AK - Samantha Koenig, 18, Anchorage, 01 Feb 2012 - #6

[bessie]

:seeya: FYI: The only verified local/insider in Samantha's case is Isamom.

 

[SmoothOperator]

From what I have gathered in following these type cases as they unfold EVEN IF the property owner gives their full written consent on specific search and seizure.. LE STILL FOLLOW THROUGH WITH AN ACTUAL COURT ISSUED THROUGH AFFIDAVIT, SEARCH WARRANT FOR THE SPECIFIC SEARCH AND SEIZURE(IE. in this case specifically the search/seizure of the shed) ..

Moo. But Id be willing to bet that this seizure was not solely based upon consent at the discretion of the home/property owner(KA)..while I find it likely she did consent however IMO LE/FBI would be certain to cover all bases meaning they did have an actual court issued search warrant in hand at the time of the removal of the shed...:moo:

 

[ryanemsmom]

What type of law does he specialize in?
Is the lawyer hoping to defend IK? This IS a high profile case!

Class Action lawsuits, not a criminal lawyer.

 

[Jersey*Girl]

Class Action lawsuits, not a criminal lawyer.

I thought IK got a public defender?

 

[Jersey*Girl]

I'm finally all caught up! Jeesh...missed a big portion.

I totally remember reading an interview where a neighbor stated IK spent alot of time in his shed, something like that. Makes me think...

Unabomber

Or of course ... Wait for it ... Wait for it ...

Grandfather from Chitty Chitty Bang Bang

 

[gliving]

Didn't someone call LE and say they saw IK break into their truck at 3:00am on 2/2/12? JK said it wasn't his debit card but I've never heard it said that it wasn't Dwayne's. Maybe IK broken into Dwayne's (Samantha's) truck and stole his credit/debit card and it's possible that Samantha knew Dwayne's pin number and that's where the connection with IK comes into play.

That's Person A. They said they saw "someone" breaking into their car, not IK. A month later IK starts using the card. Which is why I thought those videos of girls breaking into cars was curious. I'm wondering if perhaps Person A was out of town and didn't notice the strange withdrawals until later. Then put two and two together and reported the theft.

If Person A is a business owner, they might have multiple accounts and not notice irregular activity until much later. Still, how did IK get the PIN?

 

[gliving]

From what I have gathered in following these type cases as they unfold EVEN IF the property owner gives their full written consent on specific search and seizure.. LE STILL FOLLOW THROUGH WITH AN ACTUAL COURT ISSUED THROUGH AFFIDAVIT, SEARCH WARRANT FOR THE SPECIFIC SEARCH AND SEIZURE(IE. in this case specifically the search/seizure of the shed) ..

Moo. But Id be willing to bet that this seizure was not solely based upon consent at the discretion of the home/property owner(KA)..while I find it likely she did consent however IMO LE/FBI would be certain to cover all bases meaning they did have an actual court issued search warrant in hand at the time of the removal of the shed...:moo:

Doesn't the warrant have to say what they are looking for? It can't just say a shed. I'd like to see the warrant.

 

[bessie]

http://www.adn.com/2012/03/31/2401114/fbi-police-examine-shed-taken.html#storylink=cpy

A comment made me look a little closer at the person quoted in the article. He is a lawyer in Anchorage. The comment made here that people tend to not go to the media to speak about suspects because of the permanence seems off in this case too then. I could get if it was a nobody who wanted 5 minutes and his name in the paper, but this is a guy with something to lose if he is wrong. It just seems off to me...

My thoughts and opinions only.

What type of law does he specialize in?
Is the lawyer hoping to defend IK? This IS a high profile case!

Class Action lawsuits, not a criminal lawyer.

Here's a thought. The article says he recommended IK's work to others. Perhaps he's now in CYA mode because he fears those people will question why he referred them to a shady character, now a suspected criminal. To dispel criticism, he wants it on record that he had no idea IK was anything other than an honest, hard working gent.

 

[Portabella]

A big clue is how he got the pin to the credit card, if IK was the one breaking into the vehicle he would have no way of knowing the pin. The fact that the card was left on by the victim of the theft is odd, and even if it was left on the fact that the bank did not HOT CARD it was super odd....makes no sense, cannot wrap my mind around it.

 

[tiredblondy]

Once a child is a certain age, it is mandatory to get their SS issued for tax purposes bc you can't claim said child w/o the proper SS. I thought the age was around 5? Not sure...

However, if IK grew up on a reservation, that would explain why he didn't get his SS# until late bc true Native Americans living on a legal reservation don't have to pay taxes.

If I remember correctly that did not come about until the 70's because I did not get my SS# until I was 16 in 1968 and my parents claimed me and my siblings all those years without one.

 

[IHAVENOCLUE]

I thought IK got a public defender?

Yes..he did. I just read that again in an article, but had forgotten before I posted this question.
I was trying to understand why the lawyer stated in the media that he had IK work for him in the past, considered him (IK) trustworthy, and had recommended him to other people. (My own words.) His public support of an arrested man was puzzling to me.

 

[IHAVENOCLUE]

Here's a thought. The article says he recommended IK's work to others. Perhaps he's now in CYA mode because he fears those people will question why he referred them to a shady character, now a suspected criminal. To dispel criticism, he wants it on record that he had no idea IK was anything other than an honest, hard working gent.

That makes sense. He wants it on record so that his name will not be besmudged.
(besmudged...what a funny word!)

 

[IHAVENOCLUE]

A big clue is how he got the pin to the credit card, if IK was the one breaking into the vehicle he would have no way of knowing the pin. The fact that the card was left on by the victim of the theft is odd, and even if it was left on the fact that the bank did not HOT CARD it was super odd....makes no sense, cannot wrap my mind around it.

I agree that this is puzzling.
If, in fact, the card was stolen, and the thief and/or IK figured out the pin number without assistance from the owner of the card (or someone familiar with the pin number), then that makes me think that CC's are not as protected by the bank as I would expect.

Or...it makes me think that there is more to this story..if you know what I mean! :wink:

 

[z560]

From what I have gathered in following these type cases as they unfold EVEN IF the property owner gives their full written consent on specific search and seizure.. LE STILL FOLLOW THROUGH WITH AN ACTUAL COURT ISSUED THROUGH AFFIDAVIT, SEARCH WARRANT FOR THE SPECIFIC SEARCH AND SEIZURE(IE. in this case specifically the search/seizure of the shed) ..

Moo. But Id be willing to bet that this seizure was not solely based upon consent at the discretion of the home/property owner(KA)..while I find it likely she did consent however IMO LE/FBI would be certain to cover all bases meaning they did have an actual court issued search warrant in hand at the time of the removal of the shed...:moo:

It would probably be a good idea to get a warrant, because even if KA consented to the search that might not be enough. IK could later say that the shed was totally his so KA really had no right to consent to its search. I'm not sure if that would work but it's a risk the cops would probably rather not take.

It would be great to see the search warrant because they would have to lay out the facts that made them thought there would be evidence in the shed. My guess is the warrant is under seal though.

 

[TxLady2]

Dang, I'm still trying to catch up...

Some years ago, my old neighbir has his truck broken into. They stole his wallet, car charger, pair of sunglasses & good driving gloves. I yelled at him fir leaving his wallet in the car. Police came but couldn't do anything but write a report, etc.

Then last year, my husband was on a job in Wilmington. Idiot left his door window down just a bit. Somebody got it unlocked & stole his wallet, gps, personal iPhone, car charger - but they left over $10K worth of tools in the back! Go figure dumb azzes! Police came, took a report, couldn't do anything.

What seem to be small time criminals are actually somewhat bigger than we think. When these idiots steal wallets & small goods out of vehicles, they have no concern bc they know most people have debit cards to go with their bank accounts & they're FDIC insured for loss/theft 100%. credit cards you get your $ back right away whereas a bank can take up to 30 days. The real money with this type of theft comes from stealing medical cards. They use a persons health card, go to a distant hospital, are given pain meds that they can either take or sell, then they toss the card to only scout out another vehicle. It's all for the quick buck.

Perps aren't really interested in stereo systems now - now they take the whole car & it's dismantled into parts in mere hours. So why would somebody take debit cards? For quick cash. How would he know the pin? Easy - either somebody told him the pin or he has one of those mirror programs that he's used in the past that tracks everything. It's sort of comparable to a keylogger.

Which reminds me... when you get out of your car in a parking lot to run into the store, DO NOT use your remote to lock your car. Use the lock button inside on the door panel. Thieves now have a device that can "read" the code and they sit in their vehicle and unlock your car after you walk away, if you use the remote. The device can't do that with the lock button on the door, only if you use the remote.
Also don't hit the remote to unlock your car until you're right there beside it, especially if you're a good ways away from the store or in a parking garage or dark area of the parking lot at night.
Sorry for the OT, but just passing this on.

 

[Snowbunny]

It would probably be a good idea to get a warrant, because even if KA consented to the search that might not be enough. IK could later say that the shed was totally his so KA really had no right to consent to its search. I'm not sure if that would work but it's a risk the cops would probably rather not take.

It would be great to see the search warrant because they would have to lay out the facts that made them thought there would be evidence in the shed. My guess is the warrant is under seal though.

Except for the fact that the shed was on KA property not IK property.

 

[TxLady2]

I believe no bail was asked for because, when you request bail, it allows prosecutors to release information that the defense did not want released---- I can tell you from my experience with court and "big" crimes, (murder, trafficking etc) You sit in jail while they build their case-you have a better chance of beating the "big" case and pleading to the initial charge--

For example: A cop pulls you over for a headlight being out, and finds 3 lbs of pot in a book bag in the trunk.... you sit in jail for approx the sentence of the initial charge (headlight) and by the time its in court, the trafficking charge can't be proven, for one reason or another. Another fact, the general public needs to know is that 90%, NINETY percent, of all convictions come from an admission of guilt.... not the police proving anything in front of a judge.

It's the prosecutors who have to prove the case in court, not the police. But the police have to do their jobs before it ever gets to court, and not very many criminals admit guilt until AFTER they're arrested. I doubt very many of them run down to the police station and voluntarily confess. Those confessions are usually obtained by some pretty good investigations and interrogations.

 

[TxLady2]

I saw that, thanks Jane. I still questioned the late date though bc his SS# would definitely be needed for his parents to claim him on income tax & also for health insurance. So, I was wondering why he wouldn't be claimed on a tax return. If he was protected under a reservation that could explain it. Not sure though, only speculating. Once a child reaches a certain age they have to have a legally assigned SS# in order to be claimed, then also later on for health insurance. Reservations have protected grandfathered laws that are different so again I'm not sure but it could explain it.

I don't think many parents wait until their child is 5, though. We got our son's SS card the same year he was born, so we could claim him for that year, since he was born in June. Don't know about a new birth but if the child resides with you for 6 months or more, you can claim them as a dependent.

 

[Jersey*Girl]

If I remember correctly that did not come about until the 70's because I did not get my SS# until I was 16 in 1968 and my parents claimed me and my siblings all those years without one.

Thank you sooo much blondy! Would make sense...but still wouldn't add up for IK. Kwim?

 

[TxLady2]

Doesn't the warrant have to say what they are looking for? It can't just say a shed. I'd like to see the warrant.

Yes, it has to be pretty specific and usually has to have probable cause as to why they believe whatever they're looking for is in that location. They can't just say well, we MIGHT find something there.
Since a lot of people keep tools in their sheds, they could be looking for a murder weapon, but my guess is they are looking for evidence that she was in that shed at some point. You know, a neighbor or a passerby could have seen or heard something and called it in. But they had something other than just a "maybe" there was something there.