What Do You Want to Know?: List Questions Here

[margol29]

After watching the "Real Life Nightmare" show on HLN last Saturday, they kept showing the elevator video. There is a part where EL steps out of the elevator and seems to be talking to someone and her hands a gesturing in a weird way. My question is where her parents ever asked if this was a normal thing for EL to do when talking?

 

[Userid]

After watching the "Real Life Nightmare" show on HLN last Saturday, they kept showing the elevator video. There is a part where EL steps out of the elevator and seems to be talking to someone and her hands a gesturing in a weird way. My question is where her parents ever asked if this was a normal thing for EL to do when talking?

It's impossible to know if they were ever asked. I believe she was simply talking to herself. When she steps out of the elevator, she displays a mix of playfulness, confusion, and anger. What spurs these emotions is her perplexity as to why the elevator door 1. isn't moving and 2. why the door isn't closing. You can see her waving, trying to activate the elevator's motion sensor; you can see her counting on her fingers (as she bends them backwards, which indicates anger/frustration to me) the seconds that the door has remained open.

What she never realizes is that, she herself pressed the elevator door open button (the last button in the middle row). That is why the elevator door remained open and why the elevator wasn't moving.

Regardless, talking to oneself and acting like this (when no one else is around) is quite common, no matter what mental state.

 

[Hue Monguss]

Hello,
I would love to know whom it was that verified Elisa lam suffered bipolar disorder. Judging by the list of meds she was on, suggests to me she suffered from (MDD) major depressive disorder. A couple of the meds are for treating bipolar, but not exclusively. When these meds are taken together, it's specifically meant to treat MDD. Not everyone suffering from depression necessarily suffer from Bipolar disorder. Besides, wasn't that the reason she went on this trip? She was suffering from deep depression, and felt this trip would help?

*SIDE NOTE:
The timestamp on the elevator footage is, without question, tampered with. It has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of the camera. Moreover, is it known weather or not a FOIA Request was made for all existing footage and case files? The case is closed, so there's no reason to deny such a request.

 

[Tuffgong]

I would like to know how anybody thinks this anything other than a suicide?

 

[Userid]

Hello,
I would love to know whom it was that verified Elisa lam suffered bipolar disorder. Judging by the list of meds she was on, suggests to me she suffered from (MDD) major depressive disorder. A couple of the meds are for treating bipolar, but not exclusively. When these meds are taken together, it's specifically meant to treat MDD. Not everyone suffering from depression necessarily suffer from Bipolar disorder. Besides, wasn't that the reason she went on this trip? She was suffering from deep depression, and felt this trip would help?

*SIDE NOTE:
The timestamp on the elevator footage is, without question, tampered with. It has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of the camera. Moreover, is it known weather or not a FOIA Request was made for all existing footage and case files? The case is closed, so there's no reason to deny such a request.

Her family, her friends, and EL herself.

The time stamp skips because patrons who were staying at the hotel got on the elevator, and the police needed to protect their identities. The time stamp doesn't skip until well after EL had exited the elevator anyway. It's a hotel, so obviously, regular hotel patrons will be using it.

There's nothing suspicious about this case.

 

[Maldoror]

Regardless, talking to oneself and acting like this (when no one else is around) is quite common, no matter what mental state.

Lol, this!

People do weird *advertiser censored* when they don't think no one is watching. I think we can all admit we've done some strange things in an empty elevator too, such that if you yourself died and the last footage was of you in the elevator, many others would obsess over that footage and your "abnormal" behaviour, although it would simply be a red herring.

 

[boogiedrop]

First post here, so apologies if this has already been asked/answered (if so please point me to it!)

I would like to know where she stayed on the nights of 26th and 27th of January. We know that she arrived in LA on the 26th, and that the following night she attended a speakeasy bar to listen to some jazz music, which she really enjoyed but unfortunately lost her phone while she was there. Who did she stay with on those nights and did they attend the speakeasy with her?

I ran a quick search and there are quite a lot of bars in LA that refer to themselves as speakeasy bars that play jazz music, and several of them are extremely close to the stay on main (Cecil hotel). which speakeasy did she attend and how close was it to the Cecil?

 

[MeLlamaLikey]

I have a lot of questions, and recognize numerous additional “coincidences” to this case and a pattern that honestly points to cover-up, but my primary one—to my fellow sleuths first and foremost—is why are we just blindly believing that the hatch was open when the maintenance worker discovered the body?

Seems like a legit guy, would buy him a beer, etc etc... but considering all the “coincidences” that point towards a larger cover-up, why haven’t we dug a bit deeper into the pilot of the helicopter working for the LAPD that shone the light on the rooftop the night (y’all couldn’t have waited until morning? But I digress) to ask what he saw. You’d think if a hatch was open, it is pretty evident from a helicopter. If dogs don’t hit, a helicopter doesn’t see from an aerial position that a hatch is open, and investigators who were literally opening eleventy-five closets to “look anywhere a body may be concealed” decide to not go near four cylinder tanks that literally have concealed areas surrounding them (never mind the tanks themselves).. then we are waltzing ourselves right back into believing a bunch of “human errors” occurred simultaneously within a precinct known for their shady practices in covering up for someone paying them or their own tracks, and/or aiding in a larger conspiracy.

I hate to break out the Reynold’s Wrap, but really? A helicopter pilot didn’t recognize a hatch open while sitting up there? I’ve flown. You’d see it. His eyeballs weren’t on the instruments the entire time. He illuminated an entire rooftop and had a view no one else was privy to. The officers stated they didn’t check out the square with four cylinders in it. Draw that out. There’s hidden enclaves. Yet these same investigators were hell bent on checking every nook and cranny to the extent they went into a 14-16hr day checking closets and under beds?

That. Does. Not. Compute.

 

[Qrious]

I have a lot of questions, and recognize numerous additional “coincidences” to this case and a pattern that honestly points to cover-up, but my primary one—to my fellow sleuths first and foremost—is why are we just blindly believing that the hatch was open when the maintenance worker discovered the body?

Seems like a legit guy, would buy him a beer, etc etc... but considering all the “coincidences” that point towards a larger cover-up, why haven’t we dug a bit deeper into the pilot of the helicopter working for the LAPD that shone the light on the rooftop the night (y’all couldn’t have waited until morning? But I digress) to ask what he saw. You’d think if a hatch was open, it is pretty evident from a helicopter. If dogs don’t hit, a helicopter doesn’t see from an aerial position that a hatch is open, and investigators who were literally opening eleventy-five closets to “look anywhere a body may be concealed” decide to not go near four cylinder tanks that literally have concealed areas surrounding them (never mind the tanks themselves).. then we are waltzing ourselves right back into believing a bunch of “human errors” occurred simultaneously within a precinct known for their shady practices in covering up for someone paying them or their own tracks, and/or aiding in a larger conspiracy.

I hate to break out the Reynold’s Wrap, but really? A helicopter pilot didn’t recognize a hatch open while sitting up there? I’ve flown. You’d see it. His eyeballs weren’t on the instruments the entire time. He illuminated an entire rooftop and had a view no one else was privy to. The officers stated they didn’t check out the square with four cylinders in it. Draw that out. There’s hidden enclaves. Yet these same investigators were hell bent on checking every nook and cranny to the extent they went into a 14-16hr day checking closets and under beds?

That. Does. Not. Compute.

To me, the hatch story was like changed completely, from first revealed as closed then finally put on record as opened during the lawsuit hearing. At various times, it was mentioned as hinged and as not. Up to now, I have not found any conclusive statement on whether the lid was hinged or not.

To think that such an important and elementary evidence was never firmly determined and clearly stated from the start beggars belief. And it is just one of the many incongruences in this case that makes the plain conclusion of accidental death resulting from a psychotic episode hard to accept.

It was like after the autopsy came out ruling out foul play that the hatch story started to change from closed to open. I wonder if it is just me or whether anyone else also find that the way the maintenance guy looked away when answering on Netflix whether he found the hatch open or closed disconcerting? To me, it looks a lot like he had been asked to change his story.

I would also like to know whether any investigation was made into why EL was wearing men's pants, and of a much larger size to boot. Was any effort made to confirm that the pants were hers? Did police confirm with the family that they had seen her with the same pants before?

 

[MeLlamaLikey]

To me, the hatch story was like changed completely, from first revealed as closed then finally put on record as opened during the lawsuit hearing. At various times, it was mentioned as hinged and as not. Up to now, I have not found any conclusive statement on whether the lid was hinged or not.

To think that such an important and elementary evidence was never firmly determined and clearly stated from the start beggars belief. And it is just one of the many incongruences in this case that makes the plain conclusion of accidental death resulting from a psychotic episode hard to accept.

It was like after the autopsy came out ruling out foul play that the hatch story started to change from closed to open. I wonder if it is just me or whether anyone else also find that the way the maintenance guy looked away when answering on Netflix whether he found the hatch open or closed disconcerting? To me, it looks a lot like he had been asked to change his story.

I would also like to know whether any investigation was made into why EL was wearing men's pants, and of a much larger size to boot. Was any effort made to confirm that the pants were hers? Did police confirm with the family that they had seen her with the same pants before?

if she actually owned those shorts.. someone has seen her in them before. It is extremely unlikely that, in packing for a trip to go somewhere new, she would buy a new pair of athleisurewear. That particular category of clothing—the lounge type where you seek comfort, is typically going to be one where you grab something you KNOW is comfortable and have an association with it as a comfort piece. We aren’t talking a new dress or daytime ensemble.

In my opinion, if she had never been spotted in those shorts—as verified by anyone who ever hung around her (in college, nonetheless!)—we have a problem. College kids are into routine. College kids are into being comfortable wearing their loungewear among their friends. College kids pack in their bags what they are most familiar with. In terms of a comfort loungewear item, those shorts only made it in her suitcase if they were familiar to her. It’s a part of the personality profile they gave us, too.. that she was potentially so boxed in that she may have been naive to her surroundings. Boxed in naive people taking on a new adventure in an unknown location don’t pack new men’s shorts as their loungewear. They just don’t.

Now I have more questions. For starters.. did investigators, when interviewing her college friends, verify that the shorts she was wearing were hers? I know we’ve established the tshirt adds up to at least being from a local bar or restaurant within her area of origin (making it basically improbable she was sporting a shirt from a dude she just met), but did they dig into the men’s shorts at all? I’ve worn men’s shorts before. Never have I ever purchased them myself. I’ll leave it at that.

 

[Qrious]

if she actually owned those shorts.. someone has seen her in them before. It is extremely unlikely that, in packing for a trip to go somewhere new, she would buy a new pair of athleisurewear. That particular category of clothing—the lounge type where you seek comfort, is typically going to be one where you grab something you KNOW is comfortable and have an association with it as a comfort piece. We aren’t talking a new dress or daytime ensemble.

In my opinion, if she had never been spotted in those shorts—as verified by anyone who ever hung around her (in college, nonetheless!)—we have a problem. College kids are into routine. College kids are into being comfortable wearing their loungewear among their friends. College kids pack in their bags what they are most familiar with. In terms of a comfort loungewear item, those shorts only made it in her suitcase if they were familiar to her. It’s a part of the personality profile they gave us, too.. that she was potentially so boxed in that she may have been naive to her surroundings. Boxed in naive people taking on a new adventure in an unknown location don’t pack new men’s shorts as their loungewear. They just don’t.

Now I have more questions. For starters.. did investigators, when interviewing her college friends, verify that the shorts she was wearing were hers? I know we’ve established the tshirt adds up to at least being from a local bar or restaurant within her area of origin (making it basically improbable she was sporting a shirt from a dude she just met), but did they dig into the men’s shorts at all? I’ve worn men’s shorts before. Never have I ever purchased them myself. I’ll leave it at that.

Except for the musician and the two guys seen with her at the hotel lobby, the police never revealed much on who or what else they had checked and eliminated.

In the absence of any evidence to the contrary regarding the men's shorts she was wearing, and taking into account other aspects of the case such as the double coincidences to the Dark Water movie and the suspicious anomalies in the video footage, I've pieced together another plausible alternative leading to her death.

I've elaborated it in the Theories Only thread, so instead of repeating it here, I will provide the link to it:

"Theories only" - thread