WA WA - Shantina Smiley, 29, & Azriel Carver, 8 (fnd deceased), Olympia, Mar 2010 - #7

[spamelope]

It is not against the law for a minor to be on the internet, or at ws.
From TOS
If you are under the age of 13, the administrator may require that a parent or guardian provide consent before allowing you to complete the registration process. More information about this is available during the registration process.

Edited to add- this seemingly random public service announcement made sense half an hour ago LOL

 

[PaulR]

The 101 and the I-5 run No - So from Canada to San Diego. They weave in and out of each other in several places along the way.

101 doesn't go to Canada. It ends after doing a loop around the Olympic Peninsula, at I-5.

And it never really weaves in-and-out of I-5... outside of LA and Olympia, it sticks along the coast while I-5 stays more inland.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Route_101

Unless she was going to Castle Rock via Seattle (the very long way) - she would have picked up the 5 in south (or south of) Tacoma. This would be: the 3 to the 16 to the I-5. Other wise the trip was the 3 to the 101 to the I-5 where they merge in So Olympia.

Even if she went to Seattle, presumably she'd still take I-5 down, how else are you going to get from Seattle to Castle Rock?

The low tide was at 10:37pm??? (High tide was at 6:02am.) By chance she ended up on that beach a few minutes after 10:35.... No.

We don't know that she was on the beach at 10:35. Some statements by police indicate she may have been there, but I haven't seen them say why they believe it. They may have very well meant that she was there at low tide.

 

[Calliope]

101 doesn't go to Canada. It ends after doing a loop around the Olympic Peninsula, at I-5.

While it doesn't to into Canada, it certainly goes to Canada, as it's northern most point is Port Angeles, just a few miles from the border and directly across the water from BC. It's as close as you can get without landing in the drink.

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=47.779943,-123.651123&spn=1.051985,2.48291&z=8

 

[yosande]

Here you go. On a second look it may not be RS, it's been a while since I looked at the post. It is by someone who has been to the site where the minivan was found. The poster is called rgdimages#217099. You have to scroll to the bottom of the comments and click "newer" to get to the comment. It was posted at 11:15 pm March 16th. He's posted a lot more comments to that site but I haven't had a chance to look back through them.

http://www.kitsapsun.com/news/2010/...return-says-fiance-missing-woman/?partner=RSS

The poster doesn't say she knew that beach, or had been there before;

Maybe she knew of this little steep dirt access road ... perhaps she had used it as a photo shoot location. It's almost unimaginable to take an 8 year old down a narrow, steep, very hard to find beach access road late at night not knowing where she was headed.

Read more: http://www.kitsapsun.com/news/2010/mar/15/pray-their-safe-return-says-fiance-missing-woman/?partner=RSS#ixzz0mIPb8Lgk
​

 

[slowpoke]

As I thought I was explaining, IMOO Shantina would have been aware the 101 in Olympia would lead her to the I-5.

ok -- I was just offering my perspective on driving in an unfamiliar area, as someone who has a very poor sense of direction. That's all. :sheesh:

 

[cjoosten]

snipped

I haven't followed for awhile. I just check in to see if she washes up on a beach or is found alive. Either is a possibility moo.

Back in the beginning, I noted how she ended up at DW's home. If she had headed north and made the 2 left turns, she basically would have arrived at the beach where she ended up anyway. I still think she knew that beach from a long time ago, had a desire to return there, and spent most of the night trying to find it.

I agree. I think she looked at maps trying to find that spot again. It makes sense since pretty much every time she was told where the freeway was, she left in the wrong/opposite direction.

Also, another thing I was pondering, as stated by PaulR a few posts back, is that she was stalling all nigh just so she could get to that beach during the LOWEST of tides....to get the van down as far as possible....so it would receive alot of water on high tide....making it look like they were washed away.

 

[RubyRed]

I agree. I think she looked at maps trying to find that spot again. It makes sense since pretty much every time she was told where the freeway was, she left in the wrong/opposite direction.

Also, another thing I was pondering, as stated by PaulR a few posts back, is that she was stalling all nigh just so she could get to that beach during the LOWEST of tides....to get the van down as far as possible....so it would receive alot of water on high tide....making it look like they were washed away.

bbm

I do not think it was premeditated.

 

[PaulR]

Also, another thing I was pondering, as stated by PaulR a few posts back, is that she was stalling all nigh just so she could get to that beach during the LOWEST of tides...

For the record, I don't think she was stalling.

I think the police have some evidence that the van was parked during low tide - it obviously wasn't parked there during high tide, or she would have had to drive through water and the engine would have stalled. In other words, it's not an eyewitness, it was guesswork based on the position of the van on the beach.

So if that's the case, that the police think she parked the van during low tide, then it limits the time that the van could have been parked there.

 

[Calliope]

bbm

I do not think it was premeditated.

Not by Shantina.

 

[BeanE]

For the record, I don't think she was stalling.

I think the police have some evidence that the van was parked during low tide - it obviously wasn't parked there during high tide, or she would have had to drive through water and the engine would have stalled. In other words, it's not an eyewitness, it was guesswork based on the position of the van on the beach.

So if that's the case, that the police think she parked the van during low tide, then it limits the time that the van could have been parked there.

Don't know if you've seen this about 11pm on the beach, Paul.

Transcribed from video interview with LE (Mealy) regarding 10:35 at GHM and 11 on the beach:

"We believe that she was at the Gull Harbor Mercantile at about 10:35 that evening, and we have very good information that the van was at the beach at 11 o'clock that night so given the drive time and stuff there's not a lot of time that anything criminal could have happened to her."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhOrkS8jQEc

 

[BeanE]

bbm

I do not think it was premeditated.

Me either. LE has consistently said there's no evidence of a crime, no indications of foul play, and I haven't seen anything that makes me think there might have been. Ergo, nothing to premeditate.

I think Shantina was confused, just as reported by multiple sources. The only thing I question is the cause of that confusion. Whereas anecdotal evidence points to intoxication, I'm not entirely convinced of that, because much of that very same anecdotal evidence also points to a head injury or brain event, and Shantina was confused more than an hour before she purchased the wine, as well as confused at the time of purchasing the wine. And purchasing wine makes one neither intoxicated nor confused.

 

[PaulR]

Don't know if you've seen this about 11pm on the beach, Paul.

Transcribed from video interview with LE (Mealy) regarding 10:35 at GHM and 11 on the beach:

"We believe that she was at the Gull Harbor Mercantile at about 10:35 that evening, and we have very good information that the van was at the beach at 11 o'clock that night so given the drive time and stuff there's not a lot of time that anything criminal could have happened to her."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhOrkS8jQEc

Right, but what makes them think it was there at 11 o'clock?

 

[BeanE]

Right, but what makes them think it was there at 11 o'clock?

Very good information.

 

[LCoastMom]

ok -- I was just offering my perspective on driving in an unfamiliar area, as someone who has a very poor sense of direction. That's all. :sheesh:

BBM was not in the least aimed at your perspective - I merely looked to see what her options were in the area -

Sorry if it looked like I was replying in an unpleasant manner. :rose:

 

[slowpoke]

Thank you for your reply, LcoastMom.

I apologize for misinterpreting the tone of your post. I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my error.

Can I use the excuse that I am kinda new here, so forgive my clumsiness around here? :blushing:

And thank you for your great input to this case!

 

[Jules71]

In re: to Mealy's comment: "We believe that she was at the Gull Harbor Mercantile at about 10:35 that evening, and we have very good information that the van was at the beach at 11 o'clock that night so given the drive time and stuff there's not a lot of time that anything criminal could have happened to her."

Just wanted to point out that he says the van was at the beach at 11, not that it arrived there at 11, or wasn't there earlier. Maybe their "very good information" is that someone saw it there at 11.

 

[Calliope]

In re: to Mealy's comment: "We believe that she was at the Gull Harbor Mercantile at about 10:35 that evening, and we have very good information that the van was at the beach at 11 o'clock that night so given the drive time and stuff there's not a lot of time that anything criminal could have happened to her."

Just wanted to point out that he says the van was at the beach at 11, not that it arrived there at 11, or wasn't there earlier. Maybe their "very good information" is that someone saw it there at 11.

Who would that be, I wonder? As protective as the locals appear to be of their private beach area, if they did see the van, I'm kind of surprised no one called it in until the next day. In fact, I'd think they'd be more likely to call in a strange car seen at night rather than during the daylight hours.

It would be nice to know just what this "good information" is.

 

[Jules71]

Who would that be, I wonder? As protective as the locals appear to be of their private beach area, if they did see the van, I'm kind of surprised no one called it in until the next day. In fact, I'd think they'd be more likely to call in a strange car seen at night rather than during the daylight hours.

It would be nice to know just what this "good information" is.

I agree!

 

[lilcatt]

I have a question that has been bothering me. The house Shantina stoped at to use the phone. I have seen two men, has anyone seen a wife?

 

[slowpoke]

Who would that be, I wonder? As protective as the locals appear to be of their private beach area, if they did see the van, I'm kind of surprised no one called it in until the next day. In fact, I'd think they'd be more likely to call in a strange car seen at night rather than during the daylight hours.

It would be nice to know just what this "good information" is.

JP was the man who made the 911 call, but he mentions in the call that he was alerted to the car's presence by a neighbor, who was called by another neighbor and told of its presence.

So, would this scenario be a possibility:

The first neighbor (let's call him neighbor A) saw/heard the car around 11ish, but made the assumption at the time that maybe it was neighbor B or ok'd by neighbor B, so he let it go without investigating.

But then, when he sees a car still out there in the morning, submerged, he calls neighbor B to check if it belonged to them or knew anything about it. He doesn't know anything about it. So neighbor B calls JP to see if he knows anything about it, but JP knows nothing about it, and finally calls 911.

So, could it be it was this unknown neighbor A who gave this "very good information" to police?

Possible?