GUILTY Turkey - Sarai Sierra, 33, NY woman murdered, Istanbul, 21 Jan 2013 - #6

[zarra30]

I'll check it out.

In this video report you can see the curve of the walls, the street and the highway, the railroad. IMO this is similar to Sarai's style of shots.


http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/sarai-sierras-body-found-missing-york-mom-found-...



http://instacanv.as/memyself_sarai

http://instacanv.as/memyself_sarai/piece/323992390240424117_20533443


http://instacanv.as/memyself_sarai/piece/252678122618867901_20533443


http://instacanv.as/memyself_sarai/piece/262991748198158394_20533443


http://instacanv.as/memyself_sarai/piece/287131842387497523_20533443



Also want to point something out. Several of her photos are taken right around the corner from my house, like one block. She's got shots of the Brooklyn side of the Verazzano Bridge and the Shore Road walking path.

It's weird how similar this looks to the area she was found in Instanbul. Here are a few pix on Google to show you what I mean. Seems to me she may have simply been drawn to the area because of the look and not been taking pictures of the men at all.

Chewy, Thanks so much for these. I don't remember seeing them anywhere else. I get what you mean about the similarities!

 

[ThinkHard]

Good point Chewy about the DNA, probably one of the best scenarios put out there, but what if she was robbed and she was looking for her stuff in his cave or even hiding there because someone was chasing her, and Z came upon her, she freaked out, attacked him, thinking he was violent or that he was one of the people she was trying to avoid. He let her go, she ran and ended up dead, but he had those scratches. I'm not saying that's what I think happened, only that it could, it's within the realm of possibility, low on the rung, but it's there.

What I think is great about a board like this is that anyone, from anywhere in the world, from any walk of life, can bring in their opinions and life knowledge and input. Even if we can't solve the crime we can take something of value away just by hearing what others have to say.

You're both right Chewy & Thinkhard, facts can't be ignored or explained away, but so many of these 'facts' have changed over time, wouldn't you agree?. So we are left with theories, some we may feel are implausible, some we may think make sense, but all theories should be welcome, and everyone should feel free to voice their opinion. I know I forget half the facts after awhile and I also realize I can come off arrogant sometimes when I am being facetious.

But one idea can lead to another. For instance, Chewy once mentioned Leiby Kletzky and I remember what a terrible tragedy that was. But it made me think how important time is in an investigation. In that case the immediate and massive response from the community who set up and volunteered at Command centers, offering rewards, sending facebook and twitter feeds, people searching houses, yards and every neighbor agreeing to look at their surveillance footage, was what led to finding the killer within a short time, wasn't it like 30 hours? One more day and it would probably have never been solved. In the case of SS, so much time was lost. I think Thinkhard's theories are intriguing.
When you two posters were offline, it was very... slow. I think people enjoy hearing what you guys have to say, and I hope you stay on.

I learned a lot about gold from both of you and several other posters even though you all sometimes agreed and disagreed. Another poster mentioned how in a fight an earring could be ripped from an ear or broken, so it's important how the earrings were found.

Criminals can be incredibly innovative, corruption exists, people can be mistaken for others, so anything is possible, and all ideas are helpful. Though in the end I think it will be the Istanbul LE who will solve it simply because they know their criminals and the territory.

I just want to let you guys know how much I respect your opinions.

I sure hope its LE who solves this case.

I too had said some of the very things you stated, and appreciate your wording.
I think collaboration is important and certainly helps us all see things differently.

Personally, though admittedly some of my theories are out there, they were still well thought out within the context of the information we have been provided.

And as I have also said many times, and completely agree with you, deciphering all the conflicting info, to determine what is and isn't true is really confusing, and leads to very few absolutes.

So we are left to ponder, and speculate, and question, and propose ideas, LE I'm sure runs in their heads no shortage of scenarios themselves. That's how they solve crimes, its not like all the puzzle peices are just handed to them. They work with the pieces they have, they theororize, the attempt guessing that might fill in the holes, and the "research" information that can help confirm or deny those theories.

The difference between LE and those of us here on webslueths is that LE has the capabilities to compare their theories against real data to help strengthen or weaken their theories. We do not have that ability, we do not have access to suspect, witnesses, actual evidence....we are only left with 5% of what they know. And of what we know we don't even know what of the information is within the 5% of accurate information.

 

[ThinkHard]

Excellent point. He's wanted for murder not shoplifting. :waitasec:

If he thought it was just a petty crime and was only guilty of that, the evidence shows that he indeed would not have minded. So the fact that he is on the run shows he knows and knew right away he'd be wanted for more.

One could argue that he's innocent and knows he'll be blamed except for the very vivid and important fact that his blood is on her body.

I don't doubt he was involved, but a tiny bit of blood certainly does not give as an complete or accurate picture of what transpired that day.

 

[Chewy]

Good point Chewy about the DNA, probably one of the best scenarios put out there, but what if she was robbed and she was looking for her stuff in his cave or even hiding there because someone was chasing her, and Z came upon her, she freaked out, attacked him, thinking he was violent or that he was one of the people she was trying to avoid. He let her go, she ran and ended up dead, but he had those scratches. I'm not saying that's what I think happened, only that it could, it's within the realm of possibility, low on the rung, but it's there.

What I think is great about a board like this is that anyone, from anywhere in the world, from any walk of life, can bring in their opinions and life knowledge and input. Even if we can't solve the crime we can take something of value away just by hearing what others have to say.

You're both right Chewy & Thinkhard, facts can't be ignored or explained away, but so many of these 'facts' have changed over time, wouldn't you agree?. So we are left with theories, some we may feel are implausible, some we may think make sense, but all theories should be welcome, and everyone should feel free to voice their opinion. I know I forget half the facts after awhile and I also realize I can come off arrogant sometimes when I am being facetious.

But one idea can lead to another. For instance, Chewy once mentioned Leiby Kletzky and I remember what a terrible tragedy that was. But it made me think how important time is in an investigation. In that case the immediate and massive response from the community who set up and volunteered at Command centers, offering rewards, sending facebook and twitter feeds, people searching houses, yards and every neighbor agreeing to look at their surveillance footage, was what led to finding the killer within a short time, wasn't it like 30 hours? One more day and it would probably have never been solved. In the case of SS, so much time was lost. I think Thinkhard's theories are intriguing.
When you two posters were offline, it was very... slow. I think people enjoy hearing what you guys have to say, and I hope you stay on.

I learned a lot about gold from both of you and several other posters even though you all sometimes agreed and disagreed. Another poster mentioned how in a fight an earring could be ripped from an ear or broken, so it's important how the earrings were found.

Criminals can be incredibly innovative, corruption exists, people can be mistaken for others, so anything is possible, and all ideas are helpful. Though in the end I think it will be the Istanbul LE who will solve it simply because they know their criminals and the territory.

I just want to let you guys know how much I respect your opinions.

Well thanks for the points you made here. I do agree that looking at it from many different perspectives can be helpful to a crime.

I mentioned this earlier in the example I gave about a woman who was thought to have committed suicide by driving off the side of the road, only to find out later that she had been stung by a wasp and reacting in the car in a way that made her drive off the road.

So it's important to keep an open mind.

However I think some of the assertions being made a based on confirmation bias rather than logical thinking. Ex.

It's one thing to say "I wonder why he didn't take the jewelry, maybe this wasn't a simple robbery"

and another thing to say "I don't believe he would have left the gold and so the fact that he did is proof to me that robbery wasn't the motive"

That's confirmation bias, forcing the facts to be interpreted in a way that supports your preexisting conclusion.

Conclusions come at the end of evaluating all the information, they shouldn't be the start of an idea.

What is very problematic is how we can sometimes overlook important implications that also eliminate theories.

A. She was murdered by a brick. That's important. She wasn't killed with a gun or a knife. So this wasn't a professional hit or anything like that. It wasn't premeditated.

B. She wasn't stripped of her jewelry. This doesn't mean burglary wasn't the motive, it just means the thief didn't want the gold. It wasn't very expensive gold so it is not surprising at all that he didn't bother taking it. But if her earrings were taken out by her in an attempt to give him something instead of her IPAD and phone then it clarifies why they were left by the body. The electronics were taken. Her jacket was taken. So there IS evidence that theft was involved.

C. There is a suspect. The suspects DNA is found on her dead body. This is important because he didn't know her at all. There is no reason in the world for his blood or DNA to be on her body. This implicates him.

D. He's on the run. Obviously he feels guilty about something or scared of something. If he was innocent and felt afraid, he has the entire media at his disposal right now. If you were on the run would you head to a war zone where you'd likely get killed crossing the border? Or would you hide and tell your friends the whole story and let them go to the press and tell the "real story."

This is important IMO because it eliminates ridiculous conspiracy theories that he's involved in some covert operation or saw her murdered or is being framed.

He's got the world media at his beck and call right now. If it's that easy for him to hide why doesn't he call a family member (His brother who is looking out for him) and tell him the story.

There is no story.

E. He's mentally unstable. This is also an important detail. We can rationalize it and make it less than normal but he's clearly got some mental issues going on. I'm not going to diagnose it but it's something.

F. There is much we don't know. So that is where sleuthing is wonderful and exceptional.

Let's try to sort out new information and explore theories. But lets also be mindful to remember that we should allow the facts to guide us and not dismiss what we do know in favor of more interesting theories.

 

[Chewy]

I don't doubt he was involved, but a tiny bit of blood certainly does not give as an complete or accurate picture of what transpired that day.

No crime solved or otherwise gives us a complete or accurate picture of what transpired.

If LE needed to prove a complete and accurate picture, then half the criminals out there would be walking free.

What it does, is clearly and 100% scientifically demonstrates he was involved in her situation. He's implicated.

 

[ThinkHard]

I get that Z's blood was on Sarai's shirt, and that gives us a peice of this puzzle, but by no means does it prove he was the sole perp, or that he was even the one who killed her, or that he acted alone, or how he came upon sarai, or what the motive was, or what his state of mind was, or who took her things, or who took off her pants.

It is a piece of the puzzle, not the solution to the puzzle.

 

[Fantazteko]

I posted earlier some symptoms of inhalant abusers, and as I recall, one included chronic nosebleeds.

This indicates Ziya’s blood could have gotten on Sarai not necessarily during a violent struggle, so we can theorize several other possible scenarios for how that evidence found its way onto Sarai’s shirt.

Blood splatter analysis probably yielded some clues for detectives, though it would probably be difficult to determine that sort of thing if Ziya’s blood was a very small amount.

 

[ThinkHard]

The idea he could just go to media and plead his case I don't think has as much credence as you seem to believe it does. And applying the idea that it would be easy for him to gain the trust of the media, is indeed applying a confirmation bias that is, not a fact, but only serves to strength your preconceived notion that he could only be running because he is guilty.

I don't really think we have enough info to say he was mentally unstable. We have people who knew, him and saw him some saying he was unstable, some saying he was fine and normal and couldn't hurt a chicken, to only focus on the quotes or comments that support the preconceived notion that he is mental unstable while ignoring the ones that do not paint him that way, is also a confirmation bias.

 

[Chewy]

I get that Z's blood was on Sarai's shirt, and that gives us a peice of this puzzle, but by no means does it prove he was the sole perp, or that he was even the one who killed her, or that he acted alone, or how he came upon sarai, or what the motive was, or what his state of mind was, or who took her things, or who took off her pants.

It is a piece of the puzzle, not the solution to the puzzle.

:waitasec:

Who said it was?

 

[Chewy]

I posted earlier some symptoms of inhalant abusers, and as I recall, one included chronic nosebleeds.

This indicates Ziya’s blood could have gotten on Sarai not necessarily during a violent struggle, so we can theorize several other possible scenarios for how that evidence found its way onto Sarai’s shirt.

Blood splatter analysis probably yielded some clues for detectives, though it would probably be difficult to determine that sort of thing if Ziya’s blood was a very small amount.

Excellent post. I've been wondering the same thing, transfer of blood is very rare from the assailant to the victim unless there was a violent struggle. In this case there does seem to be a violent struggle but the nose bleed is also a very interesting point. Perhaps if he was spotted later "bloodied and scratched" (which is still not 100 percent certain) it could have been him with a nose bleed that he wiped away from his nose looking like scratch marks.

 

[Chewy]

The idea he could just go to media and plead his case I don't think has as much credence as you seem to believe it does. And applying the idea that it would be easy for him to gain the trust of the media, is indeed applying a confirmation bias that is, not a fact, but only serves to strength your preconceived notion that he could only be running because he is guilty.

I don't really think we have enough info to say he was mentally unstable. We have people who knew, him and saw him some saying he was unstable, some saying he was fine and normal and couldn't hurt a chicken, to only focus on the quotes or comments that support the preconceived notion that he is mental unstable while ignoring the ones that do not paint him that way, is also a confirmation bias.

It sure is. Please source your quotes from people who say he is not mentally unstable but a normal guy who couldn't hurt a chicken.

That's the thing. You can't just "have read it somewhere online and so I'm going to bring this into the conversation" nope. Gotta have the links to back up the statements.

So, who said that he wouldn't hurt a chicken and why is that person an expert on mental health issues and this man's psychological profile?

Thanks.:seeya:

 

[ThinkHard]

Yes it would be confirmation bias to say I don't believe that he'd want the jewelry because it had no value to him.

That's exactly right. I haven't said that. I've said, obviously BECAUSE HE LEFT THE JEWELRY he didn't want it.

I based my conclusion on the fact that he didn't take the jewelry. Logic.

I have only said this about a million times now. LOL :waitasec:

If the jewelry had value to him he'd probably have taken it.

I'm not getting into this again.

Finally anyone can have all the theories they want and discuss and promote ideas. But they can't expect others to take these theories seriously and not critique them when they are flawed.

It's also not a fun game to sleuth crimes when people have died. I feel bad for this victim and want to truthfully try to put the puzzle together, not play around with ideas.

JMO

I too based my idea on the fact he left the jewelry.

I proposed he left the jewelry because robbery was not the motive.

You proposed it because you believe it has little value.

 

[ThinkHard]

It sure is. Please source your quotes from people who say he is not mentally unstable but a normal guy who couldn't hurt a chicken.

That's the thing. You can't just "have read it somewhere online and so I'm going to bring this into the conversation" nope. Gotta have the links to back up the statements.

So, who said that he wouldn't hurt a chicken and why is that person an expert on mental health issues and this man's psychological profile?

Thanks.:seeya:

Where are your links?

 

[Chewy]

Where are your links?

They have already been posted in the other closed threads. Could you source yours? I'll go dig mine back up again.


Here is one link so far

What do we know about Ziya T? He's been homeless since he was 11, served seven years in prison for THEFT which is the same crime in this case. He's mentally unstable and fleeing the country.

Not sure about the scratchmarks on his face but we definitely know his blood and DNA were found on the victims body.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/25/sarai-sierra-murder-suspect-fled-turkey-iran_n_2756784.html


I can't figure where we're getting "He's a nice stable guy who wouldn't hurt a chicken" out of these facts.


Here's a bit that seems to support the "framing thing"

But a close friend in Ziya T.'s hometown had a different version. Over coffee, the friend said Ziya fled Istanbul because police would try to frame him for Sierra's murder, the Daily News said. His friend said Ziya divulged that he wanted to get into Iran, according to a report in Turkish media.

Details about the suspect's personal life circulated in Turksih press. The 46-year-old Ziya T. is also known as Laz Ziya, according to a report cited in the Hurriyet Daily News. When he was 11, shortly after the death of his father, he became homeless and once served seven years in prison for theft, the paper reported.

 

[ThinkHard]

They have already been posted in the other closed threads. Could you source yours? I'll go dig mine back up again. Btw this reply is a bit rude in my opinion. You seem annoyed when people disagree with you. I don't get it. :waitasec:

They are links from other posters in previous friends, I believe in Turkish articles, that were translated by our fluent Turkish friends. But these quotes were discussed on multiple occasions.

I don't have time to find them now, but they are there, I believe delal or English had posted them, hopefully they will be in later or at some point and can confirm.

 

[Chewy]

No they aren't. There's no posts where people of authority state that he wouldn't hurt a chicken.

If you want to assert this just back it up

 

[Chewy]

I too based my idea on the fact he left the jewelry.

I proposed he left the jewelry because robbery was not the motive.

You proposed it because you believe it has little value.

I proposed it because other items were taken. But you just ignore that fact.

Now that we have an implicated suspect we also find that he has a history of theft and served seven years in prison for theft. But you just ignore that fact as well.

 

[Fantazteko]

The tricky thing about theft and robbery in a murder case is it can take you anywhere when you attempt to understand the perp.

Such criminals can appear to be very inexperienced, they can break into a woman’s home, kill her and steal the lingerie only after ransacking everything else and leaving a lot of evidence, while completely ignoring a jewelry box in plain view.

They can be very selective about what they want.

 

[Chewy]

The tricky thing about theft and robbery in a murder case is it can take you anywhere when you attempt to understand the perp.

Such criminals can appear to be very inexperienced, they can break into a woman’s home, kill her and steal the lingerie only after ransacking everything else and leaving a lot of evidence, while completely ignoring a jewelry box in plain view.

They can be very selective about what they want.

Great post and so true.

 

[Miziree]

No they aren't. There's no posts where people of authority state that he wouldn't hurt a chicken.

If you want to assert this just back it up

Here it is.. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...her-fled-Turkey-police-warned-pinned-him.html 'Forget killing a person, he can't even cut a chicken. Ziya was the same as always. There was nothing odd about him.