CA-Sandra Cantu Missing 3/28/2009 from Tracy,#2

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
I've seen several Mobile Home Parks that have been numbered consecutively, up one side of the street and down the other side of that same street, then on to the next street. If you count from 34 going down, then back up the next street on the right and then down that street, etc. you will end up with the numbers falling into line when you get to 61 and 63. I have no idea whatsoever how they numbered the perimeter of this park. I've seen it before where they number the perimeter in order, and then zigzag up and down each street. This does work until you get to 20 but I don't know where they go from there - or why. Keep in mind some parks do weird things like skipping a number(s) if something is in place of a mobile home space (like a car wash station or clubhouse). I've seen that and it is confusing!

I hope that makes sense how I explained it.

The important part is it's easy to determine which is #43 (Slayter's) if you follow this method - his would be on the left side of the street between #34 and #63. Anyone know what number Sinclair and Wohler are?

STEADFAST said:
Then the numbers are all weird.:waitasec:

Here's what it's like there, as far as I can tell. I wonder where Slayter's #43 is and where Sinclair and Wohler live?
canturoute2-1.jpg
Click to expand...
 
Goodnight Salem... Your posts have been really incredible!
 
STEADFAST said:
Well, the original could have had the artifacts, too, and probably did. The camera would have to convert the image in front of it to some kind of digital format, and surveillance cameras are not going to use the highest resolution possible. They are going to just get the gist of what's there, not make an exact reproduction. All kinds of little gremlins end up in digital images and even more in videotaped images.
In real life, it's likely that her shirt did not seem white like it does in the video. But the video is reacting to how bright it is compared to the background.
Click to expand...

Okay - I understand the brightness/contrast aspect. And I can follow along with the "bad resolution" arguement. It makes sense and it would explain what LE is saying. They see it too - they have called in the experts and determined it is nothing. So, if I can let go of my suspicious mind, this is logical.

What about the shadow lengths? What do you think about that? I have calendered an outside appointment to check the length of my shadow at 4:00 p.m.ish and have DH take a picture :) Then will follow up with a 7:00 p.m.ish and see what happens.

If the shadows appear to be consistent with the video and the timeline as we know it, then I will buy that LE also had to wade through the "compression stuff" to figure out if Sandra was carrying something on her right side.

Salem
 
STEADFAST said:
Then the numbers are all weird.:waitasec:

Here's what it's like there, as far as I can tell. I wonder where Slayter's #43 is and where Sinclair and Wohler live?
canturoute2-1.jpg
Click to expand...

Didn't someone say that Slayter lived behind the Cantu's?
 
Salem said:
Okay - I understand the brightness/contrast aspect. And I can follow along with the "bad resolution" arguement. It makes sense and it would explain what LE is saying. They see it too - they have called in the experts and determined it is nothing. So, if I can let go of my suspicious mind, this is logical.

What about the shadow lengths? What do you think about that? I have calendered an outside appointment to check the length of my shadow at 4:00 p.m.ish and have DH take a picture :) Then will follow up with a 7:00 p.m.ish and see what happens.

If the shadows appear to be consistent with the video and the timeline as we know it, then I will buy that LE also had to wade through the "compression stuff" to figure out if Sandra was carrying something on her right side.

Salem
Click to expand...

I just don't see how that video could have been taken much, if any, earlier than 6 pm.

Don't know where you are in Southern CA, but in Los Angeles, sunset will be at 7:18 pm tomorrow. I don't suppose you could come up with someone 4' tall like Sandra to do a comparison?
 
I think, if iirc, FW lives behind Sandra, and DS lives a couple of units down from her.

Night Mom 'n Daisy.

I don't believe we have numbers for FW or CS. Only DS.

Nora's numbering system makes some sense. I tried the Assessor's in San Joaquin, but I am too tired to go through all the indexes to figure out where everything is at. Maybe tomorrow.

I wish I could just pull the rabbit out of the hat and locate Sandra!

Salem
 
Okay guys - see you in the morning, but for me, it won't be early :)

Salem
 
Just wanted to post that I definately think there is something slung over her right shoulder.
 
According to the records, the mobile home park is one big lot, so the records only show one owner and one mailing address for the owner of the lot. The lot is not broken down by each mobile home address. To me that means that the numbering was designated by the parkowner and the roads are private roads, not publically maintained. So I would not think that the numbers have to follow any normal sequence.
 
When I am watching the video I think I see something. However, since LE has said they had analyzed it and there was not a backpack , I will go with that. My son sells the soft ware that LE uses to do this and he said you would not believe what they can see and find. When I see him I will ask him about this.
 
momtective said:
Location of security cameras on Sandra's home
homesecurity.jpg
Click to expand...

If the video we have seen was captured from the camera in the center of Sandra's MH, wouldn't the camera on the left corner (our right) of the home have captured Sandra continuing down the street and possibly getting into a car?
If she did get into a car the driver would have had to travel Peach, Apple or Apricot in order to exit the park, correct?

Also in this video http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/crime/2009/04/02/ng.trash.search.cnn from NG there is an interview with Sandra's mom. Maybe it's just me but something just isn't right about her not being able to describe with accuracy, exactly where (how far) Sandra's friend(s) lived from Sandra's home.
She states that Sandra visited first, a 5y/o friend then possibly another friend but they can't confirm if she ever made it to the second friends house. What! Why not? Can't they just ask the friend?
It's also stated in this interview that the capture time of the surveillance video was 4:15. I say, No way! Not with that shadow. I think it was well after 6:00pm.
 
momtective said:
Also in this video from NG there is an interview with Sandra's mom. Maybe it's just me but something just isn't right about her not being able to describe with accuracy, exactly where (how far) Sandra's friend(s) lived from Sandra's home.
Click to expand...


And then there was Dominick A's mom who let him wander off into a lake to drown while she sat inside doing who-knows-what. I just can't wrap my head around how some parents just let their kids roam aimlessly without any worry about their safety. Worried enough to report a man for inapproriate behavior in the very same park, but not worried enough to walk her to a friends or be in contact with the friend's mom when she arrives and leaves?

I know that some people will say that the mother should not be attacked because she is living her own personal he!! right now and probably feeling really guilty, but how will her guilt take away from the pain and suffering that Sandra may be enduring? The mother should be charged with neglect or endangering. Guilt is not punishment anough for letting your beautiful an innocent 8 yo baby girl get abducted. 8 yo is not old enough to fend for herself, period. That is neglect. Sorry if my opinion sounds harsh or cruel, that is not my intention. Sandra is the one who was let down and is suffering the most, not her family.
 
I think it's totally plausible the lack of ability for LE to confirm Sandra's "exact" whereabouts prior to her abduction is the possibility that her mother didn't know exactly which friend's she was going to visit. If people feel like they live in a "safe and secure" area, then they tend to let their guard down and aren't necessarily as vigilant as they should be in keeping tabs on their kids. I'm certainly not placing blame on this mother, as I think this event could happen to anyone.
 
http://library.adoption.com/articles/definitions-of-child-abuse-and-neglect-california.html

Penal Code §165.2 (West 1992)

'Neglect' means the negligent treatment or the maltreatment of a child by a person responsible for the child's welfare under circumstances indicating harm or threatened harm to the child's health or welfare. The term includes both acts and omissions on the part of the responsible person.

'Severe neglect' means the negligent failure of a person having the care or custody of a child to protect the child from severe malnutrition or medically diagnosed nonorganic failure to thrive. 'Severe neglect' also means those situations of neglect where any person having the care or custody of a child willfully causes or permits the person or health of the child to be placed in a situation such that his or her person or health is endangered, including the intentional failure to provide adequate food, clothing, shelter, or medical care.

'General neglect' means the negligent failure of a person having the care or custody of a child to provide adequate food, clothing, shelter, medical care, or supervision where no physical injury to the child has occurred.
 
I feel like I should trust LE when they say they had the clip analyzed re: the backpack, but wow, it sure is hard when it looks like there's something there. I am actually, literally 50/50 on it.

As Sandra first appears on frame, she is rotating her arms very freely in a manner that would probably be difficult if she was carrying a bag over her shoulders. If I isolate that section of the clip, I'd be convinced.

But then, as she comes toward the camera and then (from the camera's POV) slightly NE, she seems to hike something back into place and she walks the lopsided, somewhat lumbering walk of someone who is compensating for an imbalance. Leaning left because of something impeding them on the right. Hang a bag of something over your left shoulder and walk a straight line. After jostling around, you'll eventually put more weight on your right side as you start to tire.

It bugs me, because her having a backpack would seem to be very important in this kind of case. I guess if I had to pick one, I'd say no backpack because of her range of motion in the beginning of the clip and LE's findings. But then the end of the clip almost has me convinced there IS one.

Sigh.
 
TripleA said:
And then there was Dominick A's mom who let him wander off into a lake to drown while she sat inside doing who-knows-what. I just can't wrap my head around how some parents just let their kids roam aimlessly without any worry about their safety. Worried enough to report a man for inapproriate behavior in the very same park, but not worried enough to walk her to a friends or be in contact with the friend's mom when she arrives and leaves?

I know that some people will say that the mother should not be attacked because she is living her own personal he!! right now and probably feeling really guilty, but how will her guilt take away from the pain and suffering that Sandra may be enduring? The mother should be charged with neglect or endangering. Guilt is not punishment anough for letting your beautiful an innocent 8 yo baby girl get abducted. 8 yo is not old enough to fend for herself, period. That is neglect. Sorry if my opinion sounds harsh or cruel, that is not my intention. Sandra is the one who was let down and is suffering the most, not her family.
Click to expand...

Respectfully, I disagree about the mother being neglectful. I also think this is not the correct venue to be attacking the victim's family. JMO
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 267 more.
Total: 3,861 (members: 268, guests: 3,593)

Online statistics

Members online
268
Guests online
3,593
Total visitors
3,861
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
595,913
Messages
18,037,148
Members
229,831
Latest member
HOLLYMOORE73
Back
Top