoyed a meal with her bf. Suddenly she panics? What, she has marbles loose and routinely misplaces her children? But only when someone says, "Your daughter is missing" does she now freak out and start calling.... 911? Does not first check with the logical others! Wow.

I am not a believer. Not yet. Maybe later. Maybe not.

Freckles wrote:Color me a skeptic. Show me a very, very strong evidence chain.

I want to know why that mother did NOT go looking for a missing child until the school called.

I want to know why, when the school called, the mother did not first call Sierra's classmates, her ex-, the neighbors, etc. PRIOR to calling 911.

The woman did not panic over a missing daughter. For hours she even enjoyed a meal with her bf. Suddenly she panics? What, she has marbles loose and routinely misplaces her children? But only when someone says, "Your daughter is missing" does she now freak out and start calling.... 911? Does not first check with the logical others! Wow.

I am not a believer. Not yet. Maybe later. Maybe not.

Hi Freckles - What information do you have that states Marlene and Rick had dinner before calling 911? Where have you read Marlene did not contact friends or family before the school called or before calling 911?

Freckles wrote:Color me a skeptic. Show me a very, very strong evidence chain.

I want to know why that mother did NOT go looking for a missing child until the school called.

I want to know why, when the school called, the mother did not first call Sierra's classmates, her ex-, the neighbors, etc. PRIOR to calling 911.

The woman did not panic over a missing daughter. For hours she even enjoyed a meal with her bf. Suddenly she panics? What, she has marbles loose and routinely misplaces her children? But only when someone says, "Your daughter is missing" does she now freak out and start calling.... 911? Does not first check with the logical others! Wow.

I am not a believer. Not yet. Maybe later. Maybe not.

IMO today as things appear with what's been stated, neither Torres, a stranger abduction by another male, or familial responsibility can be out ruled or confirmed.

I'd like to hear about the direct evidence.

Prosecuting and convicting an individual just in case they may be responsible to me, does not sound like justice or what effectively serves the public's safety.

Lash wrote:

Freckles wrote:Color me a skeptic. Show me a very, very strong evidence chain.

I want to know why that mother did NOT go looking for a missing child until the school called.

I want to know why, when the school called, the mother did not first call Sierra's classmates, her ex-, the neighbors, etc. PRIOR to calling 911.

The woman did not panic over a missing daughter. For hours she even enjoyed a meal with her bf. Suddenly she panics? What, she has marbles loose and routinely misplaces her children? But only when someone says, "Your daughter is missing" does she now freak out and start calling.... 911? Does not first check with the logical others! Wow.

I am not a believer. Not yet. Maybe later. Maybe not.

Hi Freckles - What information do you have that states Marlene and Rick had dinner before calling 911? Where have you read Marlene did not contact friends or family before the school called or before calling 911?

Did she call 911?
I never heard that before.

Lash wrote:

Freckles wrote:Color me a skeptic. Show me a very, very strong evidence chain.

I want to know why that mother did NOT go looking for a missing child until the school called.

I want to know why, when the school called, the mother did not first call Sierra's classmates, her ex-, the neighbors, etc. PRIOR to calling 911.

The woman did not panic over a missing daughter. For hours she even enjoyed a meal with her bf. Suddenly she panics? What, she has marbles loose and routinely misplaces her children? But only when someone says, "Your daughter is missing" does she now freak out and start calling.... 911? Does not first check with the logical others! Wow.

I am not a believer. Not yet. Maybe later. Maybe not.

Hi Freckles - What information do you have that states Marlene and Rick had dinner before calling 911? Where have you read Marlene did not contact friends or family before the school called or before calling 911?

I had not read that Marlene never contacted anyone else by any means (text, email, phone, etc) prior to calling 911.

Also - I have an indication that it is highly unlikely Marlene would know HOW to contact any of Sierra's friends in a frantic rush.

Think about it -- If I lost my phone today -- I'd be ROYALLY SCREWED because I don't even know what my own boyfriend's phone number is -- never have. I programmed it into my phone 3 yrs ago and haven't had to memorize it since. Same goes for most of my other friends. Sure, I know how to use a phone book -- but if I was in a pinch, I only know 3 or 4 numbers by heart.

If Marlene didn't have Sierra's phone, didn't have Sierra's contact list and didn't know Sierra's friends LAST NAMES - which I find *highly* probable based on the evidence from her blog that Marlene didn't know very much of what Sierra's life consisted of -- then HOW would Marlene call anyone? Who would she call first? How would she get their number? Where do you start if you don't even know someone's last name.

As a mother -- would YOU waste precious moments searching for such things -- or would you go ahead and call 911. *I* would call 911. *I* know my daughter's friends last names -- but *if* I didn't, and I didn't have a good feel about the fact that school reported her missing -- I wouldn't want to waste another minute.

Lash,
Oh, no! I have no links.
IIRC, Marlene and Rick were eating supper shortly after 6 PM when the school automated message rang in stating Sierra was ot in school that day.

From what I understand, that is when Marlene either called PD or 911 to report Sierra missing.

There is NO report from Marlene she attempted to call anyone else to inquire of Sierra so I ASSUME (yeah, I know...)she did not call others.

Fact to factoid to speculation.

Stolat wrote:

Lash wrote:

Freckles wrote:Color me a skeptic. Show me a very, very strong evidence chain.

I want to know why that mother did NOT go looking for a missing child until the school called.

I want to know why, when the school called, the mother did not first call Sierra's classmates, her ex-, the neighbors, etc. PRIOR to calling 911.

The woman did not panic over a missing daughter. For hours she even enjoyed a meal with her bf. Suddenly she panics? What, she has marbles loose and routinely misplaces her children? But only when someone says, "Your daughter is missing" does she now freak out and start calling.... 911? Does not first check with the logical others! Wow.

I am not a believer. Not yet. Maybe later. Maybe not.

Hi Freckles - What information do you have that states Marlene and Rick had dinner before calling 911? Where have you read Marlene did not contact friends or family before the school called or before calling 911?

I had not read that Marlene never contacted anyone else by any means (text, email, phone, etc) prior to calling 911.

Also - I have an indication that it is highly unlikely Marlene would know HOW to contact any of Sierra's friends in a frantic rush.

Think about it -- If I lost my phone today -- I'd be ROYALLY SCREWED because I don't even know what my own boyfriend's phone number is -- never have. I programmed it into my phone 3 yrs ago and haven't had to memorize it since. Same goes for most of my other friends. Sure, I know how to use a phone book -- but if I was in a pinch, I only know 3 or 4 numbers by heart.

If Marlene didn't have Sierra's phone, didn't have Sierra's contact list and didn't know Sierra's friends LAST NAMES - which I find *highly* probable based on the evidence from her blog that Marlene didn't know very much of what Sierra's life consisted of -- then HOW would Marlene call anyone? Who would she call first? How would she get their number? Where do you start if you don't even know someone's last name.

As a mother -- would YOU waste precious moments searching for such things -- or would you go ahead and call 911. *I* would call 911. *I* know my daughter's friends last names -- but *if* I didn't, and I didn't have a good feel about the fact that school reported her missing -- I wouldn't want to waste another minute.

It would take time to review the earliest articles on this case to try to find official links to substantiate that Marlene engaged in inquiries to dad and friends prior to contacting police to report Sierras disappearance.

I recall something about Marlene contacting the mother of Sierras best friend after receiving the school email.

What some former Hinky members may know about this might be out under the rubric of hearsay as the information may have come from another source, maybe another poster.
Thus Should be weighted accordingly until we can place direct quotes from Marlene.

Freckles wrote:Color me a skeptic. Show me a very, very strong evidence chain.

I want to know why that mother did NOT go looking for a missing child until the school called.

I want to know why, when the school called, the mother did not first call Sierra's classmates, her ex-, the neighbors, etc. PRIOR to calling 911.

The woman did not panic over a missing daughter. For hours she even enjoyed a meal with her bf. Suddenly she panics? What, she has marbles loose and routinely misplaces her children? But only when someone says, "Your daughter is missing" does she now freak out and start calling.... 911? Does not first check with the logical others! Wow.

I am not a believer. Not yet. Maybe later. Maybe not.

Freckles I totally understand what you are saying. It seems to me as I may have been a bit on the rule oriented side that some parents have looser ideas about how children report or come home. My rule was that you come home immediately from school and then go elsewhere... a phone call was not sufficient as it did not provide me with a hands on visual of my child. Marlene has always seemed hinky because she was definitely seemingly hiding something.. I truly believe that at least part of that was that she is a mother but not a parent. I believe that Sierra was pretty much a ghost in that house long before now and needed to be self reliant as Mom was busy with a new beau! They may have passed hello's and goodbye's but not much more! The stated calls to Sierra by mom was just that! What's up, Where are you, when will you be home? JMO

Did Marlene call 911?
Did she call the PD directly?

Is there a link that says that?

Freckles wrote:Lash,
Oh, no! I have no links.
IIRC, Marlene and Rick were eating supper shortly after 6 PM when the school automated message rang in stating Sierra was ot in school that day.

From what I understand, that is when Marlene either called PD or 911 to report Sierra missing.

There is NO report from Marlene she attempted to call anyone else to inquire of Sierra so I ASSUME (yeah, I know...)she did not call others.

Fact to factoid to speculation.

I, too, have read links where she called some of Sierra's friends and rode down to the school at some point to see if she missed the bus. As if. The last of the faculty don't leave to go home unless all kids have been picked up first or arrangements made,
and carried out.

But, this is interesting. It has made me wonder then what access Marlene had to Sierra's phone to know WHAT contact numbers were programmed in there!

I don't think her after school actions, from saying she called at 3:45 knowing full well Sierra didn't normally even arrive home until between 4 and 4:30, or so I've read, have been laid out.
What good did it do to try to see if she got home alright so early?
Wouldn't the better time be to call after 4:30?
In any case, what EXACTLY were Marlene's concerns from the 3:45 calls forward, (she left 4?), until the school call came and what were her actions from the time she arrived home and at what times?

Not sure of others, but...
When my kids were in school, I always had the after hours phone numbers for the bus drivers, school counselors, some of the teachers. I had a list of neighbors including the ones living closest to the bus stop. I sometimes had a list of those special school friends. Matter of course.

I knew when my kids were going to be home. If they were not home when expected, I gave them 15 minutes before I started calling and back-tracking their day. Yep. I was a mama-bear!

We did not eat until EVERYONE was at the supper table. They knew that. If there was a school event, we usually ALL attended. Did not matter because we still would not eat until everyone was home. (Snacks, yes.) I just find it odd for her to be eating supper without her daughter present. Not a large family.

I never grounded my kids. If they were more than 15 late, I called around or drove the neighborhood looking for my child. I might drive to the school if there had been a school event.

(This is all pre cell phones.)

Typo Positive wrote:

Freckles wrote:Lash,
Oh, no! I have no links.
IIRC, Marlene and Rick were eating supper shortly after 6 PM when the school automated message rang in stating Sierra was ot in school that day.

From what I understand, that is when Marlene either called PD or 911 to report Sierra missing.

There is NO report from Marlene she attempted to call anyone else to inquire of Sierra so I ASSUME (yeah, I know...)she did not call others.

Fact to factoid to speculation.

I, too, have read links where she called some of Sierra's friends and rode down to the school at some point to see if she missed the bus. As if. The last of the faculty don't leave to go home unless all kids have been picked up first or arrangements made,
and carried out.

But, this is interesting. It has made me wonder then what contact Marlene had to Sierra's phone to know WHAT contact numbers were programmed in there!

I don't think her after school actions from saying she called at 3:45 knowing full well Sierra didn't normally even arrive home until between 4 and 4:30, or so I've read.
What good did it do to try to see if she got home alright so early?
Wouldn't the better time be to call after 4:30?
In any case, what EXACTLY were Marlene's concerns from the 3:45
until the call came and what were her actions from the time she arrived home and at what time?

I think any contacting done by ML was to Freemont friends and Steve.
I'm sure that ML had some numbers or Steve did.


From her SM, I gathered that Sierra did not have close friends in MH yet.

I don't know if Sierra had given her mom any indication the night before that she may not be or may not want to be coming home after school Friday.

Me?
I would have called Dad and then 911.
I'm neurotic.

Marlene and Sierras cell records would represent the routine for contact.

Did Marlene attempt to call Sierra that afternoon?
If so, I apologize as I had not heard that.
I understood, from her, the last contact was that AM--- about 6 AM.

Tamta-
IIRC, didn't the LE speak at length to one of her MH friends?
Was Sierra not going to loan some clothing to another girl from MH?
(I wondered if the shirt in the purse was that item.)

Freckles wrote:Did Marlene attempt to call Sierra that afternoon?
If so, I apologize as I had not heard that.
I understood, from her, the last contact was that AM--- about 6 AM.

Marlene reported I think 3 attempts to text Sierra at 345pm when she left work to come home.

Tamta wrote:

Freckles wrote:Did Marlene attempt to call Sierra that afternoon?
If so, I apologize as I had not heard that.
I understood, from her, the last contact was that AM--- about 6 AM.

Marlene reported I think 3 attempts to text Sierra at 345pm when she left work to come home.

Time to pull over.
I am asleep at the wheel here.