Deceased/Not Found CA - Sierra LaMar, 15, Morgan Hill, 16 March 2012 #8 *A. Garcia-Torres guilty*

[oceanblueeyes]

I have spoken with reporters (not here) before and they have told me that LE will not confirm anything for them anymore. Reporters get info from the AP or other reporters, internet, etc. Darn Shame that this is the way it is nowadays.

Most readings are recycled printings with maybe a sentence added. It is not news anymore. I can't depend on the written word for hardly anything regarding crime stories anymore and you will seldom see me use it as a link.

Then what in the world is the point of having Media Officers from that very county?

I think they dont have any new info to report except they are doing a search of the water.

IMO

 

[ryanemsmom]

Is there a map that shows the reservoirs in relation to the other points of interest in this case?

 

[Ransom]

Someone posted a little while ago about the clothes that were found.
Pants, shirt, panty, bra. If this is FACT. Then she had anticipated a change in clothes at some point that day or night. If it was a friend she was going to go to say after-school, that evening ete, etc. Wouldn't the police know that? Which would have explained the clothes in the bag.
Wouldn't that friend had told the LEOs she was going to come to there house later on after-school for example and spend the night which would have explained the extra set of clothing.

As Far as I know, no friend has come forward to say she was going to there house later on that day or night.

Which leaves me with the question. Where was she going that would have
had her anticipating a change in cloths. Have not heard if any socks were found inside the bag. Which would have made it a complete change of clothing.

And not knowing for sure if she was actually wearing that shirt and pants found in the bag that morning. Only complicates things more. If we knew 100 percent that shirt, and pants were the clothing she was wearing
that morning we would know they were removed from her body that day.

See, I'm one of those that goes by the video of Sgt. Cardoza speaking to the public. He never said anything about undergarments of any kind. That was added in the paper later. Where that came from is not known to me. It has been "suggested" that it was some sort of "off the record" by another officer/searcher that a reporter questioned after the fact. Another mystery to me.

 

[BeginnersLuck]

It says they are searching in the area around a Morgan Hill elementary school. I hadn't heard that before. Which school would they be searching around?

I thought maybe they were referring to the search command center being in a Morgan Hill elementary school and they just misworded it.

Yes, I think they are referring to gathering at the search command center to go search elsewhere.

 

[Ransom]

:nono: peeps.. surely you are not sleuthing the boyfriend???

http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-co...er-missing-morgan-hill-girl-asks-public-focus

In October, Sierra, her mother and her mother's boyfriend, Rick Gardiner, who is in the construction business, moved from Fremont to a rented ranch-style house on Paquito Espana Court in Morgan Hill.

It was in MSM. But SORRY. My bad.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Someone posted a little while ago about the clothes that were found.
Pants, shirt, panty, bra. If this is FACT. Then she had anticipated a change in clothes at some point that day or night. If it was a friend she was going to go to say after-school, that evening ete, etc. Wouldn't the police know that? Which would have explained the clothes in the bag.
Wouldn't that friend had told the LEOs she was going to come to there house later on after-school for example and spend the night which would have explained the extra set of clothing.

As Far as I know, no friend has come forward to say she was going to there house later on that day or night.

Which leaves me with the question. Where was she going that would have
had her anticipating a change in cloths. Have not heard if any socks were found inside the bag. Which would have made it a complete change of clothing.

And not knowing for sure if she was actually wearing that shirt and pants found in the bag that morning. Only complicates things more. If we knew 100 percent that shirt, and pants were the clothing she was wearing
that morning we would know they were removed from her body that day.

If they ran those tests on the panty. Couldn't they tell if they were cleaned versus used. Such as finding skin cells or hair from being worn that morning.

Yes, they could tell if the clothing had been worn or not.

I was an easygoing mom when I was raising our children but if they ever packed their clothes first without informing us they were thinking about spending the night somewhere I would have been highly upset they didnt ask permission first.

They wouldnt be able to spend the night for that very reason. They always asked us first and also the parents of their friends to see if it was okay. They knew better than to just assume something.

I just dont think Sierra would have done it this way either.

JMO though

 

[Ransom]

It says they are searching in the area around a Morgan Hill elementary school. I hadn't heard that before. Which school would they be searching around?

I thought maybe they were referring to the search command center being in a Morgan Hill elementary school and they just misworded it.

Got it now. Duh me.
Let me go look on my maps around some elem. schools and see what's around there.

 

[:+:MrTT:+:]

See, I'm one of those that goes by the video of Sgt. Cardoza speaking to the public. He never said anything about undergarments of any kind. That was added in the paper later. Where that came from is not known to me. It has been "suggested" that it was some sort of "off the record" by another officer/searcher that a reporter questioned after the fact. Another mystery to me.

IF this is true, and there were no socks found in the bag. Then that concerns me.

 

[katydid23]

Someone posted a little while ago about the clothes that were found.
Pants, shirt, panty, bra. If this is FACT. Then she had anticipated a change in clothes at some point that day or night. If it was a friend she was going to go to say after-school, that evening ete, etc. Wouldn't the police know that? Which would have explained the clothes in the bag.
Wouldn't that friend had told the LEOs she was going to come to there house later on after-school for example and spend the night which would have explained the extra set of clothing.

As Far as I know, no friend has come forward to say she was going to there house later on that day or night.

Which leaves me with the question. Where was she going that would have
had her anticipating a change in cloths. Have not heard if any socks were found inside the bag. Which would have made it a complete change of clothing.

And not knowing for sure if she was actually wearing that shirt and pants found in the bag that morning. Only complicates things more. If we knew 100 percent that shirt, and pants were the clothing she was wearing
that morning we would know they were removed from her body that day.

If they ran those tests on the panty. Couldn't they tell if they were cleaned versus used. Such as finding skin cells or hair from being worn that morning.

I think she was anticipating a stay overnight with her big sister. Her sis was home from college and staying with Dad in Fremont. I think she may have brought clothes in case she was able to go spend the night there.

 

[JDB]

Does this make sense to anyone or is it just poor writing?



Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012...NorCal-girl/UPI-51271334165582/#ixzz1rlC5SZnE

I think it was worded bad. Saturday when I went out we were within 3 miles of the search center by the golf course. There were other groups farther out 5-10 miles out.

 

[Whisperer]

I think she was anticipating a stay overnight with her big sister. Her sis was home from college and staying with Dad in Fremont. I think she may have brought clothes in case she was able to go spend the night there.

Her mother said nothing about her having plans that night. Why wouldn't she go home first and then get her clothes? I'd bet she has clothes at the Dad's too.
What about makeup, hairbrush, toothbrush, etc?

 

[nursebeeme]

http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-co...er-missing-morgan-hill-girl-asks-public-focus

In October, Sierra, her mother and her mother's boyfriend, Rick Gardiner, who is in the construction business, moved from Fremont to a rented ranch-style house on Paquito Espana Court in Morgan Hill.

It was in MSM. But SORRY. My bad.

it's okay.. you guys know I love you all... but we need to be very cautious when sleuthing and posting information about family members. He works in construction and at this point that is as far as we are taking it. Thanks everyone for your understanding.

 

[:+:MrTT:+:]

Yes, they could tell if the clothing had been worn or not.

I was an easygoing mom when I was raising our children but if they ever packed their clothes first without informing us they were thinking about spending the night somewhere I would have been highly upset they didnt ask permission first.

They wouldnt be able to spend the night for that very reason. They always asked us first and also the parents of their friends to see if it was okay. They knew better than to just assume something.

I just dont think Sierra would have done it this way either.

JMO though

If there were pants, shirt panty, bra.....But no socks. Then I understand why they are searching the areas around where this items were found. Most I have read, when found nude. They were still wearing socks.

 

[Ransom]

IF this is true, and there were no socks found in the bag. Then that concerns me.

They didn't list an inventory but some female shoes you don't wear socks with, at least I don't. All they've said about shoes is they were gray. I just don't know, now.

I guess they hold some things back that only the perp(s) would know or would be a hot "find" if found in one of the searches?

 

[mck16]

IF this is true, and there were no socks found in the bag. Then that concerns me.

Why does it concern you? I wouldn't think girls wear socks with tennis shoes or flip flops but maybe they do. Maybe I have missed something about her shoesss. jmo

 

[sarx]

Proof reading is clearly a lost art.

And in regards to my questions about investigative journalism. I would just like someone to ask LE for clarification. There is info. that has been posted or said from Cardoza/Smith/Smith and then there is what is on the FBI site as well. Non of it is secret, they're the ones that released it and put it out there... Maybe someone could find out which of the info is the most current/accurate? Just a thought....

 

[liltexans]

I'm more concerned that they haven't found her shoes (as far as we know) then I am about her socks. As others have said, girls don't always wear socks.

 

[:+:MrTT:+:]

I think she was anticipating a stay overnight with her big sister. Her sis was home from college and staying with Dad in Fremont. I think she may have brought clothes in case she was able to go spend the night there.

Has big sister confirmed this? Mom would have known by now.

 

[Kimster]

Why does it concern you? I wouldn't think girls wear socks with tennis shoes or flip flops but maybe they do. Maybe I have missed something about her shoesss. jmo

I always wear them with tennis shoes. Back in "my day" we always wore socks. It's not that way with teens today though.

 

[mck16]

Her mother said nothing about her having plans that night. Why wouldn't she go home first and then get her clothes? I'd bet she has clothes at the Dad's too.
What about makeup, hairbrush, toothbrush, etc?

And how was she planning on getting to her sisters. Someone would have to know if that was the plan and the reason for the bag of clothes. jmo