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

[MesaVerde]

I thought you could probably jump around from top of one tank to another because I could do it. Didn't want to say that and start another discussion about what isn't possible. I seem to generate enough of those. But I saw a fireman doing it on this video if you look at about 2:30 (two minutes 30 seconds into the video).

Might not mean too much but a person by themselves could have chosen which tank they prefered to go into. But a person carrying a body would be more restricted to the tank Elisa was found in because while you can pretty well jump from one tank to another, trying that with 115 pounds would be pretty risky. A killer would have been restricted by practicality to the tank her body was in if they used the ladder attached to it to go up to the top.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ea_IIkC81y0

There is also real strange footage of something else going on in an elevator at 25:15. I can't understand Chinese so I don't know what it is.

At 7 minutes something into the video there is some good footage of the top of the Cecil that shows an aerial view of it relative to the buildings next to it.

 

[MesaVerde]

she very well could wear glasses as an accessory.

That is true. She could wear them as only an accessory. We don't know otherwise. But since we've considered other possibilities, actually that is mainly what we have done with everything because we have very little evidence to go on about anything, I think we can speculate on this but have to say we just don't know.

I'll speculate on it this way:

If she were wearing them as an accessory, she might be more likely to wear different ones on different occasions to match her mood or outfit. All the pictures of her in glasses are of the same pair of glasses. Fashion/fake eyeglasses are super cheap so a person could pick up as many as they like if they enjoy wearing those. Prescription eyeglasses are very expensive so a person isn't likely to own multiple pairs unless they are older having collected them over the years. She is pretty young so she wouldn't have a drawer full of broken frames or outdated glasses like the crazy cat lady across the street. At most she would likely have had two pairs if she found some sort of buy one get a deal on a second offer. Eye exam, lenses, frames--adds up to a pretty penny. But we never see her in a second pair so either she only owned one pair or else they selected only photos with her wearing the glasses that she took with her, which again would indicate that they knew which ones she would pack because they were her only pair and she needed them to me because someone wearing fashion glasses would be a real fashion maven and would probably have several.

Also, fake glasses come with thin lenses because there is no reason to have them thick on the edges to create curvature in the glass. The glasses show a thick reflection at the edge of the right lens (her right) in one of the photos. I would tend to say they are real glasses based on that. Fake glasses are never made with glass that thick.

Many people who wear glasses also use contact lenses. So it wouldn't be surprising to see someone in glasses sometimes and no glasses other times.

These are examples of fake eyeglasses. You can see that the glass is thin. You can also see that there is no distortion of the face behind the eyeglasses. It is a subtle difference but you should be able to detect it.

http://beldecruiser.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/downloads11.jpg

Notice in the picture below, that there is almost no reflection or thick white line along the edge of the glasses. Contrast this to Elisa's pictures where you can see a very thick edge or reflection. In glasses as large as the picture below, the edge of the glass would be huge if the person wearing them really needed correction.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_CIRMOT02A0M/R50hcH9727I/AAAAAAAAATs/9XKPNfVP53U/s1600-h/glasses.jpg

These glasses Sarah Palin is wearing are textbook faux. Notice that the glass is very thin on the edges. There is no obvious attempt to create curvature in the glass in other words. And there is no distortion of her face (very subtle, may be hard for some people to detect). The glass area itself is very large. Remember, the larger the diameter (or in this case length) of the glass, the thicker the edges of the the lens will be if they are actually corrective lenses. These are the Kazuo Kawasaki 704. You can buy a pair on Amazon if you like them. Then you can look like a brainiac, too.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2386/2913556769_c15ebc38bd.jpg?v=0

 

[kingsway]

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

So if it's largely a matter of exclusion, and if they aren't able to tell if she was alive upon entering the tank, then they can't ever be sure if she drowned, aside from those "pathological changes".

From an accidental death vs homicide point of view, I don't think the toxicology tests can determine anything, unless there was a lethal substance in her. If it was drugs or alcohol, it can be argued both ways, and definitely not enough to hold up in the court of law. A person could easily say, I gave her some heroin, and she got high and killed herself. The police need more evidence, which doesn't seem to be forthcoming.

 

[Catchew]

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.

BBM
I'm a bit confused by this statement, although that could be due to lack of sleep. Wouldn't that be the very reason they would make a point of saying she doesn't have her glasses? Because she is normally seen with them on? Or, perhaps they were just making a point of it because the first picture released was of her wearing glasses.
In any case, you are correct that we don't have much to go on and it is near impossible to make a diagnosis of what her vision is like based on pictures and a video. However, it seems to me there would be a reason the family would mention it in the first place.
IMO, the reason there are so many pictures available of her without her glasses on is because those are the ones that were provided by her family as they knew she didn't have her glasses with her when she went missing. No sense in releasing pics with her wearing her glasses if that was the case.
I don't wear glasses, but I know friends who take off their glasses for pictures, so I don't think we can say that because there are many pics of her without glasses that they were merely an accessory and not medically necessary. She might have just taken them off for pictures.
I think the issue of her glasses is important for some people's theories and so is worth pondering.

 

[BlueShoe]

I think the glasses were in her room. Maybe someone saw her leaving her room and thought she would be gone for awhile, but in the elevator, she realized that she had to go back for the glasses and caught them in her room, stealing her medications.

Possible, but then why would she not report them missing to the hotel manager? Unless that is where she was going when the elevator wouldn't work. DUN DUN!

 

[noodled1]

On the flip side, you can argue that because they found the cause of death "inconclusive", then they ruled out drowning.

Except for that the coroner said they hadn't ruled out drowning, that's what the more in depth report will try to determine

 

[Conductor71]

So if it's largely a matter of exclusion, and if they aren't able to tell if she was alive upon entering the tank, then they can't ever be sure if she drowned, aside from those "pathological changes".

From an accidental death vs homicide point of view, I don't think the toxicology tests can determine anything, unless there was a lethal substance in her. If it was drugs or alcohol, it can be argued both ways, and definitely not enough to hold up in the court of law. A person could easily say, I gave her some heroin, and she got high and killed herself. The police need more evidence, which doesn't seem to be forthcoming.

I think the toxicology report is protocol in most instances where drowning isn't obvious. The young girl who just washed up on the beach they said a toxicology report would be done as part of the autopsy.

I agree that is hard to ascertain what the toxicology could rule out foul play. She could have been so drugged by someone that she had passed out by the time she was put in the tank. That would show both high levels of drug and evidence of drowning, but how does that differ from pathology of suicide. This is where clothes become important. The forensic guide says usually with suicide clothes are on or nearby. If she was nude that would suggest someone else was involved. I think that I read somewhere if she were sexually assaulted that chlorine in the tank would taint or eradicate any DNA evidence of that, but I am not sure.

BTW, as an interesting factoid. That same forensic guide says that homicide by drowning is uncommon and 2/3 of cases are accidental. Very few are suicide. Her poor family might not ever know what really happened. So sad.

 

[BlueShoe]

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.

By "accidental" do you mean suicide? I can't believe that she accidentally fell into the water tank. If she was walking on top of it and fell in, she would surely grab the edges of the opening on her way down. Unless she was totally out-of-it with no sense of reality whatsoever. I guess that could be.

 

[BlueShoe]

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.

Actually, when I posted my original questions about her glasses and their location, I was interested in other interpretations. If she was not without her glasses, then what would explain her leaning down so close to the elevator buttons to push them? Maybe she wore contacts and was without her contacts, but if she wore glasses just for fashion, I don't think she would be leaning in that way. Do you interpret this differently?

 

[Conductor71]

BBM
I'm a bit confused by this statement, although that could be due to lack of sleep. Wouldn't that be the very reason they would make a point of saying she doesn't have her glasses? Because she is normally seen with them on? Or, perhaps they were just making a point of it because the first picture released was of her wearing glasses.

In any case, you are correct that we don't have much to go on and it is near impossible to make a diagnosis of what her vision is like based on pictures and a video. However, it seems to me there would be a reason the family would mention it in the first place.

Quite honestly I have no theory on the glasses. I really don't find them relevant to the case other than for identification. I included it in the facts but a few people have issue with it since the info was originally from FB and I have been critical of over relying on her Tumblr accounts etc. for drawing conclusions. The criticism ignores why I included it in the first place and any caveat I have written here. I have only engaged in the glasses convo to defend it as an info source and to point out how our experiences in this world really bias or color what we conjecture. Therefore, we should not ignore the outlier theories or view points... this got lost in translation so to speak.

I will say that it is more likely they were saying she did not have her glasses at the time of disappearance but still think the report is a bit ambiguous.

Hope that clarifies some things. Anyway, I am way more interested in the fact that it seems the door to the roof was not locked!

 

[noodled1]

By "accidental" do you mean suicide? I can't believe that she accidentally fell into the water tank. If she was walking on top of it and fell in, she would surely grab the edges of the opening on her way down. Unless she was totally out-of-it with no sense of reality whatsoever. I guess that could be.

It could be death by mis-adventure. Don't rule out she went into the tank voluntarily on a lark, just to goof around. I know in my day I certainly did many things that I now consider silly. I'd have gone into that tank when I was younger, hell me and my buddies would have turned it into a weekly adventure, grab some beers and lets hit up the Cecil Hotel swimming hole.

 

[Conductor71]

If she were wearing them as an accessory, she might be more likely to wear different ones on different occasions to match her mood or outfit. All the pictures of her in glasses are of the same pair of glasses. Fashion/fake eyeglasses are super cheap so a person could pick up as many as they like if they enjoy wearing those. Prescription eyeglasses are very expensive so a person isn't likely to own multiple pairs unless they are older having collected them over the years. She is pretty young so she wouldn't have a drawer full of broken frames or outdated glasses like the crazy cat lady across the street. At most she would likely have had two pairs if she found some sort of buy one get a deal on a second offer. Eye exam, lenses, frames--adds up to a pretty penny. But we never see her in a second pair so either she only owned one pair or else they selected only photos with her wearing the glasses that she took with her, which again would indicate that they knew which ones she would pack because they were her only pair and she needed them to me because someone wearing fashion glasses would be a real fashion maven and would probably have several.

Also, fake glasses come with thin lenses because there is no reason to have them thick on the edges to create curvature in the glass. The glasses show a thick reflection at the edge of the right lens (her right) in one of the photos. I would tend to say they are real glasses based on that. Fake glasses are never made with glass that thick.

[/url]

Very valid points. I really have no theory on the glasses just saying we cannot know (as my four yr old likes to say) and really we are all biased no matter what we say. It is just human nature. My original point on this is way lost and poorly written in the first place because it has been misunderstood. Time for me to move on. Besides there is another mystery to be solved with EL...

How does a 19 year old girl with no job afford designer clothes and shoes by Sonia Rykiel and Anne Demeulemeester at $300 a pop minimum? According to her maybe blog she owned a few pieces of high end fashion design. I worked in a department store at her age and had to settle for an Esprit outfit and a swatch watch. Probably birthday money but wow cannot fathom explaining spending hundreds of dollars on a blouse.

 

[catatonia]

Diagnostics of drowning cases

- The lungs are characteristically over-inflated and heavy with fluid. However, this is not invariable and, when present, is not distinguishable from “fluid on the lungs” (pulmonary oedema seen in heart failure, drug overdose and head injury).

- There are no universally accepted diagnostic laboratory tests for drowning.

- Many corpses are recovered from water, but not all have drowned. Of those that have drowned, pathological proof is often difficult or even impossible to obtain. The autopsy diagnosis of drowning presents one of the major problems in forensic medicine, especially when there is delay in recovering the victim.

- It is obvious, therefore, that it is impossible to say to any degree of certainty in some cases whether death was due to drowning or not and the practitioner is advised to refuse to give a decided opinion on insufficient grounds. If there are no signs of any other cause of death it is for the legal authority to make the assumption that the body taken from the water in such conditions was drowned.

- If the circumstances of death are known, the diagnosis of drowning will not present any difficulty. However, when a body is found in water and no circumstantial details are available of how it got there, the case may pose a difficult problem. In some cases, the diagnosis of drowning cannot be established for lack of definite signs; hence one has to draw conclusions on the basis of exclusion of other causes of death. In such situations every detail of the case must be considered with an open mind.

- A diagnosis of drowning cannot be made without a complete autopsy and full toxicologic screening, histologic analyses of all organs including the lungs, and the diatom test. The diagnosis of drowning cannot be based solely on the circumstances of the death, nonspecific anatomic findings, and the results of biologic analyses.

Source: http://netk.net.au/Reports/DiagnosticsofDrowning.asp

 

[MesaVerde]

How does a 19 year old girl with no job afford designer clothes and shoes by Sonia Rykiel and Anne Demeulemeester at $300 a pop minimum? According to her maybe blog she owned a few pieces of high end fashion design. I worked in a department store at her age and had to settle for an Esprit outfit and a swatch watch. Probably birthday money but wow cannot fathom explaining spending hundreds of dollars on a blouse.

That is a good question. I haven't read any of the blogs and other stuff that are supposed to be hers. You wouldn't think her parents would give her that much money. I was dead broke at her age as well and I had a job. I can only think of two ways someone that age who isn't wealthy can afford that sort of stuff. No, I can think of three. No, four. I won't mention three of them. Number four--could they be knock offs? Or maybe she only owned them in her dreams?

 

[Catchew]

Quite honestly I have no theory on the glasses. I really don't find them relevant to the case other than for identification. I included it in the facts but a few people have issue with it since the info was originally from FB and I have been critical of over relying on her Tumblr accounts etc. for drawing conclusions. The criticism ignores why I included it in the first place and any caveat I have written here. I have only engaged in the glasses convo to defend it as an info source and to point out how our experiences in this world really bias or color what we conjecture. Therefore, we should not ignore the outlier theories or view points... this got lost in translation so to speak.

I will say that it is more likely they were saying she did not have her glasses at the time of disappearance but still think the report is a bit ambiguous.

Hope that clarifies some things. Anyway, I am way more interested in the fact that it seems the door to the roof was not locked!

BBM
Yes! This is quite interesting. I could have sworn that the Chinese investigators had said they tried the door and it was locked, but I can't seem to find the direct quote.
If, in fact, the door is always unlocked, it is possible the perp (if EL's death is the result of foul play) took her to the roof that way. What are the chances that the alarm is regularly turned off in order for staff members (or residents?) to go up to the roof? For smoke breaks, etc...I wouldn't be surprised if security/maintenance did this favour for residents they became chummy with.
If the alarm is not kept on 24/7, it could be possible that someone was aware of this (or took a chance).

 

[samevo8]

Great video, AlphaWolf.

Perhaps in reference to one of your statements about the lack of video showing roof access via the access panel, the team going to LA in a few days could go to the 15th floor and see if they can identify the ladders to the access panel and show whether the panels are locked.

Looks to be that way.

- Like you said, there was also a fire escape ladder from the roof to the top floor of the hotel. (14th floor?)

- there are what looks like 2 roof hatches.....not sure how easy they are to access....but it would be an option I guess.

- a video I made showing what a roof access hatch may look like.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W41i70AipHM

 

[samevo8]

Per the tumblr blogs, she didn't seem to have much money (although "much" is subjective/relative.) She gets a job (presumably in a women's shoe store) mid December 2012 and mentions that she can now earn "food money."

However, not feeling that she had much money, she was still able to travel a good amount (she's gone to NYC, Quebec, Toronto, Vancouver, California) and was able to keep up acquiring a good amount of books (she was wondering how she'd be able to carry back all the books she bought over on her Quebec/Toronto trip and apparently she was at "The Last Bookstore" in downtown L.A. before her disappearance.)

That is a good question. I haven't read any of the blogs and other stuff that are supposed to be hers. You wouldn't think her parents would give her that much money. I was dead broke at her age as well and I had a job. I can only think of two ways someone that age who isn't wealthy can afford that sort of stuff. No, I can think of three. No, four. I won't mention three of them. Number four--could they be knock offs? Or maybe she only owned them in her dreams?

 

[kunibob]

Per the tumblr blogs, she didn't seem to have much money (although "much" is subjective/relative.) She gets a job (presumably in a women's shoe store) mid December 2012 and mentions that she can now earn "food money."

However, not feeling that she had much money, she was still able to travel a good amount (she's gone to NYC, Quebec, Toronto, Vancouver, California) and was able to keep up acquiring a good amount of books (she was wondering how she'd be able to carry back all the books she bought over on her Quebec/Toronto trip and apparently she was at "The Last Bookstore" in downtown L.A. before her disappearance.)

I have a lot of friends who max out their credit cards on fashion and travel and then complain about not having money for rent and such. :banghead: Very common to live outside your means, sadly.

 

[MesaVerde]

I have a lot of friends who max out their credit cards on fashion and travel and then complain about not having money for rent and such. :banghead: Very common to live outside your means, sadly.

Oh, yeah. I forgot about credit cards because I didn't have one at her age. The CC companies are targeting the college students heavily to get credit cards, aren't they?

 

[AlphaWolf]

Great video, AlphaWolf.

Perhaps in reference to one of your statements about the lack of video showing roof access via the access panel, the team going to LA in a few days could go to the 15th floor and see if they can identify the ladders to the access panel and show whether the panels are locked.

That would be great!

also..... bieng able to take some pics/video of the "stairway to roof access" would be really helpful.

Edit: If someone could look to see where the surveillance camera's Inside the hotel are located.( take pics or video)