AK - Samantha Koenig, 18, Anchorage, 01 Feb 2012 - #7

[TxLady2]

If there's any truth to her being seen on the video changing her sweatshirt and brushing her hair then I can see why LE might feel that it might taint a jury. If LE showed a video like that one might get the impression that this whole thing was staged and they certainly won't get the support from the public to bring closure to this case. The people in Anchorage will pour their hearts out to you until you cross them. Haven't heard anything more about SK's grand parents going on vacation to the lower 48.

My only question is, if this video has yet to be released to the public, then how do locals know what is on it?

It's possible that some officer leaked that information to a friend or spouse, and if that's true, then he/she might find themselves without a job for blabbing details about an investigation that LE did not want to be made public right now.

 

[sfbaynancydrew]

My only question is, if this video has yet to be released to the public, then how do locals know what is on it?

It's possible that some officer leaked that information to a friend or spouse, and if that's true, then he/she might find themselves without a job for blabbing details about an investigation that LE did not want to be made public right now.

The owners of the coffee shop have also seen it and aren't bound by the same confidentiality. Although I'm sure they're trying.

 

[503mpco]

Yes the coffee shop owners first watched the video. Initially after it first came out there was a tape there was a news story or a statement somewhere that said basically when the coffee shop was found to have not been closed properly (and $ missing - have they confirmed for certain the money was indeed taken?) the employee let the owner know which then led to the owner coming down to the shop and the tapes were watched. So presumably the one or two employees who were to start work that day could have watched it as well. When they watched it they had no idea what would be on it so they would have had no reason to treat it as evidence. KWIM? Many of the employees of these places are very young, like Sam, so I could see someone sharing/texting info about the tape before it was clear they need to not.

 

[joslmaman]

Yes the coffee shop owners first watched the video. Initially after it first came out there was a tape there was a news story or a statement somewhere that said basically when the coffee shop was found to have not been closed properly (and $ missing - have they confirmed for certain the money was indeed taken?) the employee let the owner know which then led to the owner coming down to the shop and the tapes were watched. So presumably the one or two employees who were to start work that day could have watched it as well. When they watched it they had no idea what would be on it so they would have had no reason to treat it as evidence. KWIM? Many of the employees of these places are very young, like Sam, so I could see someone sharing/texting info about the tape before it was clear they need to not.

Along side this discussion, I can say that I have no clue, like everyone else what's on the tape. However, I heard a completely different local theory as to why they haven't shown the tape- supposedly also from a good source. Hearing this most recent information passed it reminded me that these cases get a lot of false rumors going really quickly. So don't put too much weight in those.

 

[907]

That's what I remembered reading, too. Don't want to mess up another undercover operation.

or, they called people into work, at 10pm on friday to help out, and they wore their clothes they put on.
Does a uniform add anything to the credibility?
the FBi agents i have interacted with, always had on "plain clothes", and no uniform.
Same for APD detectives.

 

[503mpco]

Along side this discussion, I can say that I have no clue, like everyone else what's on the tape. However, I heard a completely different local theory as to why they haven't shown the tape- supposedly also from a good source. Hearing this most recent information passed it reminded me that these cases get a lot of false rumors going really quickly. So don't put too much weight in those.

Indeed! Exactly why I was wondering if it had been discussed at all. My info was most certainly not from a good source. As I said in my orig. post just something I've heard from a few different people so I thought it was interesting that it was being discussed in different circles.

 

[z560]

or, they called people into work, at 10pm on friday to help out, and they wore their clothes they put on.
Does a uniform add anything to the credibility?
the FBi agents i have interacted with, always had on "plain clothes", and no uniform.
Same for APD detectives.

That's all true but I'm thinking that collecting a number of agents (I think I read there were 20 there or something like that?) in one public place can be a bit of a liability. If it were just a few then I'm not sure there is an issue but if you basically have every FBI agent in Anchorage there (which is what it sounds like) then I could see that being a problem.

 

[Chili Fries]

I think the reason the video hasn't been shown to the public may be because authorities want it to have maximum effect in the courtroom.

They have 3 lines of evidence concerning the disguised man (who in all instances has very likely turned out to be Keyes)...the coffee shop surveillance video of the abduction, the eyewitness account of the credit card thief and the bank/ATM surveillance video of the thief using the card. Maybe they think all of that evidence can be connected better by a jury who hasn't seen the tape on the news than by a jury who has.

 

[907]

This is where my ransom theory comes in. What if he kept the phone, contacted JK with it, demands money, turns the phone off after the call. JK may have told police but has said in earlier comments that he would NOT involve the police and hand over reward money. JK can get Sam's phone bill showing where the texts were made from (as can the police) - initially made in Anchorage to they believe she is there. Place funds in the account, with drawn by, we assume IK, which is enough to get him to lower 48 where he withdraws more, JK assumes still in anchorage until bill comes in and he sees Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. The phone could still be being used and switched off/ battery removed and until the bill comes in they have no idea where from but assume Anchorage.

I know this because I have done it many a time LOL (not with this case - personal/professional reasons)

Moo

Ok, this kind of made me saY Hmmmm....
I note that all the fliers say "kidnapped"
Articles say Abduction.

So i googled the definitions. Nearly the same, except, kidnapped has "ransom" in it.

There seems to be no consistency between the use of the two, and perhaps, it is a wild theory about the word use.

It may change the way a search is done, or maybe at first it is an abduction, until they know it is a kidnapping.

her phone is somewheres. the father said the battery died. but, anyone can go to radio shack and get a charger...

maybe this is why that apd asserted they beleived she was alive. No one pays ransom for a corpse.

Might fit, might not........Dang Semantics.

 

[Jersey*Girl]

Check out the latest comment... Don't know if they're being truthful or sarcastic but it made me lmao:

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

 

[joslmaman]

Indeed! Exactly why I was wondering if it had been discussed at all. My info was most certainly not from a good source. As I said in my orig. post just something I've heard from a few different people so I thought it was interesting that it was being discussed in different circles.

Just want to make sure you didn't think I was directing that at your comment specifically. Basically just thinking how in this case there's so little information that it's easy to latch on to any new idea that could explain things. And, I'd be thinking about the version I had heard, mulling it around in my head, and once I heard what you mentioned it made me realize all the more that the reality is there's just no more news yet.

 

[Jersey*Girl]

I see we have some new peeps on Websleuths! Glad ya joined - you're gonna love it here!

 

[IHAVENOCLUE]

Ohhhh and taking them at night, around the 9pm 10 pm mark is excellent, news casts are over. Friday night are an extra bargain because no investigators have to answer the phone- it's the weekend, and while they are still working they can say it is a day off.

Tricky little blighters no? lol

BBM
Is than an Aussie term?

I love it!

Can I use it too?:seeya:

 

[IHAVENOCLUE]

or, they called people into work, at 10pm on friday to help out, and they wore their clothes they put on.
Does a uniform add anything to the credibility?
the FBi agents i have interacted with, always had on "plain clothes", and no uniform.
Same for APD detectives.

FWIW...I was noticing the clothes of the men moving the shed, and all of the men I saw, except one, had blue jeans (levi tags) similar boots, and similar jackets. I thought, there was even a type of uniform for their street clothes.
One guy had shirt sleeves on, though, and I thought, "Isn't he freezing?!?"

 

[IHAVENOCLUE]

That's all true but I'm thinking that collecting a number of agents (I think I read there were 20 there or something like that?) in one public place can be a bit of a liability. If it were just a few then I'm not sure there is an issue but if you basically have every FBI agent in Anchorage there (which is what it sounds like) then I could see that being a problem.

Good point...it's kind of like the U.S. President, Vice-President, Speaker of the House, etc. can't all travel in the same plane/car/etc. because the liability is too great.

 

[Jersey*Girl]

Snowbunny - Just to reply to a post of yours in the prior thread, I don't think it matters that KA owns the property. If IK was the only who had access to the shed there (it probably had a lock on it, right?) then she could not consent to its search.

Here's an analogy for you: say you have a son living in your home, but his room is "off limits" to everyone else and he even locks it when he leaves (unusual, I know). If the cops came and tried to search his room your consent might not be enough even though you own the home.

Sorry if this seems off-topic but it may be relevant. It could explain why the FBI waited until now to seize the shed--perhaps before they couldn't get into it and didn't have enough to get a separate warrant for it.

Would depend on the son's age & if he actually pays rent to his parents, otherwise it would be totally up to the homeowner. Either case though I think some sort of document backing up investigators actions needs to be presented as well as stay on file.

In IK's situation, I'd think even if KA gave investigators permission to take the shed that it wouldn't be enough to have verbal or written permission. For legal evidence protective measures, for the protection of the case so evidence doesn't get thrown out, they would need backup with a warrant/affidavit.

 

[Jersey*Girl]

FWIW...I was noticing the clothes of the men moving the shed, and all of the men I saw, except one, had blue jeans (levi tags) similar boots, and similar jackets. I thought, there was even a type of uniform for their street clothes.
One guy had shirt sleeves on, though, and I thought, "Isn't he freezing?!?"

They were plain clothed officers, I thought with the FBI.

 

[Jersey*Girl]

Re the hair combing thing...

Before I went to college, I had this idea to be one a beautician. I learned that freshly combed hair before going out in damp or humid weather prevents shedding of your hair. Maybe the combing, if the rumor has any truth to it, was done to prevent trace evidence from being left at a subsequent crime scene.

 

[Jersey*Girl]

This caught my eye in a recent news story:



http://community.adn.com/adn/node/160579#storylink=misearch#storylink=cpy

Maybe some of the agents involved are undercover, or wish to keep a low profile at the very least. That might explain doing this operation under the cover of night.

Still catching up ... But yes. They state plain clothes men & women. They have to be talking on an official capacity bc they've never described JK as plain clothes, or MT as plain clothes, or the coffee shop owners as plain clothes. It's a term used to describe undercover agents. Also, I believe they were FBI.

 

[Jersey*Girl]

Ok, this kind of made me saY Hmmmm....
I note that all the fliers say "kidnapped"
Articles say Abduction.

So i googled the definitions. Nearly the same, except, kidnapped has "ransom" in it.

There seems to be no consistency between the use of the two, and perhaps, it is a wild theory about the word use.

It may change the way a search is done, or maybe at first it is an abduction, until they know it is a kidnapping.

her phone is somewheres. the father said the battery died. but, anyone can go to radio shack and get a charger...

maybe this is why that apd asserted they beleived she was alive. No one pays ransom for a corpse.

Might fit, might not........Dang Semantics.

Exactly. We noted this in the beginning. Doesn't mean somebody on the inside is involved, or that's it's all a ruse for money, but it goes to show that le isn't providing all available info to Sam's dad - which they'd be remiss to anyway...just sayin'. Seems they're keeping their cards close to the chest.