GUILTY NH - AH, 14, North Conway, 9 October 2013 - # 7

[MURDERER_SERVANT]

It was when Zenya spoke at the flashlight vigil. What she said was "Abby disappeared from a "busy location" in North Conway between 3 and 4 p.m."

I felt that she said that based on the unconfirmed reports of her on NS road, "previous route" home, etc.

http://www.conwaydailysun.com/index.php/newsx/local-news/109704-hundreds-shine-lights-for-abby

"busy location" She didn't exactly say "public place" IIRC and that might be important. IMO North South Road between the rotary and Settler's Green is pretty busy, IE; not secluded like the powerline.

Oh you're right Steleheart.. Then her last sighting might be traced on a busy location either by a street cam or a store/bank/ATM cam ..Otherwise how could one know that Abby did not disappear in the woods after the Eagles way for instance.? But busy location could also imply a road with high traffic as well as a public place like WM or SG like you say IMO...

 

[Steleheart]

My point wasn't to actually match DNA at this point, but to threaten to match DNA. I read that the killer in the Jessica Ridgeway case turned himself in after learning the police were going door-to-door for samples. If Abby's disappearance is an abduction, the abductor doesn't know what evidence the police have or if they've located the crime scene (actual spot of abduction).

"DNA evidence can be retrieved from many objects at a scene. These objects can include (but are not limited to), a weapon, flooring, bedding, laundry, telephones, remote controls, and counter tops. Sources include (but are not limited to) sweat, dandruff, mucus, saliva, semen, blood and hair. DNA evidence is often not visible to the naked eye. A telephone may, for instance, yield DNA evidence such as sweat, saliva, or other sources. Everyone knows that doorknobs can yield fingerprints, but they can also hold DNA evidence in the form of sweat or other sources. There are many objects at a scene that you might not assume hold any DNA evidence."





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Interesting points because in Jessica's case they had found the backpack within a couple days with DNA on it and her clothes in it. LE didn't say much about that but did say not to focus on her clothing but on her 'features'.

In Abby's case they have said nothing about her shoulder bag. In fact nothing was said about it until Mission for the Missing came up to search and got those details from Zenya along with other personal details. So LE is still tight lipped about the shoulder bag and purse and a possible perp has no idea if they have it or not.

I think they do have it because they said the phone was missing but never mentioned the shoulder bag or if the public should look for it. Why was it assumed the phone was missing and not inside the shoulder bag?

 

[MURDERER_SERVANT]

Interesting points because in Jessica's case they had found the backpack within a couple days with DNA on it and her clothes in it. LE didn't say much about that but did say not to focus on her clothing but on her 'features'.

In Abby's case they have said nothing about her shoulder bag. In fact nothing was said about it until Mission for the Missing came up to search and got those details from Zenya along with other personal details. So LE is still tight lipped about the shoulder bag and purse and a possible perp has no idea if they have it or not.

I think they do have it because they said the phone was missing but never mentioned the shoulder bag or if the public should look for it. Why was it assumed the phone was missing and not inside the shoulder bag?

Maybe LE suggested that the perp could try to sell her phone to a second hand store or to someone so LE wanted people to be alert against a second hand white Iphone 5..that could be a way to reach the perp..BTW I personally think none of her belongings have been found yet. JMO

 

[Steleheart]

Thank you for telling me the exact words, busy location, steleheart. NS road is exactly where the FBI stopped traffic too and talked with each driver.
The bugaboo for me is still why she turned onto the power line trail, but she could have still walked along it just for a bit and cut over to the Walmart parking lot.
In the beginning, I used to think she maybe walked to the end of the power line trail.....but I now think I was way off base there.

Nah, not off base IMO. Remember they searched behind Walmart several times. Holley's map shows the route from Eagle's Way to the back of WM, so coming through the WM parking lot might be where cameras showed her previous route as mentioned in the timeline. Then it's on to NS road where traffic at that time was 'busy'.

Just my opinions.

 

[Steleheart]

Maybe LE suggested that the perp could try to sell her phone to a second hand store or to someone so LE wanted people to be alert against a second hand white Iphone 5..that could be a way to reach the perp..BTW I personally think none of her belongings have been found yet. JMO

Quite possibly, but I recall that they asked businesses to check their lost and found. That's very specific in a case where they are giving out no details.

A shoulder bag containing her purse is a pretty important item for a girl. All the friends of my daughters have only 3 places for their phones; Hand, Pocket, Purse - in order of importance. So why assume the phone is 'missing' and not the purse? Why not assume it's in the purse or in her pocket?

This detail about the shoulder bag has bugged me since the beginning. If they did find it and it was on the edge of the road that would indicate something nefarious, but if they found it tucked under a bush that could indicate that either she ditched it or a perp ditched it leaving them with no firm indication of runaway or abduction. Blank. Just a "missing person". But if they found all her stuff except her phone and no signal, IMO that would indicate that the phone is 'missing'.

Not sure if I am making it clear, LOL
JMO anyway.

 

[Hap]

We've been so lucky here in NH with the mild Fall weather..... still lots of people out and about. The leaves though.... they cover the ground in deep piles in places. In my own wooded backyard, it would be impossible to find something even if I KNEW it was there.

Praying for Abby. Let this be the day she comes home.

 

[Steleheart]

I know I am rehashing old details but that's where this case is. Right where it started IMO.

In Jessica's case the evidence unfolded very quickly, but that is because Austin Sigg is very young and inexperienced. He tripped up multiple times - the cross/ DNA at the previous attack, leaving the backpack (with clothes and DNA) to try and throw off the trail, etc. But in Abby's case, if there is a perpetrator, and whether she just went for a ride or she was taken there IS a perp IMO, that person is very experienced, well planned and older. So experienced that if the FBI has evidence it's not telling them anything.

Just me opinionatin'.

 

[ohoh]

Nah, not off base IMO. Remember they searched behind Walmart several times. Holley's map shows the route from Eagle's Way to the back of WM, so coming through the WM parking lot might be where cameras showed her previous route as mentioned in the timeline. Then it's on to NS road where traffic at that time was 'busy'.

Just my opinions.

This is where I am trying to adjust my first thoughts, if her friend on the bus, the girl (s) walking behind her down eagles way - saw her turn onto the power line trail, I am believing them, even though it makes no sense to me. So she is walking on the wide mowed area, but only 1/2 or 3/4 of a block. She cuts thru woods down to Eastman Rd, and climbs up little hill, pushes thru a line of evergreens (not at all dense). And there she is, at the front of Walmart, side entrance into nursery/ plants. Not the back of Walmart at all.
Just an off the wall thought, that's all it is.

 

[Lucky 1]

So, I have been thinking that maybe on the 9 th, her innocent mission that day was to scope out how to spend her birthday money. Didn't she have plans with her Mom the following Saturday, her birthday ?

Good thinking ohoh. However I think she was closer to Settlers Green due to the time, they have more that appeals to her age group and it is right next to her house. Kids definitely hang out there. And IMO, that big parking lot in the back off N/S road would be an ideal place to abduct someone into a car similar to Kelsey Smith.

http://settlersgreen.com/stores

Rue21

PacSun

White Mountain Cupcakery

Old Navy

Lindt Chocolate

Claire's

American Eagle Outfitters

Aeropostale

 

[LittleRose]

I agree that Sigg was inexperienced, but it was the threat of a DNA sample which caused him to turn himself in. Why not ask for samples (a cheek swab and a sample cup is all it takes), and LE wouldn't have to send any in for analysis until/if they find her belongings/body? I'd be requesting all males, teen to adult, family, neighbors, and Internet friends/contacts. If someone refuses to give a sample, good reason to take a closer look at that person.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Mom24]

My point wasn't to actually match DNA at this point, but to threaten to match DNA. I read that the killer in the Jessica Ridgeway case turned himself in after learning the police were going door-to-door for samples. If Abby's disappearance is an abduction, the abductor doesn't know what evidence the police have or if they've located the crime scene (actual spot of abduction).

"DNA evidence can be retrieved from many objects at a scene. These objects can include (but are not limited to), a weapon, flooring, bedding, laundry, telephones, remote controls, and counter tops. Sources include (but are not limited to) sweat, dandruff, mucus, saliva, semen, blood and hair. DNA evidence is often not visible to the naked eye. A telephone may, for instance, yield DNA evidence such as sweat, saliva, or other sources. Everyone knows that doorknobs can yield fingerprints, but they can also hold DNA evidence in the form of sweat or other sources. There are many objects at a scene that you might not assume hold any DNA evidence."





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's the problem with pulling that kind of bluff, they don't have a body (like they did in Jessica's case) nor any idea where the crime scene is. They have conflicting evidence that she made it home (the dogs trailed her scent there) and they believe she didn't make it home but they have no proof that she did or didn't. The surrounding area has been trod on by dogs, fish and game, LE, other kids, etc. And we don't even know where the abduction took place, it could be on the trail home or it could have been somewhere on n/s road where the unconfirmed sightings occurred. It's a chancy thing to do and it could backfire.

 

[Mom24]

I agree. Disappeared from a public place makes me think her footage could last be tracked on a public place which prob might be thru a camera in that public place and they lost her footage there ..no more sightings after that.. I guess she was alone in the sighting if there is one as LE seems to have no suspect right now.. I wonder was she on her way to meet someone near that public place ?
might be at the back of the parking lot at a more isolated spot for the abductor not to be seen ?

Didn't I read an article somewhere where they were able to deduce AH had a usual route home by prior camera footage? Does anyone else remember that?

 

[LittleRose]

That's the problem with pulling that kind of bluff, they don't have a body (like they did in Jessica's case) nor any idea where the crime scene is. They have conflicting evidence that she made it home (the dogs trailed her scent there) and they believe she didn't make it home but they have no proof that she did or didn't. The surrounding area has been trod on by dogs, fish and game, LE, other kids, etc. And we don't even know where the abduction took place, it could be on the trail home or it could have been somewhere on n/s road where the unconfirmed sightings occurred. It's a chancy thing to do and it could backfire.

With all due respect, why is it chancy and how could it backfire?

Nobody knows what evidence LE has, if any.

If it's true that LE has nothing- no evidence and no idea of where the crime scene is located, what's to lose in asking male family, neighbors, and friends/acquaintances to give DNA samples? If they have nothing to hide, why not give a sample (it's a swab of the cheek). If they refuse to give a sample, that may indicate the need for further questioning. Ask if they're willing to take a lie detector? Or, at the very least, LE could get a bunch of statements in conjunction with the request, which could be further analyzed by experts. It's not costly unless you send in the 200 or so samples you collect, which there'd probably be no need to do.

If you have nothing, why not try something?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[LittleRose]

Do any locals know if LE is going door-to-door in her neighborhood, searching houses, condos, apartments? They don't need a warrant to search if the homeowner gives permission. And if they don't, put them on a list for surveillance, etc.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Mom24]

Because you need something to tie dna to. I understand you're talking about a trap, but it's only a trap if that person doesn't know you need something to tie dna to. It could also adversely affect any evidence they do obtain once they do find out more about what happened. It worked in Jessica's case because they found her body parts, some of those body parts were found under the porch of the perp's mother where he resided, and he didn't know there wasn't dna evidence on the body parts. It was a calculated risk, but still a risk in Jessica's case. In this case, we have no body, no idea where the crime actually occurred and even if a crime did occur. I'm not saying it's not a good idea, it just doesn't appear it would work in this particular instance. I'm not even sure they could assume that if someone refused they might be guilty. There are a variety of reasons people may not want to give DNA samples that have nothing to do with being guilty of a crime. And they did go door to door when AH was first reported missing, so that's been done. It's good thinking outside of the box, though and I agree there needs to be more of that.

 

[LittleRose]

Because you need something to tie dna to. I understand you're talking about a trap, but it's only a trap if that person doesn't know you need something to tie dna to. It could also adversely affect any evidence they do obtain once they do find out more about what happened. It worked in Jessica's case because they found her body parts, some of those body parts were found under the porch of the perp's mother where he resided, and he didn't know there wasn't dna evidence on the body parts. It was a calculated risk, but still a risk in Jessica's case. In this case, we have no body, no idea where the crime actually occurred and even if a crime did occur. I'm not saying it's not a good idea, it just doesn't appear it would work in this particular instance. I'm not even sure they could assume that if someone refused they might be guilty. There are a variety of reasons people may not want to give DNA samples that have nothing to do with being guilty of a crime. And they did go door to door when AH was first reported missing, so that's been done. It's good thinking outside of the box, though and I agree there needs to be more of that.

If LE confronted folks, asking for DNA, there will be some sort of reply. The innocent have nothing to hide, so they hide nothing. This would put those with something to hide on the defense, and statements made in conjunction with the request could be important and analyzed by experts.

Did they go door-to-door searching top-to-bottom or just asking questions? There's a big difference.

When a child goes missing, the means justify the ends.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MamaJoJo]

If LE confronted folks, asking for DNA, there will be some sort of reply. The innocent have nothing to hide, so they hide nothing. This would put those with something to hide on the defense, and statements made in conjunction with the request could be important and analyzed by experts.

Did they go door-to-door searching top-to-bottom or just asking questions? There's a big difference.

When a child goes missing, the means justify the ends.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I could definitely see a scenario where an innocent person wouldn't give a DNA sample. I don't think I would; I know I didn't do anything to her.

As for door-to-door searching, I don't believe any information on that has been released. Someone on WS had a cool idea: have neighbors check each other's home for 10 minutes - sort of a house swap search. Then, anyone who didn't agree either had something to hide or has a very messy house and doesn't want anyone to see it.

 

[Dixie811]

I totally understand the idea that "if you're innocent you'll have nothing to hide" in regard to the conversation about DNA.

But the truth is that many (innocent) people do value privacy and would feel violated by their DNA being collected for any number of reasons. Many posters on this thread have talked about how especially private New Englanders can be.

I am not saying it is right, and I personally would have no problem giving my DNA to help an investigation progress. But some individuals would certainly feel differently.

 

[Wolf Dreamer]

With all due respect, why is it chancy and how could it backfire?

Well, as I already said, only the person who took Abby knows where Abby is.

If LE have nothing, and it certainly appears that's the case, by taking a DNA swab they could push the person involved - assuming of course that they are a local, and not from a nearby town or further afield - into destroying evidence. Maybe the have the backpack hidden, but now they burn it. Maybe they burn Abby. If LE don't have a suspect they can't follow everyone just in case they're the one and they go back to the scene of the crime.

DNA testing is a pretty big intrusion into someone's civil liberties and I can completely understand why innocent people would object, particularly when (as far as we know) LE have nothing to compare it to and no evidence the crime was committed by a local. And I understand some states retain DNA even when someone is innocent.

 

[MamaJoJo]

I totally understand the idea that "if you're innocent you'll have nothing to hide" in regard to the conversation about DNA.

But the truth is that many (innocent) people do value privacy and would feel violated by their DNA being collected for any number of reasons. Many posters on this thread have talked about how especially private New Englanders can be.

I am not saying it is right, and I personally would have no problem giving my DNA to help an investigation progress. But some individuals would certainly feel differently.

Agreed. That's what I was intending to say but decided to keep it concise. Thank you!