CO - The Stalking and Mysterious Death of Morgan Ingram #4

[mysterygirl]

BBM. 100% agree. This is my point. Motion detectors mean zilch to me without video to back it up. Sorry, but I've seen how sensitive they can be, and if not installed correctly, can catch cats and raccoons doing cat and raccoon things.

Again with the disclaimer: I am not discounting the fear they may have been feeling. My heart continues to go out to the family who lost their loved one.

Let's say animals were setting it off.

Wouldn't we see at least............several animals on camera...........if we are going natural causes?

 

[Tawny]

Let's say animals were setting it off.

Wouldn't we see at least............several animals on camera...........if we are going natural causes?

If it were a cat or a squirrel, quite possibly no. They weren't looking for cats or squirrels, both of which are stealthy and quick. They could easily have scampered off before video could catch them. I'm just speculating at this point, based on my experience with motion detectors and video surveillance.

 

[Tawny]

Because they werent seeing anything on them? IDK

Probably. I think I was under the assumption they opened them and returned them before installation.

 

[nursebeeme]

http://morganingram.com/wordpress/?p=1317

TI states in her blog entry that her husband surmised the rocks were being thrown from a distance at the window (why no human caught on tape)

they also did not hear the sounds iirc.. Morgan just hit her bell when she heard a noise.

 

[concernedmother]

If M hung out at that house a couple of weeks before her death, got sick and even thought they drugged her, why did she go back there the night she died? And according to the blog, that places her there with these people being the last people with her. This for me is the most suspicious thing thats been posted so far.

 

[Waterdogs]

Sure I understand that some things may have been natural.

The things that bother me are the mom looking up and seeing a man on her porch.

Someone trying the keypad..........stuff like that.

Having a stalker and your imagination being on overdrive are not exclusive of one another. Implying an imagination was running wild only questions to what extent and to what degree the stalking was.

I think she did have a stalker/peeping Tom/terrorizer. Which it was is open to interpretation. I do believe it was accidental or murder, but not suicide or natural. I also believe that just because there is a stalker it doesn't mean "he" did it.

The events and people surrounded the acquaintances' house and even D's grandmother's house is very compelling and should not be ignored.

 

[Tawny]

Maybe if she posted the video of each time the detectors went off, those of us watching might see something they didn't. She's not doing that, which is another question mark for me. She simply states "there was nothing there" when there MAY have been a cat or raccoon or squirrel that a reader/watcher might see.

ETA: Or maybe even a person in the shadows they didn't see, but someone else might notice. Post the videos.

 

[21merc7]

Had a flood light motion detector at a place I rented once.

It would go off if tree limbs blew in the breeze, leaves falling, small animals scampered by, anyone walking in the alley behind the yard, you name it. The owner said it was just one purchased at the local home improvement store for under $10.

 

[Meri]

I thought I remembered a couple of times when she texted from the closet because the windows were open (*shakes head*) and they didn't want the stalker to be able to hear them talking if she spoke out.

You could be right. I just remember reading they came up with the texting when she was in her room rather than the baby monitor.

 

[Waterdogs]

If M hung out at that house a couple of weeks before her death, got sick and even thought they drugged her, why did she go back there the night she died? And according to the blog, that places her there with these people being the last people with her. This for me is the most suspicious thing thats been posted so far.

I'm assuming she went back because who she was with wanted to go. She did not go in.

 

[gitana1]

Right.

So could he have been on the roof?

Well, IIRC, they ran out because the motion lights were going off. Not that they heard noises on the roof. And the fact that they saw no one on the video and motion detectors point toward the ground, not up, indicates that they were the ones setting off the lights after the first time.

I installed motion detecting lights on my mom's house after my dad died. They go off anytime the cats walk around, or possums, or racoons. They go off non-stop. It irritated my mom so much that she installed black out curtains in her bedroom.

The statement was that a figure was seen chasing around the house and that that proves there was a stalker. But no such figure exists.

To me, what leans me toward a stalker is the creepy figure captured minutes after the police left (which could be a neighbor but it looks creepy to me), the moving of the camera right after that as if it had been jarred, perhaps indicating someone realized they had been photographed and tried to break the camera, sounds of someone trying to work the keylock and getting the first digits correct (I would have yanked open the door with a gun in my hand. Seems like a stupidly risky move on the part of the stalker), the fact that, according to Ms. Ingram, Morgan saw her stalker standing there staring at her when she took the dog out to pee, (although taking the dog out in such a manner belies the intense fear she states they were feeling), the fact that, according to Ms. Ingram, she herself actually saw a person running from the house toward a neighbor's house and that the person could have been one of the suspects, the fact that, according to Ms. Ingram, they actually caught someone on video lurking around cars (although that video is being withheld for some reason and it makes no sense why the stalker would know about all the camera positions, hide from them in order to access the house, yet somehow, inexplicably, appear on camera this time, lurking between cars).

Anyhow, assuming everything Ms. Ingram has said is 100% accurate, that is what leans me toward a hardcore stalker.

 

[FrayedKnot]

I've read the entire blog and feel similarly.

As many of us have stated, a few incidents in the beginning would have made every single tiny thing seem monumental. I think it's possible someone was toying with them/Morgan in the beginning, but based on no video evidence after the noises they kept hearing, that it became imagination running berserk (understandably of course!!).

Also, as I've stated, I will wait till the end of the story to form a concrete opinion, but that's the side of the fence I'm leaning toward.

This is exactly where I am, too.

Especially after reading the personal accounts posted here by some brave WSers who were stalking victims.

I really can imagine how it could skew your reality and become a mind***k. Even after the stalking stops, I can see how easily one might jump at every noise, note every car driving by, feel as though someone has been in your home, etc.

What an awful thing to experience, it's like a cruel gift that keeps on giving.

It does not mean the Ingrams fabricated anything, just that fear may have altered their reality. I would also like to know more about the family dynamic before making up my mind 100%, but I am really leaning towards the idea that a brief, mean spirited prank caused perceptions to run amok.

 

[MindMountaineer]

See, that just tells me motion detectors were going off, mom and dad ran out to intercept the stalker but the video simply showed them chasing each other fruitlessly around the house. No one else was seen on that video.

But read more carefully: there is no mention that Tina was giving chase with him. Look back at the bullet point I quoted. Only Steve was out circumnavigating the house that time. No second figure was seen on video chasing Steve. His experience was that the motion detector lights would go on as he ran by, then go off, and then go on again, presumably--PRESUMABLY--in the same sequence that the motion detector lights were going on and off for him, thus implying that whatever was setting off the motion detector lights the second time was following Steve. And that second figure was NOT mom.

(Just trying to be as clear as possible. It's easy to take a statement from the blog and "hear" only the parts that suit our theories. That's not directed at you, but at all of us. It's easy to do!)

 

[jaycee]

If M hung out at that house a couple of weeks before her death, got sick and even thought they drugged her, why did she go back there the night she died? And according to the blog, that places her there with these people being the last people with her. This for me is the most suspicious thing thats been posted so far.

I'm concerned that there was a possible drugging a few weeks before. I wish we knew more and who was there.

 

[FrayedKnot]

Well, IIRC, they ran out because the motion lights were going off. Not that they heard noises on the roof. And the fact that they saw no one on the video and motion detectors point toward the ground, not up, indicates that they were the ones setting off the lights after the first time.

I installed motion detecting lights on my mom's house after my dad died. They go off anytime the cats walk around, or possums, or racoons. They go off non-stop. It irritated my mom so much that she installed black out curtains in her bedroom.

The statement was that a figure was seen chasing around the house and that that proves there was a stalker. But no such figure exists.

To me, what leans me toward a stalker is the creepy figure captured minutes after the police left (which could be a neighbor but it looks creepy to me), the moving of the camera right after that as if it had been jarred, perhaps indicating someone realized they had been photographed and tried to break the camera, sounds of someone trying to work the keylock and getting the first digits correct (I would have yanked open the door with a gun in my hand. Seems like a stupidly risky move on the part of the stalker), the fact that, according to Ms. Ingram, Morgan saw her stalker standing there staring at her when she took the dog out to pee, (although taking the dog out in such a manner belies the intense fear she states they were feeling), the fact that, according to Ms. Ingram, she herself actually saw a person running from the house toward a neighbor's house and that the person could have been one of the suspects, the fact that, according to Ms. Ingram, they actually caught someone on video lurking around cars (although that video is being withheld for some reason and it makes no sense why the stalker would know about all the camera positions, hide from them in order to access the house, yet somehow, inexplicably, appear on camera this time, lurking between cars).

Anyhow, assuming everything Ms. Ingram has said is 100% accurate, that is what leans me toward a hardcore stalker.

Ugh. We once bought a home that came with motion sensor lights all around the house. I got so tired of jumping out of my skin every time the wind blew (or a car drove by), that we took them out!

I know they can serve a purpose, but they just weren't for me.

 

[21merc7]

I'm concerned that there was a possible drugging a few weeks before. I wish we knew more and who was there.

I don't like to be so skeptical, but, did anyone report it? Take Morgan to the doctor? Could M have just said this to excuse anything she was feeling and didn't want mom to know about her private life?

If you thought your daughter was being stalked, wouldn't you have rushed her to the doctor for tests or medication?

 

[MayraMM]

It's so weird to me how we can all read the same thing and come away with different opinions on what was written.

I remember reading that Morgan thought the baby monitor too much and would text her mom instead, which turned out to be a good thing in terms of having times documented. Then they got the panic button, which mom thought Morgan would not like, but turned out she did like it and even used it once.

I'm not sure which of us is correct as I didn't go back and reread the entry.

ETA: thought of another one - some reading that Morgan thought she was slipped drugs at that house months ago - I thought I read 2 weeks before she died.

That had me confused a bit too, as mom mentioned before the post last night that M had decided to text when she heard something so the peeper wouldn't hear her call out and they could record the time. This was way back in the beginning, so I assumed all along that she had been texting from that point on. I don't understand why she wouldn't want the panic button, tho.

 

[txsvicki]

It's odd and even rude that the person Morgan was with wanted to go by these folks house if she wasn't interested. Did they have drugs they were sharing? What was the big deal of having to go there at that particular time.

 

[MayraMM]

But there WAS someone there. I for the life of me cannot recall which post mentioned this; I think it was in the post itself and not the comments; but Toni recorded one incident in September of last year when Steve ran out of the house immediately after hearing someone banging on the windows. He ran a full circle around the house, and saw no one. BUT when he and Toni reviewed the video footage later that evening, a figure had been following Steve the entire time, around the house. Which is pretty brilliant when you think about it; of course someone running after someone is not going to think of turning around to look behind them.

Does anyone else remember this incident posted on the blog? Did I remember it correctly?

I don't remember them seeing anyone running behind him, or rather, catching it on film. I thought they speculated someone was running behind him. Anyone have that blog link?

Edit: I see this has been discussed and agreed upon already. . . . carry on!

 

[Sonya610]

Let's say animals were setting it off.

Wouldn't we see at least............several animals on camera...........if we are going natural causes?

Could be moths or bats or any number of things that were not seen or not triggering the cameras.