AK - Samantha Koenig, 18, Anchorage, 1 Feb 2012 - #3

[bdawk20]

MOO there was no tampering with the cams.. I believe where the obstructing of the cam idea came from was innocently thru dadinak detailing his tested theory of how he successfully obstructed a domed cam with snow.. That's where the obstruction idea was innocently was derived..

I actually think the obscured idea came from the media:

On Feb. 1, Koenig was working at Common Grounds Espresso in the parking lot of the Alaska Club at 630 E. Tudor Road, police said. Video surveillance shows a man holding a weapon walk up to the coffee hut just before 8 p.m. Police refused to describe the weapon or release any images from the video. The abductor obscured the camera's view somehow, caused Koenig to appear frightened, and forced her to leave with him on foot. They walked to the west, police said.

http://www.adn.com/2012/02/29/v-printer/2344750/search-for-koenig-continues-a.html

 

[ak81]

MOO there was no tampering with the cams.. I believe where the obstructing of the cam idea came from was innocently thru dadinak detailing his tested theory of how he successfully obstructed a domed cam with snow.. That's where the obstruction idea was innocently was derived..

Tyler Duncan, the owner, was the one who first mentioned that the abductor had gone to deliberate means to obstruct the camera (in an ADN article, I'll find the link).. I'd call that tampering.

 

[bdawk20]

But how is he just going to walk in? It is a drive through only business. He would have to know the door was unlocked, which it shouldn't be as a general rule. But if he pulled his mask down and then tried the door and it was locked---then what? She would have seen him with a mask and jiggling the handle.

It would lead you to believe she was expecting someone. Therefore leaving the door unlocked or he knocked and she just opened it.

 

[bdawk20]

But how is he just going to walk in? It is a drive through only business. He would have to know the door was unlocked, which it shouldn't be as a general rule. But if he pulled his mask down and then tried the door and it was locked---then what? She would have seen him with a mask and jiggling the handle.

For you or I, maybe it would not be unlocked, but we don't know if maybe she would take the trash out and not relock it. Maybe she smoked, and would go in and out often without locking it. My next door neighbor goes away for the entire weekend and crazily leaves ALL of her downstairs windows wide open, so there's no telling from one person to another what the general rule is.


jmo

 

[Joe Friday]

Joe don't ya think the people in the parking lot wouldve noticed a mask? I do..

If he was wearing a hood I don't think so. It was dark and I believe it was reported that it was snowing. (Although weather underground says differently at the time Sam was "supposedly" abducted, according to that site it was mostly cloudy or scattered clouds. http://www.wunderground.com/history...y=Anchorage&req_state=AK&req_statename=Alaska)

There were snow banks piled high in the parking lot that would have obscuring the view from the road. (I wonder how the martial arts instructor seen a person walking down the road holding someone is a choke hold if the snow was piled that high)

The snow banks would have limited the route someone could have exited the parking lot also. It is not like they could have just walked across the grass to the side walk. They would have had to walk in the parking lot to where the cars exited to get to the street I would imagine. Look how much snow is piled up in this following video around the 0:30 mark. You can hardly see the cars driving down the road from where the camera was positioned in the parking lot. Not that many people would have seen anyone exit the coffee hut. ONCE away from the camera's he could have taken off the mask. It is Alaska, it is cold and I don't imagine seeing someone wearing a ski mask is something out of the ordinary anyway. Not something anyone would have thought suspicious at the time.

Video: http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/missing-alaska-barista-past-restraining-order-father-speaks-15528378

 

[joslmaman]

It doesn't say that he obscured the camera. It says he took measures to not be captured by the camera.

Like someone said up thread and I have said in the past this could mean that he disguised himself or just wore clothing such as the hoodie or a MASK so he could not be identified by the video.



Well lets see, some guy comes into the coffee shop and is seen wearing a ski mask. Yep, that is obvious and deliberate means to avoid being captured on video. It didn't say that he burst in and placed something in front of the camera or spray painted the lenses. (OK watching to many movies) He had to make sure he couldn't be identified on the camera's that were positioned on the exterior of the building also. What better way to do that then wear a mask.

Bank robbers don't come into a bank and start messing with each and every camera so their image won't be captured on camera. They wear a mask.


I think everyone knows by now where the camera's are located inside and we can't discuss that here now. It would be impossible for this guy to have enter the door and not have been captured by one of the camera's inside. There is no way he could have obscured that camera where it was positioned without his image being clearly captured before he would have obscured the lens. You don't walk up to a camera that is recording and not manage to have your image captured before you obscure or disable it.




The above bolded statement.

If you seen a MASKED man enter your coffee shop wouldn't that be something that would make you call police immediately?

JMO

The annoying thing is that, the second part of that same article could be taken a different way and I didn't catch it when I posted earlier.

The couple would not elaborate on what triggered the call but said the video was obscured somehow.


and this

This perpetrator took obvious and deliberate means to avoid being captured on video," Tyler Duncan said.

Could be interpreted different ways! argh.

Read more here: http://www.adn.com/2012/02/08/23073...torylink=misearch#storylink=cpy#storylink=cpy

 

[joslmaman]

Joe don't ya think the people in the parking lot wouldve noticed a mask? I do..

If someone could get by with it anywhere, unnoticed it would be in Alaska. People do wear those ski masks, especially considering how cold it was and that it was the middle of a snow storm.

 

[ak81]

I actually think the obscured idea came from the media:

On Feb. 1, Koenig was working at Common Grounds Espresso in the parking lot of the Alaska Club at 630 E. Tudor Road, police said. Video surveillance shows a man holding a weapon walk up to the coffee hut just before 8 p.m. Police refused to describe the weapon or release any images from the video. The abductor obscured the camera's view somehow, caused Koenig to appear frightened, and forced her to leave with him on foot. They walked to the west, police said.

http://www.adn.com/2012/02/29/v-printer/2344750/search-for-koenig-continues-a.html

Thanks bdawk, that's what I was looking for. But it came from the Duncans, not the media..

"The first baristas didn't see anything we haven't seen before (with other employees)," Tyler Duncan said. "It just looked like she did a real poor job of closing."

There was no sign of a struggle, he said. Soon after, when the Duncans watched the surveillance video, they saw something that made them call police immediately, he said. The couple would not elaborate on what triggered the call but said the video was obscured somehow.

"This perpetrator took obvious and deliberate means to avoid being captured on video," Tyler Duncan said.

Read more here: http://www.adn.com/2012/02/08/2307318/police-report-some-progress-in.html#storylink=cpy

 

[joslmaman]

This perpetrator took obvious and deliberate means to avoid being captured on video," Tyler Duncan said.


IIRC the "camera being obstructed" was just a discussed possibility and was not reported. The above bolded statement is the only thing I remember reading in regards to the camera/video itself.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Read more here: http://www.adn.com/2012/02/08/2307318/police-report-some-progress-in.html#storylink=cpy

I was definitely wrong. The media has reported both! Not surprising considering all the other discrepancies..IMO

 

[SmoothOperator]

The following is the Q&A with reporters questions followed by LE answer..Heres the link to the 5:55min video-
http://www.adn.com/2012/02/07/2305513/fbi-assists-search-for-abducted.html#storylink=misearch

What can be seen in their interaction?(Sam and perp)
The problem we have here is that during that interaction and him coming inside we cannot clearly see his face and we've all understood that or we'd certainly be releasing that. But we can see obviously her reactions. and the rest here is evidence that we do not want to discuss those actions only the players themselves will be privy to.

What was Samantha's reactions?
Well it was obvious that she was taken away against her will by her reaction.

What indications are there that would have you believe this was not a stranger to her?
Nothing we have released has characterized it to be like that and I'd be careful about that because we dont know if she knew this person or if she did not know this person. But if you think of it like what her job is she's gonna have interaction with hundreds of people a day. She may recognize them as someone who stopped in for coffee once or twice. We dont know and we'll have to wait til the case gets further along before we can make a determination of what the relationship was(if one).

I guess another way to ask that does this appear to be a crime of opportunity or someone who knew Sam?
We just dont know and all avenues are being investigated. Again look at it from the bad guys position, the suspects perspective there is a girl, alone in a coffee kiosk and that they decided to take advantage of her. it could be that she knew him from the coffee hut or not. All avenues are being investigated.

What does her friends/family say about anyone after her or weirdos hanging around the coffee shop?
You guys disvovered the protective order I assume you guys have copies of that(the protective order) As a parent that is someone I'd be concerned about. We're working all avenues and we fully expect we'll be able to put it all together.

Has he been ruled out(CB)?
I dont think they're ready to speak to that.

How many times have you spoken to CB?
I dont believe that they'll answer that its a long and arduous process and we just cant release that right now.

Do police know where he was during the time of the abduction?
If they do they wouldnt release that.

And then the officer goes into the comparing real life cases to 1hr tv shows and how its just not the same and that we have to allow LE to thoroughly investigate..

There were definitely a couple things that jumped out at me..

 

[SmoothOperator]

Thanks ak! Its always beneficial to have a recap on what is known as fact and what has been commonly assumed.. Thanks for poinying out that there was actual statements of obstructing the camera.. Im now back at square one with dadinak's theory of the possibility of snow as a means to instantly,yet very temporarily obstruct the camera..

 

[IHAVENOCLUE]

If he was wearing a hood I don't think so. It was dark and I believe it was reported that it was snowing. (Although weather underground says differently at the time Sam was "supposedly" abducted, according to that site it was mostly cloudy or scattered clouds. http://www.wunderground.com/history...y=Anchorage&req_state=AK&req_statename=Alaska)

There were snow banks piled high in the parking lot that would have obscuring the view from the road. (I wonder how the martial arts instructor seen a person walking down the road holding someone is a choke hold if the snow was piled that high)

The snow banks would have limited the route someone could have exited the parking lot also. It is not like they could have just walked across the grass to the side walk. They would have had to walk in the parking lot to where the cars exited to get to the street I would imagine. Look how much snow is piled up in this following video around the 0:30 mark. You can hardly see the cars driving down the road from where the camera was positioned in the parking lot. Not that many people would have seen anyone exit the coffee hut. ONCE away from the camera's he could have taken off the mask. It is Alaska, it is cold and I don't imagine seeing someone wearing a ski mask is something out of the ordinary anyway. Not something anyone would have thought suspicious at the time.

Video: http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/missing-alaska-barista-past-restraining-order-father-speaks-15528378

Could the mask be a mask that holds more meaning than just to obscure the identity of the perp? Could it have been an eerie Halloween type mask, like Scream, Freddie Kruger, etc., which at a party is considered funny...but in this situation is much more sinister?

And, do we know that the weapon was indeed a gun? I seriously can't remember now. Could the weapon have been one that corresponds to an eerie costume? Freddie Kruger claws, machete, etc.? (I might be getting the characters mixed up, but does anyone know what I mean?)

Just a couple of thoughts......

 

[IHAVENOCLUE]

I was definitely wrong. The media has reported both! Not surprising considering all the other discrepancies..IMO

You weren't wrong...you were half right! :rocker:

 

[dillysmom11]

Wearing a gator with a ski hat would pretty much obscure the entire face and wouldn't be out of place in AK.

 

[katydid23]

So it was also reporting two different ways about HOW he carried out the kidnapping. One article says he went inside the hut. But the one just now linked says he went UP TO the hut and forced her to leave with him.

So it sounds like he brought a weapon to the window and aimed it at her and forced her out. imo



On Feb. 1, Koenig was working at Common Grounds Espresso in the parking lot of the Alaska Club at 630 E. Tudor Road, police said. Video surveillance shows a man holding a weapon walk up to the coffee hut just before 8 p.m. Police refused to describe the weapon or release any images from the video. The abductor obscured the camera's view somehow, caused Koenig to appear frightened, and forced her to leave with him on foot. They walked to the west, police said.

http://www.adn.com/2012/02/29/v-prin...ntinues-a.html


The man allegedly entered the Common Grounds Espresso hut in the parking lot of the Alaska Club on East Tudor, then walked away with her toward the Old Seward Highway, and she hasn’t been seen since.

http://www.alaskapublic.org/2012/02/...ands-not-safe/

 

[SmoothOperator]

Another dtail I am having issue with is the fact that the barista who opened the hut the following morning states that the hut was not cleaned, there were cups of coffee on the counter and SAM'S BELONGINGS WERE LEFT STILL AT THE HUT IN HER CUBBY.
http://www.adn.com/2012/02/03/2298379/police-continue-search-for-missing.html#storylink=misearch

Imo thats not something someone would just fabricate and state to reporters as well as I assume she reported to LE... This barista would have no reason to make up such details such as her coworkers belongings still being in the cubby at the hut when the barista came into work that following morning.. Those are criticial items and crucial details of the incident that had taken place the night prior.. Another reason I believe this barista in her stating this is the fact that she tells that at the time she sees her coworkers belongings were left there that at that point no one was under the impression something nefarious had occurred.. Therefor its not as tho shes stating this claim that it was her discovering the belongings that set in motion discovering the abduction.. Imo there just is zero reason or cause for this barista to have stated something absolutely false and untrue..

Yet sure enough several days later we are told that it is untrue
http://www.adn.com/2012/02/08/2307318/police-report-some-progress-in.html#storylink=misearch
and that Sam DID NOT LEAVE ANY OF HER BELONGINGS BEHIND AT THE HUT! MEANING THAT AS SAM WAS ABDUCTED SHE WAS EITHER ALLOWED OR INSTRUCTED TO RETRIEVE ALL OF HER BELONGINGS FROM THE CUBBY AND TO TAKE WITH HER AS WELL AS ALLOWED TO LOCK UP THE HUT PRIOR TO THEY'RE WALKING OFF(which realy makes no sense when the money was taken when they left, essentially robbing the establishment and then locking up to prevent what? Robbery? Wtf?)..
I find it to be highly suspicious that the barista would have any motive to lie and state Sam's belongings were there if they WERE NOT!

 

[SmoothOperator]

So it was also reporting two different ways about HOW he carried out the kidnapping. One article says he went inside the hut. But the one just now linked says he went UP TO the hut and forced her to leave with him.

So it sounds like he brought a weapon to the window and aimed it at her and forced her out. imo



On Feb. 1, Koenig was working at Common Grounds Espresso in the parking lot of the Alaska Club at 630 E. Tudor Road, police said. Video surveillance shows a man holding a weapon walk up to the coffee hut just before 8 p.m. Police refused to describe the weapon or release any images from the video. The abductor obscured the camera's view somehow, caused Koenig to appear frightened, and forced her to leave with him on foot. They walked to the west, police said.

http://www.adn.com/2012/02/29/v-prin...ntinues-a.html


The man allegedly entered the Common Grounds Espresso hut in the parking lot of the Alaska Club on East Tudor, then walked away with her toward the Old Seward Highway, and she hasn’t been seen since.

http://www.alaskapublic.org/2012/02/...ands-not-safe/

I'd go with LE words directly from their mouth..

The following is the Q&A with reporters questions followed by LE answer..Heres the link to the 5:55min video-
http://www.adn.com/2012/02/07/2305513/fbi-assists-search-for-abducted.html#storylink=misearch

What can be seen in their interaction?(Sam and perp)
The problem we have here is that during that interaction and him coming inside we cannot clearly see his face and we've all understood that or we'd certainly be releasing that. But we can see obviously her reactions. and the rest here is evidence that we do not want to discuss those actions only the players themselves will be privy to.

 

[Simply Caustic]

I'm new to this thread, so forgive me if this has already been discussed.

There was no sign of a struggle, he said. Soon after, when the Duncans watched the surveillance video, they saw something that made them call police immediately, he said. The couple would not elaborate on what triggered the call but said the video was obscured somehow.
Could the above, bolded portion simply mean that upon watching the tape, what they saw that made them call police immediately, was the missing money? Meaning, if they saw her remove the cash from the drawer, they instantly realized it was a problem? Speculating, but perhaps they saw her remove the money and hand it to the abductor - who was obviously avoiding the cams. That triggered the call - then they stared at it, and were able to discern some form of a weapon, i.e., a gun? If obscured, I could see how one would need to watch it several times to get that. Essentially that they weren't able to discern whether she was a willing participant, or being held up, upon a first-viewing of the tape.
I speak from experience in that my family owns a franchise of a coffee and breakfast quick service restaurant, and there's been times that we reviewed the tape after pulling the 'drop' as we call the nightly sales - and the 'drop' is short. Then, we review the tape.
Further, I think it's entirely possible that they didn't realize the severity of the situation sheerly by the poor closing job and coffee left on the counter. That's happened numerous times, in my experience. Once, we had two dozen donuts, already boxed up, just sitting on the countertop - along with all the outside lights on (drive-thru, floodlights, etc.). Turns out the night employee's daughter got sick and she left in a hurry, just locking the doors. We didn't find out until like 8am, when we open at 4am, because the opener didn't want to wake up the morning manager, and already had a backlog of work to do (what wasn't done the night before, like taking out the trash, cleaning coffee pots, stocking, etc.) So when the manager went in at 8, was when it was discovered.
Just my two cents on the matter. A short 'drop' is FIRST thing that causes us to review the tape.

 

[Simply Caustic]

Also, speaking from an owner's point of view, when you open the safe to retrieve the drop and it's either not there, or very, very short -- the first thing you do is replay the tape of the prior night's closing. You basically have the phone in your hand to call the cops, as you are playing the tape - because if you know the money is gone, you know you need the cops (whether it's theft by employee, or a robbery). I wouldn't be surprised if they called regarding the theft FIRST-then replayed the tape and noticed the nuances such as something in his hand (perhaps), and her leaving but with a fearful look on her face.
Whether she was involved, or not, they needed police involvement. I think that was what triggered this. They are business owners, not police, and thus wouldn't necessarily be noticing the nuances of her body language, appearing fearful, etc. They saw that the money was gone, and that she left with the individual. That's just my thoughts, on why they said what they did.

 

[southern_comfort]

Another dtail I am having issue with is the fact that the barista who opened the hut the following morning states that the hut was not cleaned, there were cups of coffee on the counter and SAM'S BELONGINGS WERE LEFT STILL AT THE HUT IN HER CUBBY.
http://www.adn.com/2012/02/03/2298379/police-continue-search-for-missing.html#storylink=misearch

Imo thats not something someone would just fabricate and state to reporters as well as I assume she reported to LE... This barista would have no reason to make up such details such as her coworkers belongings still being in the cubby at the hut when the barista came into work that following morning.. Those are criticial items and crucial details of the incident that had taken place the night prior.. Another reason I believe this barista in her stating this is the fact that she tells that at the time she sees her coworkers belongings were left there that at that point no one was under the impression something nefarious had occurred.. Therefor its not as tho shes stating this claim that it was her discovering the belongings that set in motion discovering the abduction.. Imo there just is zero reason or cause for this barista to have stated something absolutely false and untrue..

Yet sure enough several days later we are told that it is untrue
http://www.adn.com/2012/02/08/2307318/police-report-some-progress-in.html#storylink=misearch
and that Sam DID NOT LEAVE ANY OF HER BELONGINGS BEHIND AT THE HUT! MEANING THAT AS SAM WAS ABDUCTED SHE WAS EITHER ALLOWED OR INSTRUCTED TO RETRIEVE ALL OF HER BELONGINGS FROM THE CUBBY AND TO TAKE WITH HER AS WELL AS ALLOWED TO LOCK UP THE HUT PRIOR TO THEY'RE WALKING OFF(which realy makes no sense when the money was taken when they left, essentially robbing the establishment and then locking up to prevent what? Robbery? Wtf?)..
I find it to be highly suspicious that the barista would have any motive to lie and state Sam's belongings were there if they WERE NOT!

It doesn't say what belongings the opening barista thought were left by Sam, though.

That first article has some potentially contradictory information that has to be reconciled:
First, the opening barista says Sam's things were in the cubby.
Second, the owner says nothing raised a red flag.

"Things in the cubby" plus "nothing raised a red flag" suggests to me that the things in the cubby possibly were not important things (like a coat, purse and cell phone) but rather minor or easily replaceable things, like gloves or a hat. Her purse and coat, IMO, would raise a red flag. In that case, it could be true that the barista saw some things that she thought were Sam's belongings, but after investigation were discovered to not be Sam's after all. Or, they could be Sam's small/minor items, and the media report that Sam left nothing behind might be an exaggeration/misunderstanding of released information that the important items that a person would not leave behind -- purse, coat, cell phone -- were missing from the hut.

Hopefully that made sense. It's getting late!