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

[amysmom]

Here is a link to myspace - not much information but it coincides with the month/year when moneymansvault was setup and this is probably DS from Tracy. Listed as 44 years old, single, and is a Virgo.

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=103385573

Looks like a MATCH to me! Do many bother to set up a MS page & then do nothing with it?

 

[KR2tonenow]

I agree with this! I was just talking to my son about it. It looks as if she is walking towards her house, not leaving, and then turns. It is interesting that she gives her house a quick glance as she moves the hair from her eyes and then heads the other direction.

Salem

Which could possibly refute the idea that Sandra came home after school, and a 5 year old friend came and asked if she could come over. Maybe the knew the habit of this girl was to come home from school and go directly to a "friends" house to play. Doesn't look like she came home at all.

No wonder the parents waited until 8:00pm? They thought she was at a friends the whole time. If this child was taken at 5pm (give or take) the had a 3 hour window before 911 was called. No wonder LE is confused???

 

[elepher50]

Nevermind! I clearly see it opposite #61..Do we know for a fact there's a camera on that home?..If not, it's possible it did come from the one on her own home & confirms my take she walked PAST it but we just didn't get to see any more of the video.

When I look at the pix that momtective did on post#453, the clay pot is definately in the same spot as is shown on the video - me thinks the video is from the camera on her home - the one that momtective indicates is on the corner of the home.

 

[KR2tonenow]

When I look at the pix that momtective did on post#453, the clay pot is definately in the same spot as is shown on the video - me thinks the video is from the camera on her home - the one that momtective indicates is on the corner of the home.

Right, she turns and does not go inside.

 

[elepher50]

Looks like a MATCH to me! Do many bother to set up a MS page & then do nothing with it?

Good question amysmom - very good question. If anything I think it would be indicative of an impulsive behavior perhaps - buying domains is not cheap, yet one was purchased and I can't find that it was ever really used. On the ohter hand, I have a myspace, facebook, photobucket, twitter - now I will make my confession - I did this to try and keep ahead of the children in this house who are computer savvy - big confession - I spy on their activities on the internet.

 

[RhythmicSun]

Looks like a MATCH to me! Do many bother to set up a MS page & then do nothing with it?

All the time! I have an account I barely use. I cannot tolerate the way people over pimp out their profiles and the music that blasts when you land on their pages, which take years to load.

 

[parker38]

:Welcome-12-june:

I think your theory is a good one & it also goes the other way..It seems as if these poi's knew Sandra somewhat so they most likely knew her 'father' situation & then used that to get close to her..I don't rule out there's others just like them in the mp we haven't heard about..This always made her ripe for taking & it was only a matter of time before they put their EVIL plan in motion..They knew she'd go off with them with little or no hesitation so it was inevitable that horrific moment would come one day. :furious:

Thank you amysmom!
I agree. It could very well go both ways. Someone indeed saw
her vulnerability and ran with it.
I also think that this was in the works for awhile and, both planned,
and destined to happen. Very sad!
Good points!

 

[Tonia]

All the time! I have an account I barely use. I cannot tolerate the way people over pimp out their profiles and the music that blasts when you land on their pages, which take years to load.

Irrelevant, but also when they say they are single and they are married with a child. Pathetic!

 

[amysmom]

When I look at the pix that momtective did on post#453, the clay pot is definately in the same spot as is shown on the video - me thinks the video is from the camera on her home - the one that momtective indicates is on the corner of the home.

Someone (?) posted last night they thought there was a camera on #61 so can we rule that out? Either way it doesn't change my POV the video stops BEFORE she reaches #63 cos the clay pot is opposite #61 & the very last we see of her (doesn't mean it's the last LE does) she's just about to walk over it..If this is correct, & I believe it is, how can she look over at her OWN house like so many are saying?

link to video
http://tracypress.com/content/view/17727/2268/

 

[Salem]

Someone (?) posted last night they thought there was a camera on #61 so can we rule that out? Either way it doesn't change my POV the video stops BEFORE she reaches #63 cos the clay pot is opposite #61 & the very last we see of her (doesn't mean it's the last LE does) she's just about to walk over it..If this is correct, & I believe it is, how can she look over at her OWN house like so many are saying?

link to video
http://tracypress.com/content/view/17727/2268/

I'm trying to follow along with what you are saying: the camera is mounted on Unit 63 - this is Sandra's home. The camera is probably the one on the outer edge of the roof line. This is based on the location of the clay pot on the porch. If it was the center camera, we would be looking down into the pot, I think. Sandra approaches her home - Momtective posted a picture where she clearly showed the alignment of Sandra's feet, which indicates she is headed for her house, Unit 63. Something gets her attention, she looks to her right, reaches up to put her hair behind her ear, glances towards Unit 63 and then veers to the right towards what ever got her attention to begin with. So yes, Sandra did look towards her own house.

The confusion I think comes from LE's statement that the video is of her LEAVING her house. Actually, what happens is that she approaches her house and then LEAVES her APPROACH when she veers to the right.

This was briefly discussed earlier. I don't know exactly how LE could have explained it better. My explanation is a bit confusing, so I'm not sure what LE could have said on national TV that would not have created major confusion :crazy: so I think they just left it to whoever wanted to figure it out, rather than try to get into lengthy descriptions.

Does that make any sense? Is this what you see also?

Salem

 

[KR2tonenow]

so plausible, but she barely glanced at her home

 

[HesterMofet]

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 understand where you are coming from, but the mom probably (and now we know wrongly) thought she knew the people in the mobile home park. I don't think she "let" her child get abducted. I think she made the mistake, one that we could all make, of thinking her child was safe when she wasn't. Stranger abductions are not all that prevalent, no matter what the posts here might imply. It's posted here because it is unusual. It is news and is important that we look at it. If you look at the statistics, none of us should be afraid that our child is going to go missing at the hands of another. Yet we all teach "stranger danger" and all have that panic when the child isn't where he or she is supposed to be at a certain time.

In my neighborhood, the kids play in the alleys behind the houses all the time. One of these kids could get isolated and snatched, but is it really realistic to think that kids from 8-12 shouldn't be out by themselves playing tag, etc?

I think this case is very different from Dominick because he was so young, he never should have been outside by himself no matter what.

Now if you said the parents who leave their kids to bake in hot cars should be prosecuted, I totally agree.

 

[MomofBoys]

buying domains is not cheap

Well, it depends. I bought my domain for $9.95. It's now worth somewhat more than that because of high traffic, but I bought it on the cheap.

I also have a MySpace that I've never used, because ugh. MySpace hurts my eyes. It's hard to find one without a garish background and unreadable text anymore. I miss my LiveJournal, and prefer Facebook.

Just because someone can pick a MySpace theme, doesn't mean they should, LOL. Of course, I'm a bit of a design minimalist.

Irrelevant, but also when they say they are single and they are married with a child. Pathetic!

Not necessarily. It might just mean they haven't taken a lot of time to tweak their profiles. "Single" is the MySpace default. Wasn't there a case at one point where a woman killed her boyfriend in part because of that, and then learned it was the default setting? My husband was "single" for quite awhile until I pointed it out to him. And I'm beyond confident he's not on the internet trolling for chicks.

 

[EgyptNug]

I’ve captured the video frame by frame to show there is defiantly a backpack and to show the alignment of Sandra’s steps. It appears that she was headed in the direction of the gray house. In frame 9 it appears that something catches her attention and she changes direction and heads up the street. In frame 9 you see her head slightly forward as though she might be acknowledging someone she wasn’t quite able to hear. The backpack is definitely visible bouncing up and down on her back when I play the video frame by frame.

Thank you for the frameshots, Momtective.

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.

That is exactly how I feel. I don't know if i could do the arm windmills that she does in the beginning of the clip, with a bag on my shoulder. But then at the end of the clip, it looks exactly to me like she is adjusting a bag on her right shoulder.

Because of the shadowing, as discussed unless there are two light sources, you can't have shadows doing different things in different directions. That's art class 101. Since what we can guess to be the late day sun light source is causing the shadow that goes towards the 3 oclock direction (using a clock face for spatial directions), then what light source could cause a shadow in the complete opposite direction, as the shadows seen on the backpack side? It doesn't make sense. HOWEVER, the monkey wrench in this (to me), is that we are looking at a CC video, with pixation issues if nothing else. I am not sure how the camera comes into play, and whether it is the cause of dark areas that we see as shadows or a bag or hair.. So for that reason, for now, i trust the LE evaluation as hopefully they had a camera guru look into it as well..

I understand where you are coming from, but the mom probably (and now we know wrongly) thought she knew the people in the mobile home park. I don't think she "let" her child get abducted. I think she made the mistake, one that we could all make, of thinking her child was safe when she wasn't. Stranger abductions are not all that prevalent, no matter what the posts here might imply. It's posted here because it is unusual. It is news and is important that we look at it. If you look at the statistics, none of us should be afraid that our child is going to go missing at the hands of another. Yet we all teach "stranger danger" and all have that panic when the child isn't where he or she is supposed to be at a certain time.

In my neighborhood, the kids play in the alleys behind the houses all the time. One of these kids could get isolated and snatched, but is it really realistic to think that kids from 8-12 shouldn't be out by themselves playing tag, etc?

I think this case is very different from Dominick because he was so young, he never should have been outside by himself no matter what.

Now if you said the parents who leave their kids to bake in hot cars should be prosecuted, I totally agree.

I agree as well. I've had neighbor kids at my home playing with mine, as young as 5, for hours and their parents arent searching for them. Would I let my kids be gone that long? No, but none of my neighbor kids have ever gone missing, either. Hindsight is 20/20, but many good parents try to balance letting their kids have childhoods that include unstructured activity (which includes playing outside with other kids, without having LITERALLY every step watched, every word overheard by their parent) at a certain age of the child, with keeping them safe. Perceived environmental safety is taken into account. I think blaming a parent for letting their 8 year old play with friends is not necessarily useful and can distract from what could be useful. Just my feelings...

 

[KR2tonenow]

Absolutely, the parents were very comfortable with their surroundings, but when these cases come up, often predators are looking for that window of oppotunity to snatch a child in this scenario. Friendly children are more vulnerable because they are more trusting.

MHP's are becoming a haven for these RSO's and if you knowingly have that information, then one would surmise that you would watch your child very carefully. If these parents knew that Sandra did not come home right after school, then they have lied to police. Perhaps this is why LE was not calling this case an adduction from the start??

Girls 8-12 do not travel on their own were I live. Just a different perspective.

 

[Amster]

So....Sandra lives across the sreet from the back of the clubhouse? The small parking lot for 3 cars is where she is coming from. And, if grandpa planned on catching someone slicing his tires, the camera angle seems worthless.

 

[panthera]

I looked it up at the U.S. Naval Observatory and, on the 27th of March, the sun set at 7:24 in Tracy, CA. (1824 plus one hour for daylight savings time.)
http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/RS_OneYear.php

I think that shadow is way too long for 4:00 pm!

I agree with you. It's now 4pm here, but it's mostly cloudy today so I can't try the experiment.

 

[panthera]

Absolutely, the parents were very comfortable with their surroundings, but when these cases come up, often predators are looking for that window of oppotunity to snatch a child in this scenario. Friendly children are more vulnerable because they are more trusting.

MHP's are becoming a haven for these RSO's and if you knowingly have that information, then one would surmise that you would watch your child very carefully. If these parents knew that Sandra did not come home right after school, then they have lied to police. Perhaps this is why LE was not calling this case an adduction from the start??

Girls 8-12 do not travel on their own were I live. Just a different perspective.

What I find interesting too is the neighbor, DS, says he cautioned Sandra about certain adults. I think he and his wife realized she was out alone a lot of the time, just wandering around looking for friends or somebody to play with. Anybody watching her for any length of time could probably figure this out too, and waited for the right opportunity to abduct her. Remembering when I was her age, I wasn't allowed to wander around the neighborhood and if I went to a friend's house by myself I'd have to call home and let my mom know I got there. Of course the houses were further apart, but back then it was also safer. MOO

 

[Soulscape]

Originally Posted by STEADFAST
I looked it up at the U.S. Naval Observatory and, on the 27th of March, the sun set at 7:24 in Tracy, CA. (1824 plus one hour for daylight savings time.)
http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/RS_OneYear.php

I think that shadow is way too long for 4:00 pm!

I agree with you. It's now 4pm here, but it's mostly cloudy today so I can't try the experiment.

So.... based on the length of the shadow in the surveillance clip, approx. what time do you think this recording took place??

Thank you,
Soulscape

 

[amysmom]

I'm trying to follow along with what you are saying: the camera is mounted on Unit 63 - this is Sandra's home. The camera is probably the one on the outer edge of the roof line. This is based on the location of the clay pot on the porch. If it was the center camera, we would be looking down into the pot, I think. Sandra approaches her home - Momtective posted a picture where she clearly showed the alignment of Sandra's feet, which indicates she is headed for her house, Unit 63. Something gets her attention, she looks to her right, reaches up to put her hair behind her ear, glances towards Unit 63 and then veers to the right towards what ever got her attention to begin with. So yes, Sandra did look towards her own house.

The confusion I think comes from LE's statement that the video is of her LEAVING her house. Actually, what happens is that she approaches her house and then LEAVES her APPROACH when she veers to the right.

This was briefly discussed earlier. I don't know exactly how LE could have explained it better. My explanation is a bit confusing, so I'm not sure what LE could have said on national TV that would not have created major confusion :crazy: so I think they just left it to whoever wanted to figure it out, rather than try to get into lengthy descriptions.

Does that make any sense? Is this what you see also?

Salem

bold by me

Sorry!! for the confusion..I meant YELLOW SPEED BUMP not the "clay pot" & we can clearly see in the video she's about to walk over the YELLOW SPEED BUMP before she disappears from view making it impossible for her to look over directly to her OWN house #63 at that point.

The YELLOW SPEED BUMP is clearly shown in the video opposite #61..It runs along the entire mhp & looks to be the ONLY one from what I can see..Unless I'm seeing it ALL wrong?

I need to look up last night's posts where someone (?) posted they determined the camera was probably from #61 due to certain things she saw..I will try to find that post now.

LE probably saw more of the video then we did so it's possible they saw her go IN her house & then LEAVE again but it would be after this point in the video they released & that's when they saw what appears to be her getting called over by someone..It ends there for LE too making it impossible to identify WHO it was..How lucky for the perp & totally devastating for Sandra (& everyone trying to find her) if this truly did happen.