CA/Canada - Elisa Lam - 21 years old - Los Angeles/Vancouver - 31-Jan-2013 - #5

Status
Not open for further replies.
That is probably just Lady Gaga in her walking clothes or maybe a mountain lion eating somebody. In all seriousness, doesn't really look like a gas mask to me. Just looks like a blurry person back there. But I like the imagination!

Yes, who knows for sure what it is. I posted the pics out of general interest for comparison, but it probably over-shadowed my main point :blushing:, which was supposed to be ... if that pic WAS taken in California, then she had her glasses with her on the trip.
 
Yes, who knows for sure what it is. I posted the pics out of general interest for comparison, but it probably over-shadowed my main point :blushing:, which was supposed to be ... if that pic WAS taken in California, then she had her glasses with her on the trip.

I am easily distracted by things like gas masks. :) And people in meat dresses etc.

Focusing...When it comes to the glasses thing, I find it hard to believe that a near sighted person would leave corrective lenses behind. It isn't like leaving your wallet behind. I am near sighted (-3.5 in both eyes). There is no way I would go to the mailbox without my glasses or contacts. I literally cannot function without them.

I've heard many times from far sighted people, "I should be using my glasses but I don't." But I've never heard that from a near sighted person. Not a real near sighted person. Actually, never heard it from any kind of near sighted person. If you are near sighted, usually, the entire world is a blur to you. Like you can't see the expression on somebody's face if they are only a few feet away. You lose some of your sense of depth perception so going down stairs is dangerous. You can't read street signs. You can't watch television without sitting about 2 feet from the screen. You just cannot function without the correction and it is not like you can forget you don't have them on because you can't see!

It just isn't credible to me that she could leave her glasses behind unless it was on purpose because she was using contact lenses unless her near sightedness was so mild as to be a nonfactor in her life as in, "Well, I see better with my glasses but I don't really need them."

The only credible scenario to me would be that she had decided to use contacts instead and broke/damaged one (depends hard or soft) or lost one while on her trip and didn't bring back ups with her. But vision is such a serious problem for most near sighted people that I even think on a trip that they would tend to bring back ups with them unless they are really careless. She could be careless being young and all. But there is no way that she LEFT on her vacation not wearing either glasses or contacts unless her near sightedness is so mild as to be nearly inconsequential.

If you want to feel what it is like to be near sighted, borrow a friend's glasses (a friend who really needs them not somebody who is like, "I should use them but I drive fine without them so I don't) and put them on and try to go about your life. You won't make it as far as a grocery store or anything. I doubt you'll be able to keep them on for five minutes. Now tell me that if that is how the world looked to you without glasses, that you could "forget" to bring your corrective lenses. You can forget to turn the oven off. You can't forget that the world around you is a complete blur.

It would be like saying, "I forgot to bring any shoes with me when I went on vacation. I spent two weeks in Paris barefoot."

If she left her glasses in Vancouver, it would be because she was using contacts. In which case, the whole glasses thing is only relevant to help people identify her as a missing person.

The style of glasses she was wearing is common for people who need fairly strong correction as well. That is because the more correction you need, the thicker the lenses have to be as you increase diameter. So if the glasses are the big round style, your glasses will be like coke bottle glasses at the edges and they will be very heavy sitting on your nose. At the edge of the picture of her in glasses (the one in the flannel) you see a hint that her glasses are probably on the thicker rather than thinner side. That choice of glasses could also be a fashion choice. But an eye doctor will steer you to those if you need a lot of correction.

Wire frames also look not so good if you need heavy correction because even if you choose a small frame, the edges of the lenses will project past the wire frame holding the lens. So often, plastic frames will be chosen instead as they have thicker edges and if you use a high quality lens, you can completely enclose the thickness of the lense inside the frame, which looks less tacky.
 
Most probably coinkydinks, but i've been mulling over these snippets for days, and just tossing them out there anyway. In Elisa's social media contacts .. the person EL contacted Dec 6 wrt meeting in Toronto by approx Dec 11 posted on twitter on Dec 17 that she lost her cell phone. She has a contact PS (surname same as S*m* in graffiti). PS is also one of the two people DM tweeted wrt EL's disappearance. On Jan 27 PS posted a link to music themes "Fur Elise".

I am aware that s*m* is not uncommon in graffiti, so the surname thing is probably unrelated, but it is not a common surname (269 in the USA with most occurrences in California).

Could be something/nothing ... strangeness abounds.

ETA: Forgot to mention that PS is following Cusack on Twitter (the movie "1408").
 
I'm not sure what LAPD has said that makes you think they are not considering/treating it as foul play or not foul play or any type of play. I must have missed a statement from LAPD
Last I read they hadn't ruled out anything as yet

I posted this in the Facts Only and What Happened threads. It is the main reason why I am veering towards the accidental death theory:

A news report out of Vancouver on 2/25 states "Det. Tim Marcia says investigators have no reason to believe her death was because of foul play".

It also quotes Det. Marcia as saying, "We've done a comprehensive investigation with interviewing everybody at the hotel".

That report became distorted by others into 'LAPD rules out foul play', prompting LAPD to quickly issue a denial.

http://www.cknw.com/news/vancouver/story.aspx/story.aspx?ID=1897213


Det. Marcia did not say that foul play was ruled out. He merely said they had no reason to believe foul play. I could not find any report retracting what he said.

Now, why would they find no reason to believe foul play if the lid was indeed closed? Could it be a maintenance worker closed it when he found it open, without realizing there was a body inside? Or could it be that police found evidence on the lid to suggest Elisa closed it herself?

A third possibility is that someone has confessed to police he was with Elisa but that her death was accidental, and police are waiting for the toxicology results to verify his story.

Also, I'm aware that police have said the autopsy result was inconclusive. But that does not mean that it had no clue as to the likely cause of death. Now think of it, if the likely COD is anything other than drowning, that surely would point to foul play, or at least confirm that Elisa was dead before entering the tank, so someone must have carried her there.

So, because police are still not considering foul play, the likely COD must be drowning. But that would also not mean that foul play can be ruled out, because she could have drowned in a bathtub and her body carried to the water tank.

I'm sure LAPD are well aware of the tremendous international attention on this case. And if Elisa's death was truly accidental, they would be concerned many will find it hard to believe. So they would want to make doubly sure that all angles are covered before they announce the results of their investigations. Hence I'm not surprised they do not wish to reveal any more details until the toxicology results are finalized.
 
A third possibility is that someone has confessed to police he was with Elisa but that her death was accidental, and police are waiting for the toxicology results to verify his story.

Wouldn't that story sound a little hinky?
 
I tried to count all these people who have addresses at S Main Street in different units. I thought 809 persons sounded a bit too much to have residence in Cecil. But if you count how many apartments they have all together, the amount will be about 260-270 apartments. I guess some rooms have been pooled into bigger apartments because some room numbers got up to 14 people staying. For me it is within interest to know how crowded this hotel actually is or how empty all these corridors are on each floor.

For example if you take a look at 14th floor, there are only 15 room numbers that are used by 47 persons in long-time accommodation. At 15th floor 20 room numbers with 44 people staying.
 
I tried to count all these people who have addresses at S Main Street in different units. I thought 809 persons sounded a bit too much to have residence in Cecil.
<rsbm>

Could it be that databases on the internet include info on past residents?
 
<rsbm>

Could it be that databases on the internet include info on past residents?
Can be. Our search engines on addresses here in Sweden are reliable, but maybe not in LA. I wish there were other ways to search such information.
 
Hinky means like something sounds weird, like kind of off weird.

I see. Well I'm just listing it as one of the possibilities why police are still not considering foul play. Young adults do sometimes engage in activities that matured adults see as risky or not sensible.

Interestingly, you might want to read about this case in Singapore in May 2011 when an Indonesian domestic help was found dead in a residential roof water tank. Her cleaner boyfriend was charged with her murder but was given a discharge by the Court, possibly because of lack of evidence. His story was that she wanted to kill herself and he could not save her.
 
I see. Well I'm just listing it as one of the possibilities why police are still not considering foul play. Young adults do sometimes engage in activities that matured adults see as risky or not sensible.

So true. I usually chose to learn the hard way myself.
 
A news report out of Vancouver on 2/25 states "Det. Tim Marcia says investigators have no reason to believe her death was because of foul play".

It also quotes Det. Marcia as saying, "We've done a comprehensive investigation with interviewing everybody at the hotel".

That report became distorted by others into 'LAPD rules out foul play', prompting LAPD to quickly issue a denial.

http://www.cknw.com/news/vancouver/story.aspx/story.aspx?ID=1897213


Det. Marcia did not say that foul play was ruled out. He merely said they had no reason to believe foul play. I could not find any report retracting what he said.

My interpretation is that the first quote is only the reporter's summation .. only the second quote is a direct quote from Det. Marcia, and he does not address whether foul play or accidental etc has been ruled in our out. Thus the quick response by LAPD, possibly to correct reporter error in a case that has drawn international attention.
 
A group trip to the Cecil sounds very interesting ! If enough of you go I'm sure there would be no danger. If I'm remembering right though some other guests said if you do not rent a room you cannot stay, so you may have to go in for the price of a room for the night , which would give you more time to investigate and give us all the sights and sounds and layouts possible ! I'm in Texas or it would be something I'd like to do. Looking forward to the news !

In fact even if just one of you go I doubt there is any danger right now. I'm sure that's the safest hotel in LA at the moment !
 
I posted this in the Facts Only and What Happened threads. It is the main reason why I am veering towards the accidental death theory:

A news report out of Vancouver on 2/25 states "Det. Tim Marcia says investigators have no reason to believe her death was because of foul play".

It also quotes Det. Marcia as saying, "We've done a comprehensive investigation with interviewing everybody at the hotel".

That report became distorted by others into 'LAPD rules out foul play', prompting LAPD to quickly issue a denial.

http://www.cknw.com/news/vancouver/story.aspx/story.aspx?ID=1897213


Det. Marcia did not say that foul play was ruled out. He merely said they had no reason to believe foul play. I could not find any report retracting what he said.

Now, why would they find no reason to believe foul play if the lid was indeed closed? Could it be a maintenance worker closed it when he found it open, without realizing there was a body inside? Or could it be that police found evidence on the lid to suggest Elisa closed it herself?

A third possibility is that someone has confessed to police he was with Elisa but that her death was accidental, and police are waiting for the toxicology results to verify his story.

Also, I'm aware that police have said the autopsy result was inconclusive. But that does not mean that it had no clue as to the likely cause of death. Now think of it, if the likely COD is anything other than drowning, that surely would point to foul play, or at least confirm that Elisa was dead before entering the tank, so someone must have carried her there.

So, because police are still not considering foul play, the likely COD must be drowning. But that would also not mean that foul play can be ruled out, because she could have drowned in a bathtub and her body carried to the water tank.

I'm sure LAPD are well aware of the tremendous international attention on this case. And if Elisa's death was truly accidental, they would be concerned many will find it hard to believe. So they would want to make doubly sure that all angles are covered before they announce the results of their investigations. Hence I'm not surprised they do not wish to reveal any more details until the toxicology results are finalized.

On the flip side, you can argue that because they found the cause of death "inconclusive", then they ruled out drowning.
 
I hesitate in answering this because the glasses seem to be a point of contention for some. This statement is from CBS local LA the day the video was released:

According to the Facebook page “Find Elisa Lam,” the Vancouver native does not have her glasses with her.


My understanding is that she did not have her glasses with her on this trip. Period. Meaning they were likely home (conjecture on my part).

Most others see it as she did not have them when she was last seen though I don't know why they just would not be more direct and say as much to the public as this sends message she may or may not be wearing her glasses.

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2013/02/13/lapd-hoping-new-video-will-lead-to-missing-canadian-woman/

Oh, several here also find the source suspect; I see it as it may help given what little "official" info has been released.

Perhaps they found her glasses in her room or elsewhere and therefore, they knew for sure she didn't have her glasses. I don't necessarily take the statement to mean that she didn't take her glasses on the trip to California with her. IMO, what the statement means is that they found her glasses and so she did not have them with her wherever she might be (at that time she was missing).
 
On the flip side, you can argue that because they found the cause of death "inconclusive", then they ruled out drowning.

Actually from what I have gleaned from this forensic guide to bodies found in water the exact opposite is true. COD by drowning is determined by exclusion. It can be very difficult to establish in some cases and there is not one definitive test. This is why they ordered the toxicology report.

There are no autopsy findings pathonomonic of drowning. Consequently, obtaining proof that the victim was alive on entering the water, and excluding the presence of natural, traumatic and toxicological causes of death, are critically important. Some pathological changes are characteristic of drowning, but the diagnosis is largely one of exclusion.

Homicidal drowning is uncommon and requires either physical disparity between the assailant and the victim or a victim incapacitated by disease, drink or drugs, or taken by surprise.


From Bodies from Water: Lecture Notes from the Dept of Forensic Medicine. University of Dundee
 
Perhaps they found her glasses in her room or elsewhere and therefore, they knew for sure she didn't have her glasses. I don't necessarily take the statement to mean that she didn't take her glasses on the trip to California with her. IMO, what the statement means is that they found her glasses and so she did not have them with her wherever she might be (at that time she was missing).

Right, agreed. We just cannot tell what personal effects were found. However, look at the pics floating around the Internet and video. In have seen maybe 10-20 pics and she is wearing glasses in 3 of them. If it was the norm for her to wear her glasses all the time or medically necessary then there would have been no need to add that qualifier from FB.

Furthermore, who here has access to her medical records? Based on a video we have diagnosed EL as both mental and near sighted. Based on a photo we claim that to back her video behavior and disregard any other view other than that she needed glasses. If we are to believe in her Tumblr she very well could wear glasses as an accessory.

The conclusions being drawn here are based on subjective interpretation of an image and video. This is no better than a "ghost" FB page and I have yet too see any one of us here being referenced along with the LAPD in a press release.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
167
Guests online
2,748
Total visitors
2,915

Forum statistics

Threads
595,747
Messages
18,032,584
Members
229,760
Latest member
Aegon_the_Conqueror
Back
Top