Elisa Lam - What Happened?

[Peter Brendt]

<modsnip>



<modsnip> since no one saw anyone else going up to the roof, no one, not even the killer, went up to the roof either, correct?

<modsnip>

Nope, incorrect. Since nobody saw her, she went or was was transported up there at a time with low traffic, for example the wee hours of the morning. Which in itself indicates rather a plan and a plan indicates intent and so on.

 

[Peter Brendt]

Bessie, your modsnip changed the entire context of the one statement you left in my post. Peter Brendt said that no one saw EL going up to the roof and therefore, HIS conclusion was that EL did not go to the roof by herself.

I responded that using Peter Brendt's same logic, since no one saw anyone going up to the roof, therefore, no one (not even the murderer of EL) went to the roof then. In other words, since no one saw anything, no one went on the roof and nothing happened. No murder, no suicide, no accident. But that is using Peter Brendt's logic, NOT mine.

Again, you twist what I said! I said, since nobody saw her, she went or was transported at a low traffic time, for example the wee hours. Which basically indicates someone knew it would be necessary to avoid attention. For EL it wouldn't be necessary to wait till she can sneak up to the roof unseen. For a killer transporting a body, it would be essential. So, waiting for the low traffic times indicates rather the behavior of a killer than of someone just walking up there.

 

[Peter Brendt]

Their main goal isn't to convince people on here of anything. They also have not officially concluded anything. Even in the beginning when they were trying to find any information in this case, they did not reveal what items were left in her hotel room.

The case has a lot of political and public pressure on it. So they have motive. They control, what they say to the media, so they have means. And since everybody can only wait till the lab reports are back, they have opportunity. So, if something happens and goes so nicely down south as the attempt to declare this as "no foul play" and you have someone with motive, opportunity and means around ... it'S one of those quacks like a duck things.

But you are ignoring the probability of someone remembering a random girl walking down a hallway versus a person carrying a body.

In fact, I don't. But there are more levels in between.
Technically, the base probability to be noticed is about the same for all persons moving in the hotel at any given time. A little higher for alone traveling females, given the age of the clientele there.
However, a girl in a psychotic break, stoned into strange behavior or anything else, that made her stand out would have boosted her probability to be noticed. People remember the yelling drunk yard in a shopping zone easier than those 20000 people who just walk around and buy stuff in the businesses (just an example).
So, chances are, if she was behaving, what would in this social context considered unusual and would have been seen in this state, someone would remember her.
And of course, if a killer carried her dead body around and would have been seen in the process, chances would be, someone would remember that too.

Bottom line: If she traveled with the regular temporary traffic streams and behaved "normal", nobody would have noticed her. Well, nobody but the lonely male next to her, which is basically hardwired.
But as soon, as anything in her behavior would have been odd, people notice and remember it. People didn't remember, so either she had no problems causing strange behavior at all, or she didn't travel the temporary main traffic streams. The latter would call for an explanation, which would be basically the same explanation, I gave Doruk.

 

[noodled1]

Nope, incorrect. Since nobody saw her, she went or was was transported up there at a time with low traffic, for example the wee hours of the morning. Which in itself indicates rather a plan and a plan indicates intent and so on.

How do we know nobody saw her going to the roof? Do you know this for a fact that we can say "Nobody saw Elisa heading to the roof or on the roof itself"

 

[Peter Brendt]

Just to clear up the math thing a little. I have here no way to use mathematical formulas, so lets try this in verbal from.

In a hotel we find at any given time a lot of people. And the hotel itself establishes the environment in which those people move. The basic thing is, they move in patterns which change over time. Now, that sounds abstract, but it is in fact easy. Take the mornings:

A lot of people on the floors 4-6 get up. Not all at the same time of course. We have early birds and long sleepers and everything in between. That's why hotesl offer usually breakfast from an early time to a late time. Like 7am to 10am (that's just an example, can be 9:30 for the Cecil, but I don't know their breakfast times there).
So, while we can't say an exact time for any given person, we know, the majority of guests for example from the fifth floor will move in this time down to the fourth, where they get breakfast. In mathematical terms, they establish a traffic stream, starting at 7am, when the fir come for food and ending at 10 am when the last long sleepers arrive. During this time, there is a higher probability that anyone, we meet, is on the way to have breakfast than for example, the probability he goes for the laundry room.

Now, there are some limitations in this model. For example people who want to come from the fifth have two obvious choices: They can use the stairs or the elevator. But they can't just teleport or beam or anything. Their choice of possible ways is restricted by the possible means of travel, in this case, they either have to go to the elevator or the stairs. Which essentially means, our traffic stream builds up like a stream or river in nature too. People come out of their rooms, enter some creeks (the corridor on the floors to the stairways or the elevators) and unite in a big stream that arrives in the breakfast room.

So, anybody, who travels on such a major temporary stream has technically the same probability to be noticed by anyone else in such a stream, right? Well, not entirely true. Alone traveling females for example are noticed with a slightly higher probability, at least by the alone traveling male members of that stream. Sorry, that's how we are wired.

Now, mathematical spoken, the probability to be noticed is higher for people who travel in such a stream than outside, simply because inside this stream the number of potential observers is higher. And the probability to be noticed in such a stream grows and grows, the more a certain person shows any kind of unusual behavior. Whereas "unusual" depends on the social consensus of the environment. Loud singing would cause more attention in a hotel elevator than in a chorus ... well, that depends also on how good you sing. But it makes the problem a bit clearer.

The beauty of this model is, we can actually determine for every time at least a first impression, where are the zones with low traffic and where are the zones with high traffic at a given time. Zones with higher probabilities to be noticed and zones with lower probabilities.

I hope, that makes the basic idea a little bit more transparent. I left a lot out, but at least, it looks without equations only half as scary.

 

[Peter Brendt]

How do we know nobody saw her going to the roof? Do you know this for a fact that we can say "Nobody saw Elisa heading to the roof or on the roof itself"

Let me reword it: After all that media hype, after police asking around, we haven't heard of anybody coming forward saying he saw her ...
Of course, if you find a link stating an eye witness who saw her ... please post it. It would make my life that much easier if I would have more data.

 

[paint]

Bottom line: If she traveled with the regular temporary traffic streams and behaved "normal", nobody would have noticed her. Well, nobody but the lonely male next to her, which is basically hardwired.
But as soon, as anything in her behavior would have been odd, people notice and remember it. People didn't remember, so either she had no problems causing strange behavior at all, or she didn't travel the temporary main traffic streams.

yes, context of the video is everything.

if you want a crime of opportunity, you couldn't get any more ideal than this. a small young woman alone is a huge, almost empty building with an extremely scary history, probably in the wee hours of the morning in a stalled elevator, housing undesirables in a bad area of town. the old building has lots of nooks and crannies and corners and turns that someone could come to know very well.

sounds like a woman alone whose car has stalled on the side of a lonely road at 2:00 in the morning. we all know what happens. it wouldn't matter if you were completely sober and sane, looped up, or whacked out of your ever loving mind, the outcome would be the same. in fact, i think psychotic could actually work to your advantage - you're crazier than the perp.

 

[Doruk]

Again, you twist what I said! I said, since nobody saw her, she went or was transported at a low traffic time, for example the wee hours. Which basically indicates someone knew it would be necessary to avoid attention. For EL it wouldn't be necessary to wait till she can sneak up to the roof unseen. For a killer transporting a body, it would be essential. So, waiting for the low traffic times indicates rather the behavior of a killer than of someone just walking up there.

No. That's EXACTLY what you said in your lengthy post. Now you've altered it to say "she went or was transported at a low traffic time". So you DO believe she could have gone up to the roof on her own then?

And no. "For EL it wouldn't be necessary to wait till she can sneak up to the roof unseen." Who said she snuck up there with the intention to not be seen? The elevator video at 2 in the morning shows she WAS up at the wee hours and she WAS wandering about. So she wandered about where cameras were not present and no one saw her. Did she do so with the intent to evade cameras? I don't believe so. Just because she wasn't seen by anyone doesn't mean she was trying to evade being seen. As you say, it's the wee hours, majority of people are asleep.

 

[Doruk]

Just to clear up the math thing a little. I have here no way to use mathematical formulas, so lets try this in verbal from.

In a hotel we find at any given time a lot of people. And the hotel itself establishes the environment in which those people move. The basic thing is, they move in patterns which change over time. Now, that sounds abstract, but it is in fact easy. Take the mornings:

A lot of people on the floors 4-6 get up. Not all at the same time of course. We have early birds and long sleepers and everything in between. That's why hotesl offer usually breakfast from an early time to a late time. Like 7am to 10am (that's just an example, can be 9:30 for the Cecil, but I don't know their breakfast times there).
So, while we can't say an exact time for any given person, we know, the majority of guests for example from the fifth floor will move in this time down to the fourth, where they get breakfast. In mathematical terms, they establish a traffic stream, starting at 7am, when the fir come for food and ending at 10 am when the last long sleepers arrive. During this time, there is a higher probability that anyone, we meet, is on the way to have breakfast than for example, the probability he goes for the laundry room.

Now, there are some limitations in this model. For example people who want to come from the fifth have two obvious choices: They can use the stairs or the elevator. But they can't just teleport or beam or anything. Their choice of possible ways is restricted by the possible means of travel, in this case, they either have to go to the elevator or the stairs. Which essentially means, our traffic stream builds up like a stream or river in nature too. People come out of their rooms, enter some creeks (the corridor on the floors to the stairways or the elevators) and unite in a big stream that arrives in the breakfast room.

So, anybody, who travels on such a major temporary stream has technically the same probability to be noticed by anyone else in such a stream, right? Well, not entirely true. Alone traveling females for example are noticed with a slightly higher probability, at least by the alone traveling male members of that stream. Sorry, that's how we are wired.

Now, mathematical spoken, the probability to be noticed is higher for people who travel in such a stream than outside, simply because inside this stream the number of potential observers is higher. And the probability to be noticed in such a stream grows and grows, the more a certain person shows any kind of unusual behavior. Whereas "unusual" depends on the social consensus of the environment. Loud singing would cause more attention in a hotel elevator than in a chorus ... well, that depends also on how good you sing. But it makes the problem a bit clearer.

The beauty of this model is, we can actually determine for every time at least a first impression, where are the zones with low traffic and where are the zones with high traffic at a given time. Zones with higher probabilities to be noticed and zones with lower probabilities.

I hope, that makes the basic idea a little bit more transparent. I left a lot out, but at least, it looks without equations only half as scary.

This math probabilities model works the same for EL going up to the roof on her own as it does for any perp.

 

[Peter Brendt]

yes, context of the video is everything.

if you want a crime of opportunity, you couldn't get any more ideal than this. a small young woman alone is a huge, almost empty building with an extremely scary history, probably in the wee hours of the morning in a stalled elevator, housing undesirables in a bad area of town. the old building has lots of nooks and crannies and corners and turns that someone could come to know very well.

sounds like a woman alone whose car has stalled on the side of a lonely road at 2:00 in the morning. we all know what happens. it wouldn't matter if you were completely sober and sane, looped up, or whacked out of your ever loving mind, the outcome would be the same. in fact, i think psychotic could actually work to your advantage - you're crazier than the perp.

Psychotic break or drooling, speaking incoherently and so on could actually in some cases help more than screaming and beating. We all carry some million years old hardwired reaction patterns with us in our subconscious mind. Everything that looks like "sick" in the sense of disease, and be it faked, can take the mood from a wannabe rapist. However, which girl would come to that idea in the actual situation?

 

[Conductor71]

In fact, I don't. But there are more levels in between.
Technically, the base probability to be noticed is about the same for all persons moving in the hotel at any given time. A little higher for alone traveling females, given the age of the clientele there.
However, a girl in a psychotic break, stoned into strange behavior or anything else, that made her stand out would have boosted her probability to be noticed. People remember the yelling drunk yard in a shopping zone easier than those 20000 people who just walk around and buy stuff in the businesses (just an example).
So, chances are, if she was behaving, what would in this social context considered unusual and would have been seen in this state, someone would remember her.
And of course, if a killer carried her dead body around and would have been seen in the process, chances would be, someone would remember that too.

Bottom line: If she traveled with the regular temporary traffic streams and behaved "normal", nobody would have noticed her. Well, nobody but the lonely male next to her, which is basically hardwired.
But as soon, as anything in her behavior would have been odd, people notice and remember it. People didn't remember, so either she had no problems causing strange behavior at all, or she didn't travel the temporary main traffic streams. The latter would call for an explanation, which would be basically the same explanation, I gave Doruk.

Well put. That is my main contention too on the psychotic break theory. Psychosis in the context of her reported bipolar depression and/or bipolar disorder does not just happen with no warning, though if she had been drugged there may an acute psychosis, but if this was organic it is usually mood congruent. People who are in a manic phase generally have delusions of grandeur; they do not want to kill themselves or mistake a water tank for a midnight dip in the roof top "pool".

As for the "diagnoses" of psychotic break based on her Tumblr posts and that short video...for shame. People write as if they know her. How do we know that she was going out to bars alone? Even if she went alone, many people do and meet friends there. Not all women travel in packs. She also mentioned that she was looking for Meetup groups for social connection while in CA, and she was with a "friend'' at the Speakeasy. How do we see her as anti-social?

Think about it...you area reading a blog of a girl you say had a distorted sense of reality, so how then can you take all that she writes at face value and conclude anything reliable from it? Her distorted reality becomes your distorted conclusion.

Finally, the fact that she did blend in and no one noticed any odd behaviors prior to the elevator says volumes. If she was having a reality lapse while there it is really curious that her first experience manifested only the night before she checked out and was conveniently captured on video.

I am not dismissing the idea that a mental health issue played a part in this, but many who believe this are ignoring other key things that counter it. I feel sorry for this girl even more; I think that people are way more complex. If you did not know EL personally, there is no way of knowing her mental state from a short, silent video with no context. Buster Keaton without title cards would have been psychotic too.

Just wondering if EL had not blabbed she was having mental health problems, would you still say she was experiencing psychosis based on the video alone?

 

[Peter Brendt]

This math probabilities model works the same for EL going up to the roof on her own as it does for any perp.

As a matter of fact, if you apply the few details, we know, it works better for a perp. Since, as you pointed out in another post, the elevator video shows her at 2am (which isn't what I would consider actually "wee" in a hotel full of young people), we know, she was on one of the floors at this time. The floors are full of guest rooms, which are essentially the origins of most traffic streams in a hotel. But from there, would you see any major traffic stream going up to the roof? I don't think so. So, the roof with the tanks is off the major streams. And whenever someone deviates from the beaten paths, aka traffic streams, the question for the motive comes up. Now, while I have a hard time to imagine a motive, she had on herself, there is a second kind of motives interesting. If someone had a motive to bring her up there, be it dead or alive. And please notice, the word "walk" means moving on the own feet, be it voluntarily or involuntarily (people also walk at gunpoint sometimes).

 

[Peter Brendt]

Well put. That is my main contention too on the psychotic break theory. Psychosis in the context of her reported bipolar depression and/or bipolar disorder does not just happen with no warning, though if she had been drugged there may an acute psychosis, but if this was organic it is usually mood congruent. People who are in a manic phase generally have delusions of grandeur; they do not want to kill themselves or mistake a water tank for a midnight dip in the roof top "pool".

As for the "diagnoses" of psychotic break based on her Tumblr posts and that short video...for shame. People write as if they know her. How do we know that she was going out to bars alone? Even if she went alone, many people do and meet friends there. Not all women travel in packs. She also mentioned that she was looking for Meetup groups for social connection while in CA, and she was with a "friend'' at the Speakeasy. How do we see her as anti-social?

Think about it...you area reading a blog of a girl you say had a distorted sense of reality, so how then can you take all that she writes at face value and conclude anything reliable from it? Her distorted reality becomes your distorted conclusion.

Finally, the fact that she did blend in and no one noticed any odd behaviors prior to the elevator says volumes. If she was having a reality lapse while there it is really curious that her first experience manifested only the night before she checked out and was conveniently captured on video.

I am not dismissing the idea that a mental health issue played a part in this, but many who believe this are ignoring other key things that counter it. I feel sorry for this girl even more; I think that people are way more complex. If you did not know EL personally, there is no way of knowing her mental state from a short, silent video with no context. Buster Keaton without title cards would have been psychotic too.

Just wondering if EL had not blabbed she was having mental health problems, would you still say she was experiencing psychosis based on the video alone?

I have no idea what other people would have concluded about psychotic break without the blog. Honestly, sometimes, I have my little problems, how people come to some ideas without sufficient data.
Now, first of all psychotic doesn't mean anti-social. There is no hint of psychopathic behavior, so I would like to leave that line immediately again. As far as it goes to the conclusion, EL was in a break from reality ... there is always the question of the context. The Cecil was full of young people. The people she searched for, this social contact thing, they were probably also in her age group. Now, kids away from home, and I remember my own youth well, they do crazy things. Even with 20+ sometimes. Nothing wrong about it, they are young, they have the energy, the drive and sometimes even the necessary intoxication. Who hasn't played some kind of hide and seek, a little drunk with a nice girl/boy, one met on the first trip alone? And I don't refer here to hide and seek certain body parts. That would be a possible but not necessarily inevitable consequence only.
So, what do we actually have on that elevator video. A girl coming into the elvator, hiding from someone, but this hiding is controlled, more playful. Then the look out there, a short moment of pondering, then pressing all the buttons. And then the strange dance. Still, nobody is coming. And then the gesticulating. This is communication with someone outside. But no speaking, no yelling, just hand signs. And finally, after still nothing happens, she walks out of the elevator and leaves. She walks, she isn't running. This looks all playful to me. The kind of stupid games, that develop after some beer too much in a group. I see no reason for any "diagnosis". Well, as far as "young" doesn't equal "diagnosis" at least.
We all watched this video. We all watched it knowing, that this very same girl ended later up dead in a water tank. But Eliza didn't know that when she was there in that elevator filmed by the security cam. We have an entirely different perception than she had in the situation because we know what happened later. IMO, that's the misunderstanding here.

 

[noodled1]

As a matter of fact, if you apply the few details, we know, it works better for a perp. Since, as you pointed out in another post, the elevator video shows her at 2am

Interesting

I had not read that and because the time code on the video is cruddy I could never make that out. do we have a link? because it's important.

 

[findinganatta]

-There are a myriad of drugs I can think of that would cause her strange behavior, including Ambien, PCP, Ketamine, Kratom, Salvia, even abusing certain inhalants. And those are just off the top of my head, there's plenty more I can't think of right now.

snipped...

Kratom is in a totally different category than everything else you listed, including alcohol. It definitely does not cause bizarre behavior in the least. Not sure if you heard some propagandized news report or something, but it doesn't change behavior any more than coffee. Just correcting that

Aso, I disagree that psychedelics don't cause outward expressions of strangeness. I've witnessed many people behaving extremely bizarrely due to LSD and mushrooms, particularly if they're having a bad time. I've seen regular people act like very bizarre schizophrenics due to it. Even more so for salvia, although that wears off very quickly. Ecstacy can cause strange behavior, but it's more of a mood shift than a physical thing.

 

[BlueShoe]

This link, [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YO4QbaNDjI"]Elisa Lam Time Stamp Conspiracy MUST SEE! - YouTube[/ame] has the following statement by the person who speeded up the original elevator video

The other odd thing about the slowing down of the video is this: the original video posted lasted 4 minutes. The time that passes on the time stamp? Exactly 4 minutes. 12:22-12:26 exactly to the&#65279; second. The video ends just as we are about to see the minute hand change to 12:26:00. Coincidence? Or done purposely to throw off police? It would explain why they slowed down the first 2 minutes if they needed to make up for cutting out :54 seconds.

It seems to me that he did a careful analysis, so I believe the time that EL was in the elevator was around 12:22 on Feb. 1st.

 

[541]

snipped...

Kratom is in a totally different category than everything else you listed, including alcohol. It definitely does not cause bizarre behavior in the least. Not sure if you heard some propagandized news report or something, but it doesn't change behavior any more than coffee. Just correcting that

Aso, I disagree that psychedelics don't cause outward expressions of strangeness. I've witnessed many people behaving extremely bizarrely due to LSD and mushrooms, particularly if they're having a bad time. I've seen regular people act like very bizarre schizophrenics due to it. Even more so for salvia, although that wears off very quickly. Ecstacy can cause strange behavior, but it's more of a mood shift than a physical thing.

Actually I accidentally mentioned Kratom in that list...I've tried almost all of the things I've listed besides inhalants and Ketamine and I'd also like to think I'm quite familiar with their outward reactions from being around friends. As far as LSD/mushrooms go, I suppose you are right if someone has a really bad trip, but even in the most drug-naive users I've never seen anything like what Elisa was displaying in the video that would stem from the use of either of those two drugs.

When psychedelics do cause bizarre (outward) behavior, can you honestly say you've seen anything similar to the hand motions that Elisa was making? I admit that I'm not in the least bit an expert on anything, I just simply have never seen anything like what she was doing as a result of LSD/mushrooms.

 

[Shellstar]

I just wanted to chime in with my personal experience as well as my experience running mental health facilities as well as treatment centers (for addictions) and say that if there was any drug I would guess that EL may have been on (other than her own meds) it would be something like Crack or Meth in my humble opinion and here's why I say that:
A. She cannot be on something that slows you down because she is moving to quickly even after watching the real time video
B. If she is waving her hands around and nobody is there it reminds me very specifically of someone being awake for way too long and basically seeing and hearing and feeling stuff that doesn't exist.
Now I know if she was taking the meds that I've read here she was prescribed I don't believe she would be acting this way. I have many ADHD friends with depression and bi polar disorder and after taking those meds for even a week she would have had a immediate bad reaction to them or they would have helped. Someone with ADHD on speed for example almost seems normal. Except they might not sleep. And anyone who doesn't sleep for days and days will start seeing and hearing and feeling things that aren't there.
My major wonder even after thinking about all of this is that when you are that freaked out you are paranoid and when you are paranoid I don't think even trying to hide, you would jump or crawl into a huge water tank. I just don't. I know some crazy crazy daring people and none of them would have chosen that in their most drug induced,

 

[Shellstar]

Wow sorry using my phone and I hit post before being done.
As I was saying I know nobody who would have entered a tank on drugs or not having a breakdown or not. Period. You would want to be in a place you could escape from not be trapped in. I don't know what happened but I'm fearful if they find she was on drugs that it will be ruled a suicide when I still just don't believe that. And someone somewhere was asking if she was on ADHD meds if it would come up positive for methamphetamine and the answer is yes. However that's with a standard drug test and I sure hope they check beyond the standard (meaning exact levels).
I wish I was joining the group going to the hotel I believe tomorrow. Just can't cause I have a sick child to take care of. I hope they get some answers to our wonders. I hope they even are able to track down some residents who know more about what goes on there than we do.

 

[541]

And someone somewhere was asking if she was on ADHD meds if it would come up positive for methamphetamine and the answer is yes. However that's with a standard drug test and I sure hope they check beyond the standard (meaning exact levels).

I would assume the tests they used would differentiate the two.