CA CA - Bryce Laspisa, 19, Castaic, 30 Aug 2013 - #9

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
I respect you opinion and the choices of the family. This is their son, so they can handle the situation however they see fit.

Personally however, I feel it is a non sequitir to mention all of these specific things that apply or don't apply to Bryce.

Imagine meeting someone for the first time. Apropos of nothing they state that they do not use crack cocaine. Maybe they don't, but why mention it if it didn't matter?

For me, the statements/information/handling of this case have always sent up red flags, but maybe it's just my take on it.
Well, if you came from Brazil, you might say that....;). I hear what you are saying, though. When someone mentions something, it seems like they must have some reason to do so. My thought was just that it was possible that Bryce had plans to do something where he would disappear (The reason they would mention this), but circumstances may have prevented him from doing so. I believe he could be somewhere else, living whatever life he chose. But he could equally have really crashed, had a head trauma and fallen into the lake. And there are a lot of other random things that COULD have happened, but are not as likely (How many cases have we seen where someone is just walking along and gets pulled into a vehicle and kidnapped?). If I were in his parents shoes, I'd like to believe he is still alive and so would write things exactly as they have, to cover all bases that might have been mentioned by anyone, anywhere, any time. JMO, of course, but I'd take any possibility that was out there, no matter how obscure or remote. The alternative is that he is deceased, or cannot voluntarily contact his family. I can see holding out hope for another possibility.
 
Geez... I haven't been to this thread since mid October and now I come here and see 200 more posts and thinking... Oh they've found Bryce or have "new" news... alas, still the same... :gaah:

Where are you Bryce???!!!

ETA: Congrats Amandafast on your new baby girl!!!!!
 
I drove past Castiac this week, and it is definatly out in the middle of nowhere. And, looking at the Charley project page and the pics of Bryce, I can't but help think its pretty difficult for someone this distinctive looking to effectively hide. Logic suggests another search of the lake would be advisable. IMO.
 
Yes exactly. The Charley project page seems to have a few problems.
 
I just finished reading through all the posts from the past month or so. I wanted to clear up an assumption that I see again and again on websleuths, namely that it takes planning and cunning to disappear. It does not. There have been numerous cases of people who simply took off and started a new life where the people barely planned it out at all. I really wish we could stop assuming something that real life people have proven just is not true at all. I think it hinders good sleuthing here. We should never assume that any adult with a reasonable level of intelligence could not simply go somewhere and start a new life with minimal resources. For example, are people here aware that searches for missing persons do not use their social security number? Yep. That means that any of us could "disappear" and have a legitimate job, so long as we did not get a driver's license or put any bills in our name.

Another thing we have seen on this site more times than I can count is a body be found in an area already being searched. We cannot prove a negative, and so I never feel comfortable assuming that a body is not somewhere. That is why I find it odd that the family is not doing another search of the lake.

Finally, I do not know if the family is "hiding" something or not. What I do know is that often families will limit the amount of information they give out in order to protect the reputation of the missing or the family. I get that no one wants to be embarrassed, but I am always baffled by this method. To me it would be more important to get the person back than to have the family's reputation in tatters. Very often the family will decide what is and is not relevant information, when of course the family does not really know what is and is not relevant information.

In this case, it seems that the family thinks that Bryce is still alive, and IMO, the family appears to have a good reason why they think he is still alive.
 
I just finished reading through all the posts from the past month or so. I wanted to clear up an assumption that I see again and again on websleuths, namely that it takes planning and cunning to disappear. It does not. There have been numerous cases of people who simply took off and started a new life where the people barely planned it out at all. I really wish we could stop assuming something that real life people have proven just is not true at all. I think it hinders good sleuthing here. We should never assume that any adult with a reasonable level of intelligence could not simply go somewhere and start a new life with minimal resources. For example, are people here aware that searches for missing persons do not use their social security number? Yep. That means that any of us could "disappear" and have a legitimate job, so long as we did not get a driver's license or put any bills in our name.

Another thing we have seen on this site more times than I can count is a body be found in an area already being searched. We cannot prove a negative, and so I never feel comfortable assuming that a body is not somewhere. That is why I find it odd that the family is not doing another search of the lake.

Finally, I do not know if the family is "hiding" something or not. What I do know is that often families will limit the amount of information they give out in order to protect the reputation of the missing or the family. I get that no one wants to be embarrassed, but I am always baffled by this method. To me it would be more important to get the person back than to have the family's reputation in tatters. Very often the family will decide what is and is not relevant information, when of course the family does not really know what is and is not relevant information.

In this case, it seems that the family thinks that Bryce is still alive, and IMO, the family appears to have a good reason why they think he is still alive.

Excellent post!! I have said before when people are missing, they could have voluntarily left and people say, not possible, no way, they would never do it their family, they would call, wouldn't leave social media or their phone. Well, it happens all the time. Yesterday, a college girl was found to have voluntarily left and flew to NY. This month alone and can think of a few others. There was a teen from near me who did it for over SIX months with just a backpack. Don't forget the mom who abandon her husband and children and finally was found in FL and is now in jail.

The other thing that bother me is when people say there is no signs of depression, suicide, sadness, etc. This is very important to the process of finding the person. This information is not only often held from the media but from LE. The case that brought me here was about that. It was slipped that he he could have been and the family was so defensive about it. Saying he would never do it leaving his child. It can impede the investigation and or steer them in another direction. For what? To protect the missing? What if you have a chance to save them?

We sleuthers need to realize everything is possible and stop saying no to things when a person is missing. We don't know what anyone would do. Every single one of us is unique. Every door should be explored until every person is brought home. This constant not possible, no way nonsense is not helping bring people home.
 
Yes and every single time that it turns out the person just took off and started a new life, the family and friends always say that the person would not have left their children or parents or friends, and yet they did. The missing mom found in Florida just left with the clothes on her back and some new homeless friends. Another woman who left her son and was found later living in California just took a bus out of town and a couple hundred bucks with her. I mean, you know those bums/homeless people you see? They did not plan that lifestyle out, and yet there they are, surviving with no jobs, no steady income, etc. Brandi Stahr just up and left and was assumed to have been murdered, when, in reality, she was working at a Sam's Club under her own name and social security number.

The thing that is "hard" about disappearing is that most people, no matter how bad their problems are, do not want to leave their friends and family behind. Most of us would rather go to prison and see our family once in a while than disappear but be free and have no contact with them.

I actually wonder sometimes if people who disappear voluntarily are not actually seemingly happier in the days leading up to their disappearance. They may have in their heads that if things get any worse, that they will just take off and start a new life and they may be able to take solace from that. Sometimes when I read these missing person's cases, friends and family will say that the missing person acted like their life was looking up or were seemingly more positive than they had been in years, and to me that could just as easily be evidence that they disappeared on their own, as it is evidence that they were doing better and so would not have gone and started a new life somewhere. Even people who commit suicide are sometimes in a better mood in days leading up to it, because in their minds they finally have found a solution to their problems.

In a way, people who disappear and start a new life are not all that different than people who commit suicide. Just look at Brandi Stahr - it seemed fairly obvious to me that she had completely severed her old life from her new one. She did not want to see her mother, who, btw, insisted that the issues between them were not that bad.
 
I drove past Castiac this week, and it is definatly out in the middle of nowhere. And, looking at the Charley project page and the pics of Bryce, I can't but help think its pretty difficult for someone this distinctive looking to effectively hide. Logic suggests another search of the lake would be advisable. IMO.
I don't think he's distinctive looking. I've known many redheads in California, Southern and Northern in my life, several in my own family and we're not Irish.
 
I don't think he's distinctive looking. I've known many redheads in California, Southern and Northern in my life, several in my own family and we're not Irish.

I say that not just because of the unique hair color only belonging to 2% of the US populace, but because he has a remarkable million dollar smile. Id recognize this kid if I saw him. He has memorable looks, IMO.
 
To me, red hair of that color is quite distinctive. It is something that definitely stands out to me. There was a guy up in Oregon who was called in as being Bryce who had that exact same hair color and when you saw his picture, it was obvious that it was the hair color that stood out. Redheads are rare.
 
To me, red hair of that color is quite distinctive. It is something that definitely stands out to me. There was a guy up in Oregon who was called in as being Bryce who had that exact same hair color and when you saw his picture, it was obvious that it was the hair color that stood out. Redheads are rare.

I disagree, not in my experience, and he's probably dyed his hair by now. When everyone was searching for Linnea Lomax in Sacramento it was also said that blondes are rare in Sacramento. Nothing could be further from the truth. Our own niece has the exact same type of long, curly blonde hair that Linnea did. I'm surprised that noone reported spotting our niece as a false sighting. The guy in Oregon is a false sighting, that's all.
 
Well, with all due respect "your experience" is not a statistic. Redheads are about 2% of the population, so they are rare. Just because you personally do not think that redheads are rare, does not make that true. For example, I am a female and I am 5'10". It is rare for a woman to be that height. If you were to tell me that I am wrong, that it is not rare because there are a lot of women in your family with that height, then I would have to remind you that a rare genetic trait is likely not going to rare in one family.

Again, if there are a lot redheads in your family, that means that your family carries that gene, and not that redheads are common in general.
 
I disagree, not in my experience, and he's probably dyed his hair by now. When everyone was searching for Linnea Lomax in Sacramento it was also said that blondes are rare in Sacramento. Nothing could be further from the truth. Our own niece has the exact same type of long, curly blonde hair that Linnea did. I'm surprised that noone reported spotting our niece as a false sighting. The guy in Oregon is a false sighting, that's all.

How are blondes rare in Cali? I've lived hear all my life. This is the first I've heard of blondes rare in CA lol.
 
I did a little research awhile back in trying to track most probable US origins related to a UID in Annandale I fondly call our "Christmas Tree Lady" . I found that the national stat is 2%, but some states have a much higher percentage due to Scott-Irish settlements. Massachusetts is one such state, as is rhode Island. Interestingly enough, we now have a lead that our UID may be from Quincy, MA.

The point im trying to make is if we come from a state that has a high concentration of Scott-Irish, our view of the quantity of redheads is skewed. : )
 
Yes and every single time that it turns out the person just took off and started a new life, the family and friends always say that the person would not have left their children or parents or friends, and yet they did. The missing mom found in Florida just left with the clothes on her back and some new homeless friends. Another woman who left her son and was found later living in California just took a bus out of town and a couple hundred bucks with her. I mean, you know those bums/homeless people you see? They did not plan that lifestyle out, and yet there they are, surviving with no jobs, no steady income, etc. Brandi Stahr just up and left and was assumed to have been murdered, when, in reality, she was working at a Sam's Club under her own name and social security number.

The thing that is "hard" about disappearing is that most people, no matter how bad their problems are, do not want to leave their friends and family behind. Most of us would rather go to prison and see our family once in a while than disappear but be free and have no contact with them.

I actually wonder sometimes if people who disappear voluntarily are not actually seemingly happier in the days leading up to their disappearance. They may have in their heads that if things get any worse, that they will just take off and start a new life and they may be able to take solace from that. Sometimes when I read these missing person's cases, friends and family will say that the missing person acted like their life was looking up or were seemingly more positive than they had been in years, and to me that could just as easily be evidence that they disappeared on their own, as it is evidence that they were doing better and so would not have gone and started a new life somewhere. Even people who commit suicide are sometimes in a better mood in days leading up to it, because in their minds they finally have found a solution to their problems.

In a way, people who disappear and start a new life are not all that different than people who commit suicide. Just look at Brandi Stahr - it seemed fairly obvious to me that she had completely severed her old life from her new one. She did not want to see her mother, who, btw, insisted that the issues between them were not that bad.

One question I've pondered is if a person voluntarily goes missing do we, the family, friends, etc. have a right to find them? I know the family wants to make sure the missing person is ok, however, they've left their life behind for a reason so should we just let them be? It's a tough one...
 
One question I've pondered is if a person voluntarily goes missing do we, the family, friends, etc. have a right to find them? I know the family wants to make sure the missing person is ok, however, they've left their life behind for a reason so should we just let them be? It's a tough one...

If the word "right" is used then I can only answer in the affirmative. Any person has the right to locate any other person (assuming no laws are broken). Ethically speaking, I see no reason why the family cannot locate the person, know they are safe, and then just leave them be. Truly though such cases are extreme. I have known a few people who are totally estranged from their families, but they are not a missing person. Their families know they are alive and generally where they live.

For a person to just go missing without a trace is so rare that unfortunately I think that families not only have a right to look for them, but also an obligation. Just look what happened to Michelle Knight. Her family, sadly, felt no obligation to look for her.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
63
Guests online
1,427
Total visitors
1,490

Forum statistics

Threads
605,841
Messages
18,193,330
Members
233,587
Latest member
Cliff77
Back
Top