Deceased/Not Found CA - Sierra LaMar, 15, Morgan Hill, 16 March 2012 #12 *A. Garcia-Torres guilty*

[IHAVENOCLUE]

Take a look at the parcel of 18 Paquita Espana. Look at the bldgs. This is a recent pic. You can see the huge road that wraps around the entire property. To exit the back yard and go to the fron driveway, there is an electronic gate.

The Iron gate that sits on the cul-de-sac was never utilized but this back gate is.

This looks like a working property as does the property to the right. Do you think any stranger who had brains would risk any seeing him. IMO, it would be very risky...unless, he knew for sure no workers would be around or was he himself an employee.

http://www.realtor.com/property-detail/18-Paquita-Espana-Ct_Morgan-Hill_CA_95037_1ae5d201?source=web

Doesn't it seem unusual for a family to move into a house with so many other buildings (used OR vacant) adjacent to the house/yard (assuming they are not being used by the family)?

It would be different if there were distinct fences/walls separating the house from the buildings.

Come to think of it... maybe Marlene and Rick were not planning on living there indefinitely, but were just renting until they could purchase a place of their own in MH? (It sounds like the decision to move to MH was a fairly sudden decision.)

I don't know where I am going with this.
I am just thinking through my fingertips.

 

[Whisperer]

The fact that this lot (18 Paquita) has soooooo many "mystery" buildings and unknown potential businesses has intrigued me for quite a while.

There seems to be many places to hide in wait.

And we know that perps are risk takers, some more than others, and would attempt an ambush in very risky conditions!

What if some of these people took a particular interest? I am guessing they all had alibis....or we would have heard about a POI...or would we?

 

[ozazure]

How far did you get back? its possible with some app's to go back to first tweets on the account.. I'm assuming your using a computer.

from what i can tell, you have to be logged into an account to get the whole lot for that given account. i could be wrong, but he's tried lots of things and given someone couldn't get any further back whilst directly on twitter, it'll have to do.

 

[Kaiser]

I can't figure out. The only thing I get is someone working on the property or near the property...and that only hold up if the dogs are 100% accurate...or close.

Do you know when the dogs were used? Is it possible that rain they had later in day could somehow put the dogs of their scent? I don't really know a lot about that.

 

[Whisperer]

Doesn't it seem unusual for a family to move into a house with so many other buildings (used OR vacant) adjacent to the house/yard (assuming they are not being used by the family)?

It would be different if there were distinct fences/walls separating the house from the buildings.

Come to think of it... maybe Marlene and Rick were not planning on living there indefinitely, but were just renting until they could purchase a place of their own in MH? (It sounds like the decision to move to MH was a fairly sudden decision.)

I don't know where I am going with this.
I am just thinking through my fingertips.

I also wondered if Rick offered up some his expertise in exchange for rent...

Regardless, there is activity on the property. The same goes for the parcel to the right of them. It appears there is activity there also.

 

[IHAVENOCLUE]

What if some of these people took a particular interest? I am guessing they all had alibis....or we would have heard about a POI...or would we?

BBM

I think LE is being as vague as possible.

 

[Whisperer]

The house to the left is set way back and they have no view of Sierra's property. In fact, both houses on both sides of Sierra's are set way back from the gates. But there is a house that has a clear view of Sierra's and that is on the left side of the street.

 

[Whisperer]

LOL..If you followed the Holly bobo case, you would appreciate all we know about this case. The LE in Tn leave a lot to be desired.That case is ridiculous. I think we are lucky to be given confirmations. I have learned to appreciate the little things in these mysteries..LOL

 

[IHAVENOCLUE]

Do you know when the dogs were used? Is it possible that rain they had later in day could somehow put the dogs of their scent? I don't really know a lot about that.

Hopefully an expert will clarify this for you soon.. but from what I understand, precipitation actually tamps down the scent. The dampness of that particular day was actually advantageous for using tracking dogs.

I found this particularly interesting, because when I walk my dog right after it rains, she seems to be even more inclined to sniff than usual (which is a lot)!
An expert explained the conditions on some of these threads.

 

[Whisperer]

Do you know when the dogs were used? Is it possible that rain they had later in day could somehow put the dogs of their scent? I don't really know a lot about that.

:seeya: I was told the light rain/mist actually aids the dogs with the scent. Wind is not good for scent dogs but fog, light rain, mist is great.

 

[IHAVENOCLUE]

Doesn't it seem unusual for a family to move into a house with so many other buildings (used OR vacant) adjacent to the house/yard (assuming they are not being used by the family)?

It would be different if there were distinct fences/walls separating the house from the buildings.

Come to think of it... maybe Marlene and Rick were not planning on living there indefinitely, but were just renting until they could purchase a place of their own in MH? (It sounds like the decision to move to MH was a fairly sudden decision.)

I don't know where I am going with this.
I am just thinking through my fingertips.

ETA: I guess it seems that the family living in this house is vulnerable by being surrounded by these sheds/trailers/???

 

[IHAVENOCLUE]

fftobed:
I am rambling even more than usual.
I am off to bed.
I know I will be on WS the minute I wake up!
Let's hope a break comes for Sierra soon!

 

[ozazure]

BBM

I think LE is being as vague as possible.

Me too. I don't buy that Rick is off the media radar to allow Marlene and Steve their rightful spots. He was the second last person to see Sierra. I am sure the media would have asked to interview him. I think his timeline holds crucial evidence that LE does not want known. Again, not to put any suspicion on the man himself. Since he does not have a lawyer, and I assume the media would be interested in him, maybe this advice to give no interviews came from LE itself.

Say I am at my friends home and see her child, happy and in good health, then I leave, a mere minute before he heads to the park, and never comes home. With the family's blessing and LE's approval I will get in front of the cameras and recount the time line and plead for his safe return. Now if part of that timeline is the neighbour yelled over the fence he was coming after little Johnny, and as I left I saw him peering out the window towards the house, and as I walk home, I see his speeding car - all hardly damning evidence but they don't want him spooked, I may be asked to just not talk, to not draw attention to him, and to keep the suspect out of the loop of whom was there when.

 

[Kaiser]

Me too. I don't buy that Rick is off the media radar to allow Marlene and Steve their rightful spots. He was the second last person to see Sierra. I am sure the media would have asked to interview him. I think his timeline holds crucial evidence that LE does not want known. Again, not to put any suspicion on the man himself. Since he does not have a lawyer, and I assume the media would be interested in him, maybe this advice to give no interviews came from LE itself.

Say I am at my friends home and see her child, happy and in good health, then I leave, a mere minute before he heads to the park, and never comes home. With the family's blessing and LE's approval I will get in front of the cameras and recount the time line and plead for his safe return. Now if part of that timeline is the neighbour yelled over the fence he was coming after little Johnny, and as I left I saw him peering out the window towards the house, and as I walk home, I see his speeding car - all hardly damning evidence but they don't want him spooked, I may be asked to just not talk, to not draw attention to him, and to keep the suspect out of the loop of whom was there when.

I agree there is probably a lot of information that LE don't want released at the moment which is understandable.

 

[GrainneDhu]

Doesn't it seem unusual for a family to move into a house with so many other buildings (used OR vacant) adjacent to the house/yard (assuming they are not being used by the family)?

It would be different if there were distinct fences/walls separating the house from the buildings.

Come to think of it... maybe Marlene and Rick were not planning on living there indefinitely, but were just renting until they could purchase a place of their own in MH? (It sounds like the decision to move to MH was a fairly sudden decision.)

I don't know where I am going with this.
I am just thinking through my fingertips.

I don't know about California but in Iowa, this arrangement would not be unusual at all.

I live in a much more rural area than they do and I rent my two barns out to the guy who owns the field that my property sits in the middle of (it's like the space in the middle of a letter "c").

The people right across the road from us (our only neighbours within half a mile) bought the main house and the granny house but the barns and outbuildings still belong to the family that owns the 400+ cattle field that surround them.

So that doesn't seem at all strange to me but maybe it would to someone who lives in the Morgan Hill area?

 

[GrainneDhu]

Me too. I don't buy that Rick is off the media radar to allow Marlene and Steve their rightful spots. He was the second last person to see Sierra. I am sure the media would have asked to interview him. I think his timeline holds crucial evidence that LE does not want known. Again, not to put any suspicion on the man himself. Since he does not have a lawyer, and I assume the media would be interested in him, maybe this advice to give no interviews came from LE itself.

Say I am at my friends home and see her child, happy and in good health, then I leave, a mere minute before he heads to the park, and never comes home. With the family's blessing and LE's approval I will get in front of the cameras and recount the time line and plead for his safe return. Now if part of that timeline is the neighbour yelled over the fence he was coming after little Johnny, and as I left I saw him peering out the window towards the house, and as I walk home, I see his speeding car - all hardly damning evidence but they don't want him spooked, I may be asked to just not talk, to not draw attention to him, and to keep the suspect out of the loop of whom was there when.

ozazure, with the US legal system, LE would love for ALL witnesses to stay out of the media. They often request that witnesses not talk to reporters but they have no legal right to require it, so witnesses do sometimes talk. What LE fears is that down the road, a witness's credibility may be inadvertently be impeached.

The reason LE would always prefer witnesses not talk to the media is that in the investigation stages of a case, they never know just how each piece of evidence will fit in. Even if what you witnessed seemed very innocent, as in your first scenario, LE would still rather you not talk to the media.

Talking to the media isn't the same as testifying under oath but your published words can be used to impeach your credibility as a witness if what you say publicly differs in any way from one interview to the next or between a media interview and a formal deposition.

If what you say differs in the slightest degree, an aggressive defence attorney (and there should be no other kind) will pounce on those differences in court to make it look like you were mistaken in some way or your memory has changed with time in some way or you lied about aspects of what you saw.

As far as possible, your testimony as a witness should be beyond a reasonable doubt. Any changes in your words opens the door to reasonable doubt.

Even such an innocent change from "he left the house near 3 pm" to "he left the house at 3 pm" can introduce some doubt as to the accuracy of your memory. Particularly if the defendant's alibi rests on their having a witness to their actions at 3:15 pm, 12 miles away (just far enough away that their being there at 3:15 pm would be unlikely if they were doing something nefarious at 3 pm).

 

[imkeylime]

I don't know about California but in Iowa, this arrangement would not be unusual at all.

I live in a much more rural area than they do and I rent my two barns out to the guy who owns the field that my property sits in the middle of (it's like the space in the middle of a letter "c").

The people right across the road from us (our only neighbours within half a mile) bought the main house and the granny house but the barns and outbuildings still belong to the family that owns the 400+ cattle field that surround them.

So that doesn't seem at all strange to me but maybe it would to someone who lives in the Morgan Hill area?

I understand what you're saying. I can't speak for MH, but in the county in Michigan that I'm originally from, second- and third-generation farm owners sometimes do this versus sell their family homesteads. They'll keep the house, for instance, but rent the land and barns to local farmers, etc.

I do find it disconcerting that Sierra seemed to be home alone at times when strangers were free to come and go to these buildings. As the mother of a teen girl, that would make me nervous. Actually, Marlene might not have even known if such activity existed, given her work schedule.

Sierra may have met somebody in passing who seemed safe ... someone driving out while she was walking in? Despite the warnings we give young girls, I don't think a lot of them really "get it." I've watched a waiter in his mid to late 20s come on to my daughter, who was like "whatever."

 

[rosesfromangels]

I think LE has a darn good idea what happened and who was involved. They are searching for her to confirm their theory.

They did something like this with Michelle Le. They needed Michelle to make the arrest. I have great respect for LE out here. One thing about Northern Calif., they have experience with this horrible type of crime....

@Whisperer - Agree completely. There is much that hasn't been shared with the public, for the obvious reasons. I'm sure Sierra's closest BFF's have shared vital information that has helped LE narrow the search. (Such as, did she indicate anyone was making her feel "creepy", or the details of why she actually moved from Fremont to MH.) As I've posted before, I am convinced LE has a very narrow Suspect list, and that this crime will be solved. You are right, they need all the hard evidence to convict. It will happen.

 

[houndstooth]

Yep, her mom saw her at 6 am, so if the photo, tweet and text were fake (which I doubt), that goes back to Sierra not being around at all early Friday morning. Then that opens speculation about the mom and BF and the fingers start pointing. The perp had a big head start so doubt s/he would "buy" time by writing as Sierra stating she would meet before school re homework assignment.
Seems to me that would arouse suspicion.

The classmate who received the 7:11 am text would have told LE if the text was random (assuming the perp had no idea of Sierra's school plans), in other words, the text didn't look suspicious to the classmate. Of course, LE is keeping details close to the vest, so all we can do is speculate. IMOO.

I like to go over a case as I feel LE would.
Playing all the variables.
But, here I am constrained about writing all the variables.
LE has explored them all, most certainly.

First of all, it is possible ML gets up and goes to work at say ten to 6, or a quarter to 6, routinely and never sees Sierra, most mornings.
It's possible that ML leaves at 6, as she says, but if that is what time Sierra is also waking is it with a "TIME TO GET UP" as she is walking out the door.

You must admit her leaving as the other one is waking in the same minute apparently, doesn't allow for a whole lot of chit chat, breakfast or anything else in the mornings.

Did she see her that morning? This is an assumption.
Based on heresay.

There is nothing I have seen to know definitively the last time her mother saw her. With corroboration.
For all I know, she has been missing since Thursday.

I don't have any info on the other party living in the home, at all.
What I do have is the evidential proof that her belongings and the search radius has focused primarily on the area around her immediate home and surroundings. This would eliminate the involvement of a stranger or any other party who would have their comfort zone far away up or down the egress of Hwy 101, Monterey which is literally right in her own back yard.

As has been stated by others, the focus in on Paquita Espana Ct.

 

[Berry]

@Whisperer - Agree completely. There is much that hasn't been shared with the public, for the obvious reasons. I'm sure Sierra's closest BFF's have shared vital information that has helped LE narrow the search. (Such as, did she indicate anyone was making her feel "creepy", or the details of why she actually moved from Fremont to MH.) As I've posted before, I am convinced LE has a very narrow Suspect list, and that this crime will be solved. You are right, they need all the hard evidence to convict. It will happen.

Thanks for your opinion, I wish to try and place it in the context of the Sheriffs' Office recent statement.

Re Mercury News journalist Joe Rodriguez:

Detectives on the case are quietly putting the scattered pieces of evidence together like a problematic jigsaw puzzle, revealing little except to the girl's family.

The Santa Clara County Sheriff's Office said that's simply how it does business. The agency does not provide details as they come up because detectives aren't sure how important each detail is, where it might lead them or what might happen, says department spokesman Sgt. Jose Cardoza. There's no telling what Sierra's kidnappers, if there are any, or reluctant witnesses might do if they knew how close investigators were getting.

"It could be any number of things," Cardoza says. "It could affect future searches and interviews."

http://www.mercurynews.com/bay-area...han-month-later-search-sierra-lamar-continues


In MO it seemed to be pointing out that they are using the leads that will help show the kidnappers (if there are any) and the reluctant witnesses that they are close on their tail.