AK - Samantha Koenig, 18, Anchorage, 1 Feb 2012 - #5

[Fishermom]

Well the majority of us were right ... he didn't have Sam's card. Now how the HELL do you get a PIN number? If it was written on the card he got damn lucky, cause not even Grandmas do that now lol

None of this makes sense. It almost HAS to be JKs card. It was reported stolen...who reports a card stolen, but doesn't turn it off? Could the victim have been instructed to not turn it off b/c the police wanted to track/find the perpetrator? I have not heard of this being done in the past (though that should not be surprising..).
Scenario: he kidnaps her, makes her tell him the pin? (weak, I know...how would he know she knew it...I don't know my dad's PIN!) Then what? Maybe there HAVE been demands made on JK? Maybe this is why the card has not been turned off???
This is all speculation...thinking out loud!

 

[z560]

None of this makes sense. It almost HAS to be JKs card. It was reported stolen...who reports a card stolen, but doesn't turn it off? Could the victim have been instructed to not turn it off b/c the police wanted to track/find the perpetrator? I have not heard of this being done in the past (though that should not be surprising..).
Scenario: he kidnaps her, makes her tell him the pin? (weak, I know...how would he know she knew it...I don't know my dad's PIN!) Then what? Maybe there HAVE been demands made on JK? Maybe this is why the card has not been turned off???
This is all speculation...thinking out loud!

I agree--Person A pretty much has to be James Koenig.

Of course the weird thing is that he wouldn't report it stolen *immediately*.

Did he already know that she had been forcibly taken?

I suppose there's a chance he was in on it too, but doesn't that seem too elaborate? And where is Samantha then?

 

[bessie]

At 3 a.m. on Feb. 2, a man described as "Person A" in the affidavit reported seeing an unknown man wearing a ski mask and dark clothes going through his vehicle, the affidavit says. The alleged robbery victim said his Credit Union 1 debit card was missing afterward and that he had not given it to anyone or given anyone permission to use it. Person A's gender is described as male in the FBI agent's affidavit.

http://www.adn.com/2012/03/22/2386033/details-emerge-about-koenig-case.html#storylink=cpy

So the robbery victim told LE his debit card was missing, but he didn't report it stolen to his bank because if he had, the ATM machine would have sucked up the card when IK tried to use it. IF the "alleged robbery victim" is JK, it's possible that when SK didn't turn up by morning, he put two and two together and surmised there might be a connection between Sam's absence and the robbery. By not reporting the card stolen, he allowed the robber to leave a trail, which might turn out to be a smart move if the trail ultimately leads to Samantha. Now my question is, would LE go along with a plan like that?

 

[ConnectedSuitor]

They say the details from the affidavit were made public. Can anyone access that affidavit through Pacer or otherwise?

Nothing in Pacer yet.

 

[Knox]

Could Person A be Duane?

If they saw the man rummaging around in their vehicle at 3:00 AM, why didn't they confront him or call LE? JK doesn't seem to be the wilting flower type. They got a good enough look at him to see he was wearing a ski mask.

At 3 a.m. on Feb. 2, a man described as "Person A" in the affidavit reported seeing an unknown man wearing a ski mask and dark clothes going through his vehicle, the affidavit says. The alleged robbery victim said his Credit Union 1 debit card was missing afterward and that he had not given it to anyone or given anyone permission to use it. Person A's gender is described as male in the FBI agent's affidavit.

The above makes it sound like they did not report the robbery that night. I don't know there is just something hinky about the way this is described. But maybe it's just phrased that way to prevent disclosing too many details.

Read more here: http://www.adn.com/2012/03/22/2386033/details-emerge-about-koenig-case.html#storylink=cpy​

 

[akmama]

The article said he saw the man going through his vehicle, so wouldn't you check your vehicle right away for your card?? If its debit and not cc, its your actual cash coming out, which can take the banks weeks to put back. Even if you thought your daughter was involved, who would just sit back and let their kid drain the account....it seems to me JK is the best and worst option for "person A", grrrrr....I'm going to be up all night, again!

 

[Fishermom]

And the 26 days. He waited 26 days to use it. WHY? Why would someone do that? Maybe contact was made in the interim? Money placed in the account for ransom??? If your card is stolen, you report it stolen and that is that. There should be no assumption that if you wait 26 days, the "coast will be clear". Though, *****, the guy did have rolls of money on his floor. Doh. I am trying to decide if this makes me feel that SK is more likely to be alive-- and I think it hasn't swayed me one way or the other. The weirder it gets, I think that maybe there is some inkling she could have been involved? But from these reports, this guy really was not who he appeared to be in daily life...probably capable of anything...

 

[z560]

All right, just throwing a theory out there and hoping it can be debunked.

PLAN:

- Have Samantha "abducted"

- Card is "stolen"

- Reward money is collected, placed in same account as card

- Have person use the card to take cash, well after reward money gathered

- Person gives cut of the cash back to card holder

Thoughts?

 

[gliving]

http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/court-document-details-arrest-man-tied-abducted-alaska-barista

Slightly different slant here.

"The affidavit does reveal some interesting details, though. A man identified only as "Person A" saw someone going through his vehicle in Anchorage in the early morning hours of Feb. 2 -- the night of Koenig's disappearance -- just hours after she went missing from the Midtown Anchorage coffee stand where she worked, where police believe she may have been abducted by an armed man. A surveillance video documented the incident, though not in great detail."

The man reported his debit card stolen, taken from his vehicle, according to the affidavit. He told police he had neither given the card to anyone nor given permission to use it."

Okay, so "Person A" calls the cops to say his credit card is stolen, but he doesn't call the credit card company to stop further charges. No, he watches his bank balance being depleted while the thief moseys on down to Texas, making withdrawals all the way. Plus another surveillance tape of the perp not released to the public.

If a young lady wasn't missing, I'd have a little giggle with this latest news release.

 

[ryanemsmom]

Possible driving route from La's Vegas NV to Wells TX hitting the towns that the card was used. Not really out of the way, pretty direct and sticking to highways and interstates. Why drive though? That's a long road trip.

[ame=http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en-US&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en-US&um=1&ie=UTF-8&gl=us&saddr=las+vegas+nevada&daddr=wells+texas&dirflg=d&geocode=KdF99aSCt76AMaN5s9Xm1cw6;Kc9liepNAjiGMdKgjeeMCleo&ei=xg9sT9XwMsiuiALq8JGHBQ&sa=X&oi=geocode_result&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CA0Q9w8wAA]Google Map[/ame]

 

[Cazzie]

http://www.adn.com/2012/03/22/2386033/details-emerge-about-koenig-case.html#storylink=cpy

So the robbery victim told LE his debit card was missing, but he didn't report it stolen to his bank because if he had, the ATM machine would have sucked up the card when IK tried to use it. IF the "alleged robbery victim" is JK, it's possible that when SK didn't turn up by morning, he put two and two together and surmised there might be a connection between Sam's absence and the robbery. By not reporting the card stolen, he allowed the robber to leave a trail, which might turn out to be a smart move if the trail ultimately leads to Samantha. Now my question is, would LE go along with a plan like that?

I don't know. I think so, especially if they know that Sam is missing.

Your scenario seems to fit with what JK posted on his website (the "challenge" or "call out", or whatever we want to call it)...where he said he has good methods and bad methods and was prepared to use either (paraphrasing). IOW, he might not have been bluffing or posturing, but knew he had LE backing.

Also, this may be why the coffee stand video wasn't released...not even a still photo from it...they were going to follow the money trail as Plan A. It sounds like a pretty big gamble.

And still no Sam.

 

[GutFeeling!]

http://www.adn.com/2012/03/22/2386033/details-emerge-about-koenig-case.html#storylink=cpy

So the robbery victim told LE his debit card was missing, but he didn't report it stolen to his bank because if he had, the ATM machine would have sucked up the card when IK tried to use it. IF the "alleged robbery victim" is JK, it's possible that when SK didn't turn up by morning, he put two and two together and surmised there might be a connection between Sam's absence and the robbery. By not reporting the card stolen, he allowed the robber to leave a trail, which might turn out to be a smart move if the trail ultimately leads to Samantha. Now my question is, would LE go along with a plan like that?

Maybe Sam was taken home made to get her fathers card and PIN with a promise that once they got enough money that she would be returned safely.

JK tells cops what has happened. They do it "their" way to try and track the person down. The whole man found going through car was made up too (although being in the affidavit is going to cause problems if it is a lie)
JK is the one that owes money .... IK (or someone) takes her, JK tells police he wants to handle this and asks how. Police agree and start watching the card (they have to be in contact with the bank to get updates on usuage)

LE could go along with it, they wouldn't want to initially but they could decide to do that. I would think the FBI was called in early and they certainly can do things like that.

IF this was JK's card is rants to a "particular" person make sense because he knew in a round able way who had Samantha. The fact that he has said over and over again that police have told him nothing is probably a lie. he has always supported the police even though they really haven't achieved anything. he knows where they are in the plan.

I can see several books, multiple TV shows and a movie.

 

[z560]

Another weird thing about this--the person tried to withdraw $600 from the debit card at one use.

Doesn't *everyone* know that you generally can't do that?

I think mine has something like a $300 limit. I don't know, maybe it's $500 or maybe some debit cards have a higher limit than others. But SIX HUNDRED dollars? I'd think that just about anyone with half a brain would know that was unlikely to work. And would probably raise eyebrows when it didn't.

It just really goes against IK being some kind of criminal mastermind that orchestrated a high profile abduction.

 

[Ransom]

Possible driving route from La's Vegas NV to Wells TX hitting the towns that the card was used. Not really out of the way, pretty direct and sticking to highways and interstates. Why drive though? That's a long road trip.

Lordsburg, NM is in southern NM and is right off I-10 (between Tucson and Las Cruces, NM.

 

[Ransom]

Another weird thing about this--the person tried to withdraw $600 from the debit card at one use.

Doesn't *everyone* know that you generally can't do that?

I think mine has something like a $300 limit. I don't know, maybe it's $500 or maybe some debit cards have a higher limit than others. But SIX HUNDRED dollars? I'd think that just about anyone with half a brain would know that was unlikely to work. And would probably raise eyebrows when it didn't.

It just really goes against IK being some kind of criminal mastermind that orchestrated a high profile abduction.

Depends what you have set up with your bank/credit union. I can ATM more than $600.

 

[z560]

Depends what you have set up with your bank/credit union. I can ATM more than $600.

I guess I'm just not a high roller then.

 

[GutFeeling!]

Another weird thing about this--the person tried to withdraw $600 from the debit card at one use.

Doesn't *everyone* know that you generally can't do that?

I think mine has something like a $300 limit. I don't know, maybe it's $500 or maybe some debit cards have a higher limit than others. But SIX HUNDRED dollars? I'd think that just about anyone with half a brain would know that was unlikely to work. And would probably raise eyebrows when it didn't.

It just really goes against IK being some kind of criminal mastermind that orchestrated a high profile abduction.

My limit is $1500 a day. All you have to do is ask the bank to increase it.

 

[bessie]

Well, the article is incorrect. The affidavit mentions no transactions prior to February 28th. It doesn't mention any ATM transactions in the "hours after" SK was abducted. I didn't think that was right because the complaint states the crimes occurred between 02/28 and 03/13.

Also, the affidavit does not specify when the truck robbery was reported.

 

[GutFeeling!]

And the 26 days. He waited 26 days to use it. WHY? Why would someone do that? Maybe contact was made in the interim? Money placed in the account for ransom??? If your card is stolen, you report it stolen and that is that. There should be no assumption that if you wait 26 days, the "coast will be clear". Though, *****, the guy did have rolls of money on his floor. Doh. I am trying to decide if this makes me feel that SK is more likely to be alive-- and I think it hasn't swayed me one way or the other. The weirder it gets, I think that maybe there is some inkling she could have been involved? But from these reports, this guy really was not who he appeared to be in daily life...probably capable of anything...

It actually doesn't say when he used it first.

snipped: It wasn't until the end of February that a man -- described as muscular and light-skinned, based on surveillance footage -- was seen in the surveillance video making cash withdrawals with the card, according to the affidavit.

Read more here: http://www.adn.com/2012/03/22/23860...-koenig-case.html#storylink=cpy#storylink=cpy

The "was seen" made me think it was the first time he actually was seen - not necessarily the first time he used it.

 

[GutFeeling!]

From the affidavit: I have not
included each and every fact known to me regarding this investigation. I have set forth only thePage 1 of 5
Case 3:12-cr-00041-TMB-JDR Document 1-1 Filed 03/14/12 Page 1 of 5
facts that I believe are necessary to establish a foundation to support the aforementioned
charge(s).

Translated this means "we are protecting someone and you know why" IMO