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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't know if this has been posted, but just read this article:
Sierra Lamar investigators using sonar on reservoirs
http://www.ksbw.com/news/central-ca...irs/-/5738758/10544190/-/691logz/-/index.html

this can't be good

It is not good, but should be noted, it states investigators will only go diving if they detect something with the sonar. However, since we first discovered the geographical locations of her belongings, this is the general area where I believe something will be found. I know they have searched these areas previously, but to me this makes the most sense.

Looking at the maps and where her purse was found, it makes sense that the purse was found where it was.

From the intersection of Laguna and ST, you can drive up Bailey into the mountains. Bailey takes you to McKean which turns into Uvas, and the winding, rough terrain in the mountains and reservoirs. To me, if this was a stranger/fringe acquaintance abduction and the motive was sexual, the perfect dumping ground is literally at your feet. Miles of mountainous terrain and roads, and reservoirs. I certainly can be way off base, and I am making assumptions about the suspect(s), imho, it is logical that she never made it our of her home area
 
Didnt she text a picture of herself in these clothes? So that doesnt prove she had them on when she left. Just that she tried them on.
 
I have a different thought re: the fact that shoes and socks were not reported as having been found. If she was abducted by someone who sexually assaulted, and most likely raped her, the shoes and socks are not usually the items of clothing removed by the perp. This is morbid, but whatever shoes she had on that day may still be on her body, if the perp took her life. I just don't see a rapist, or pedophile, etc being concerned with the victim taking off shoes. At that moment their focus is on what they are about to do. Sorry if this sounds morbid; just a thought that came to me.
 
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.

Wow.. funny is that I posted at length about the fact that we had zip coming from Cardoza about panties or bra and was strongly questioning was it even fact that there was panties and bra.. I was immediately CORRECTED. That Cardoza DID IN FACT STATE THERE WERE PANTIES AND BRA..

Here is my lengthy very detailed post with my concerns of there actually being no panties and bra(which is followed by your response that there were PANTIES AND BRA) :
Originally Posted by SmoothOperator (c/p from Thread #4)
In searching out all details and info that we have regarding the clothes found in the juicy bag and the clothes she had on Friday morning, specifically the Sharks shirt that is seen in the photo I posted upthread.. I wanted to piece together everything that has officially been stated about these items.. Below are the snipped statements along with their corresponding links.. in gathering these details I now can find nothing stating the bra and panties are articles of clothing that were found in the juicy bag.. as you can see below even including the sheriff's statement made specifically about the juicy bag and the neatly folded clothes that were inside the bag.. there is nothing stating panties and bra? It states that there was a pair of pants(non descriptive and non specific) that were folded neatly in the bag and there was A "T-shirt" that they could only CONFIRM as "similar" to the Sharks T-shirt she is seen in the snapshot photo taken that morning(posted upthread) ..and that the T-shirt was also neatly folded inside the juicy bag.. according to LE the reason that it cannot be stated as confirmed that the T-shirt found folded in the juicy bag was the exact same as the T-shirt she was seen in the photo wearing is simply due to the fact that the angle of the camera only caught a small portion of the actual design of the shirt.. thus making it impossible to say with certainty they are the same..

Also below you will see where mom, Marlene is asked about the Sharks shirt and whether or not the Sharks shirt found in the juicy bag is the same shirt that Sierra is seen wearing in that mornings snapshot photo.. she said that she believes them to be but we learn that she actually has never personally even seen the bag or the articles of clothing that were in the bag.. in knowing that it certainly appears as tho her opinion would only be based upon what LE has shared with her and not her own personal knowledge from having seen the items herself..

I now am questioning where did we learn that there were not only panties and bra included in the articles of clothing but even more specifically it was stated clean and neatly folded panties and bra? Because in seeing LE statement about the bag and clothing it says nothing about either, nor does it even state there were undergarments found in the bag.. I know it was reported because it truly made me believe with her specifically having such that it was very likely that she was "seeing someone" intimately/romantically at some point that day or night..

The reason I believed such is much like someone else pointed out yesterday that a girl is not gonna be packing panties AND BRA for just a change of clothes or a spending the night with a friend.. but rather would do so for someone you were planning to be "intimate" with(and am in no way disparaging Sierra whatsoever am only offering up my opinion of POSSIBILITIES and nothing more) ... but if its now not even the accurate truth that there was also packed in the bra and panties then my entire thoughts on the issue are irrelevant and nonsensical .. so where did we learn the info re: the panties and bra were among the articles of clean clothes neatly folded inside the juicy bag?

TiA

Here are the Sgt's words directly from his mouth per Presser:
Quote: Some new information that has developed over the past few days, was that there was a bag, specifically a Juicy purse, a Juicy bag belonging to Sierra Lamar, that was found Sunday about 1pm. Members of the Sheriffs office search and rescue team found this Juicy bag belonging to Sierra. Inside the bag was some of Sierra's clothing. A pair of pants, and a T shirt, neatly folded, neatly put inside this bag. This bag was located on Santa Teresa Blvd, and Laguna, which is within a couple of miles of Sierra's mother's house. (Sgt. Jose Cardoza) http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/video?id=8591214

Here are several different articles about the bag/clothes:
Quote: A San Jose Sharks jersey similar to the one a missing Morgan Hill teen was wearing the morning she disappeared was among the items in a bag found discarded in field near her home, authorities on Friday.

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/201...in-tossed-bag/

March 23 more @ link

Quote: Officials said Friday that the 15-year-old appears to be wearing the jersey in a photo she tweeted on the morning she disappeared. But they say the photo doesn’t show enough of the shirt to be sure it’s the one in the purse.

http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-cou...ontinue-search confirmed March 23 more @ link

Quote: But because Sierra's tweet only captured a small portion of the shirt, investigators can't be sure it was the same shirt located inside Sierra's Juicy-brand bag found at 1 p.m. Sunday, according to Sgt. Jose Cardoza. "Whether it's the same we don't know, but it's similar," Cardoza said.

And then Marlene's statement to reporters regarding the bag/clothes:
Quote: Reporter: The fact that her clothing was folded up in her bag, does that say to you that she was preparing to go somewhere, maybe?

Marlene: I-I, I have no idea. You know, I haven't seen the item- I haven't seen the bag or the items. So, I can't really comment on that. You know, as far as the condition is was- to give you feedback about that.

Reporter: The sheriff said they think it was a Sharks jersey. Did she have-

Marlene: She took a picture of herself, right before she left. She frequently took pictures of herself because she was into her hair and makeup. And uh, that was common for her to do something like that. And she was wearing a Sharks sweatshirt in that picture.

Reporter: In the picture she took-

Marlene: On the computer.

Reporter:-last Friday morning?

Marlene: Yes, on the computer.

Reporter: Wearing that Sharks sweatshirt?

Marlene: That's correct.

Reporter: Then, would it be logical to assume she left the house in that?

Marlene: Yes. I would assume that since she took that on the computer right before she left for the bus stop.

Reporter: And that's what was found in the bag?

Marlene: Um, I-I think, I think so.

I don't know .. Sgt Cardoza calls it a "T-shirt" and then you've got reporters and fam referring to it as a "jersey" and a "sweatshirt".. all 3 of which are very different articles of clothing IMO.. my personal opinion is that it is quite likely ONE AND THE SAME(ie. Shirt worn in snapshot and shirt folded neatly in bag) and that "technically" it is exactly what LE called it.. its a long sleeve Shark's T-shirt.. that's jmo, tho.. still wondering about panties and bra tho?
Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - CA CA - Sierra LaMar, 15, Santa Clara County, 16 March 2012 - #4


And reply from Ransom below(c/p from Thread#4 as well) :
Originally Posted by Random in Thread #4
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20...-in-california

Inside the purse was a pair of pants, a shirt, a bra and a pair of underwear. The clothing was neatly folded inside the purse.

AND

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local...143815416.html

Cardoza said a pair of pants, a shirt, a bra and a pair of underwear were neatly folded inside a Juicy brand purse. _________________
Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - CA CA - Sierra LaMar, 15, Santa Clara County, 16 March 2012 - #4

** Just to ensure that all links are intact underneath both copy/pasted posts I have posted a link to each of our posts from Thread #4**

I'm not quite sure I understand your current post because it seems as tho when I was questioning the validity of the panties and bra that you were quick to correct me and show that there are panties and bra by quoting Cardoza.. but yet last night and today these EXACT quotes by Cardoza are now insuffecient?? ..hmm?? :waitasec:
 
you were right sarx.. and they are also still looking for clothing items it would seem:

After taking sonar readings from Chesbro and Uvas reservoirs on Tuesday, the Santa Clara County Sheriff's Department underwater search and rescue team poured over them on Wednesday for any sign of the 15-year-old girl, said Sgt. Jose Cardoza. If nothing turns up in the images, he added, the team may search other reservoirs, including Anderson and Calero.
The decision to conduct the underwater checks was done after investigators had no luck scanning the surface of Uvas, Chesbro and some nearby ponds on March 18, using a boat and a trained search dog, Cardoza said.

plans this week to scour remote areas around Morgan Hill on motorized bikes looking for "clothing or other items that may be related to the case."

http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-co...case-study-underwater-sonar-images?source=rss
 
Has the car that is circulating around Twitter been talked about? And what relevance, if any, it holds in the case?

I am also reading that the "Private Investigator" is asking people of the car. Does that mean LE, or the Lamar's have hired a private investigator?

So confused, so sorry!

From what i saw they thought someone driving a car like that one was
bothering sierra never saw anything else written about it!
 
So far I have Sierra with a thick bulky sweatshirt in black/grey/turquois with the Logo "Stonehouse" and the number 16 on the back of it. It appears to be a hoodie.

She has her grey shoes, makeup, hairbrush and keys are with her...and possibly her socks. I think she has a complete outfit still out there somewhere. This leads me to conclude the clothing in the bag was extra.

We have no description of pants in either outfit.
 
Didnt she text a picture of herself in these clothes? So that doesnt prove she had them on when she left. Just that she tried them on.

That's what I was led to believe, raz. Her mother said the photo was taken immediately before she left and BTW

:welcome4:
 
One of my theories regarding the shoes is that when she was taken from the home that she was not wearing shoes(as she'd not yet put on her shoes for the day when the perp attacked/removed her from the home) ..just as I believe the "packed" bag was an afterthought after she'd been hidden or disposed of and in attempts to make it appear as tho abduction or runaway they return to the home and gather the bag and books and "hide" them on the side of the building.. I believe its quite possible the perp did not even think of shoes til later.. and that they probably will not ever be recovered as they were disposed of at a later time.. just a theory tho..
 
The first time around they used water dogs, not sonar.
It won't surprise me if they find someone else at the bottom of Chesbro or Uvas, it's just that kind of location.

I remember seeing a Boxer in the boat. I thought, a BOXER? I've never seen a Boxer doing SAR work. I've seen that Boxer quite a bit now. Must me a local dog helping out. Bless them.
 
I remember seeing a Boxer in the boat. I thought, a BOXER? I've never seen a Boxer doing SAR work. I've seen that Boxer quite a bit now. Must me a local dog helping out. Bless them.
Lots of boxers out there doing SAR work, there's even a few that are FEMA certified in Disaster...
 
all items still being analyzed:

The only evidence investigators have reported finding so far includes Sierra’s cell phone, found in a field off Scheller Avenue March 17. And her purse containing folded clothing were found off the side of Santa Teresa Boulevard March 18, according to investigators.
The county crime lab continues to process those items, as well as an empty cardboard box marked “stainless steel handcuffs” and two used condoms found at the west end of Palm Avenue March 29.
http://www.gilroydispatch.com/artic...cle_3374e906-40f8-5b6d-b979-edb569941528.html
 
Didnt she text a picture of herself in these clothes? So that doesnt prove she had them on when she left. Just that she tried them on.

Is this not where some confusion comes in?
LE says she sent that pic at 6 30
Mom says she took it and sent it at 7 15? just before she left for the bus?
45 mins is a big gap!
 
The person who planted the bag and books in an area to be found is interesting. The chances of them being picked up, if left in sight close to the road, was something the perp did not want. Chance of somebody keeping them was a concern. He wanted them in tact, preserved and found.
 
IMO, a stranger couldn't give a hoot about these things, but this perp did. This perp also had to get out of his car and put them there...granted, he didn't have to walk but a few steps, but still.....preservation was in his mind.
 
One of my theories regarding the shoes is that when she was taken from the home that she was not wearing shoes(as she'd not yet put on her shoes for the day when the perp attacked/removed her from the home) ..just as I believe the "packed" bag was an afterthought after she'd been hidden or disposed of and in attempts to make it appear as tho abduction or runaway they return to the home and gather the bag and books and "hide" them on the side of the building.. I believe its quite possible the perp did not even think of shoes til later.. and that they probably will not ever be recovered as they were disposed of at a later time.. just a theory tho..

If that is the case then it implies it was someone close to home- very much so as if she was abducted from outside the house we can assume she would have shoes on.

My question is how many pairs of shoes did she have AND more importantly did she wear them on various days? At that age I had a few varieties but one pair that were worn on a daily basis until they fell apart...

We have heard so much about the red pair of converse that typically she would be wearing them... so unusual the grey pair are the ones missing... :waitasec:
WHY NOT THE RED PAIR??? ARE THEY IN THE HOUSE? ARE THEY WET AND UNWEARABLE OR SOMETHING?

This case is driving me mad and I fear we can theorize till the cows come home but we are not privy to insider information that will point us one way or another...

And I've said it before and I'll say it again- why pack a spare bra ( if top was a sharks shirt especially? ) Who normally has a spare bra unless a dress up one or a strapless one for a strapless top for example?

I think that the mum should have this information. Unless she was so busy that it all goes unnoticed. Who does the laundry? Who buys the clothes? Something doesn't fit and it's very frustrating...

(we should all be made honorary members of the FBI at this stage).
 
I think the Mom is genuinely a bit confused about when the picture was sent. Sierra sent another text at 7:11 I believe that was not related to the picture. I think in her extreme grief and stress Mom conflated the 7:11 text and the picture sent earlier. Very understandable to me, but I do believe LE is correct that the picture was sent earlier than right before she walked out the door.

I winced at a few of the articles saying investigators are looking for where the body was dumped. I know I am a softie, but couldn't they sugar coat that just a little? Maybe I am not ready to start thinking of Sierra as a body that was dumped somewhere even if rationally I know that is probably the case.

It sounds like LE knows a lot more than we do and I genuinely hope that leads to Sierra.
 
Ya know I wonder if the discrepancy about whether or not any of the items have results of any of the testing could be that the initial testing that was done on the bag, books, clothes are the results that we've heard snippets of? Meaning Cardozo said they had those particular items forensically tested before they even publically released they'd found the bag.. I believe this testing could be the basics such as fingerprints, hair...and that nothing from that basic testing had furthered their investigation.. I believe that could be what's causing what appears to be discrepancies.. jmo

(Moo but they could have found no FOREIGN hair or prints as I've mentioned previously.. )
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
141
Guests online
1,902
Total visitors
2,043

Forum statistics

Threads
601,870
Messages
18,131,017
Members
231,168
Latest member
Altruistic_Ruin06
Back
Top