AK - Samantha Koenig, 18, Anchorage, 1 Feb 2012 - #3

[amber1]

I have only briefly followed Samantha's case here and there. I have the general gist of what happened here.

I too wonder why they have not released even a still shot of the video surveillance. I have followed many cases, and the video still shots have been very effective in bringing in tips and helping to solve the case. I could name many of these, but I am sure that you have followed them too. Why not release something since this case seems to be at a standstill?? :waitasec:

agree, even if he doesn't show his face. Think of the Carlie Brucia abduction and murder, where her abduction was caught on a car wash surveillance camera.

 

[Miziree]

Yes, he would not identify where he works, which is smart on his part.

But I heard him say he "used" to be a truck driver, had to quit for health reasons?

He also told the reporter that he does not lead the type of lifestyle which could or would put his family at risk.

Not a biggie, where he works is at this point, inconsequential.

I'm glad he did not release that too. It don't matter to me either where he works. It has been asked a lot here.

That is what he said. I know one health reason is if you become diabetic. Truck driving is also really hard on the back.

I believe that. Sounds to me either it was random (stranger or stalker) or someone she knew through friends.

After watching that video I feel so bad for James. He looked exhausted

MOO

 

[runrgirl]

Just a thought guys, could it be the reason LE doesn't want to show the tape is because there is something on it that could cause the public to panic? Didn't the coffee shop owner say it was disturbing?
Just an idea. Because then I think that if that were the case, the coffee shop owner may have told the other girls working there to protect them.
I'm really not sure. This whole thing makes my head hurt, as it does with everyone else!

 

[Chili Fries]

Just a thought guys, could it be the reason LE doesn't want to show the tape is because there is something on it that could cause the public to panic? Didn't the coffee shop owner say it was disturbing?
Just an idea. Because then I think that if that were the case, the coffee shop owner may have told the other girls working there to protect them.
I'm really not sure. This whole thing makes my head hurt, as it does with everyone else!

Here's what the coffee shop owner said:

The owners of Common Grounds have seen the footage. It's what prompted them to call for help, and while they say the footage is disturbing, it doesn't show much. “The glimpse that we got from viewing over the internet was enough for us to realize that something happened,” said co-owner Tyler Duncan.

“Whoever this is took very obvious and deliberate measures to avoid being captured on video, I can absolutely confirm that, and I do not believe the police have anything hugely substantial to go on.”

“Obviously the face of the suspect is not that discernable in those videos and that would be a wonderful thing if we had a photograph of the suspect but we obviously don't have that at this time,” said (police spokesperson) Parker.
http://www.ktva.com/home/outbound-xml-feeds/Police-Explain-Why-They-Wont-Release-Video-of-Koenig-Abduction-138943419.html?m=y


I played football for many years and one thing I know is that people can be identified even when their face/head is obscured. It's easy to tell who is who even when players have helmets on. But maybe LE doesn't want to deal with the deluge of tips they'll get if the video is shown. Everybody and their brother is going to call in a say "I know who that person is!", and maybe all of them will be wrong.

I did some searching for surveillance video tainted/taint jury pool, and it seems to me that this is a concern for videos that may have a subtle ambiguity, like with police brutality or domestic/child abuse. So LE may think there ise something to this video that would lead the public to possibly misconstrue what is going on.

 

[maedlamsmom]

I have been running the whole not showing the video issue around in my head a lot, and coupled with the coffee shop owners' comments, I have a theory why they are not showing the tape. I think that it doesn't show anything, except that someone was at the shop with Sam. I think the tape cannot conclusively prove anything other than she was taken, but no distinguishing features or mannerisms of the perp. The police, in my opinion are withholding it bc they want the perp to wonder and agonize over what may be on the tape. A panicked perp is more likely to make a mistake or slip up. While, on the other hand, if he were to see the tape, know that he is in the clear, it would give him the confidence to believe, that he did in fact get away with it...it's the only true evidence they have and they don't want to show their hand. KWIM?

 

[DadinAK]

Hello Everyone. I have been following these threads since the very first posts, and would like to throw a few of my thoughts/opinions into the discussion. I will try to stick only to the security video.

I was pondering a piece of the video puzzle the other night, when something dawned on me. In an effort to test my thought I decided to perform a little experiment. Please let me share.

1 medium sized glass mixing bowl (used to represent the dome shaped cover of the security camera which was shown in a picture someone posted earlier)

1 point and shoot style digital camera that can record video (used to give an idea of what the coffee shop’s camera may have seen)

1 small piece of dense foam (used to hold the camera in an angled downward position while inside the glass bowl)

I then took these items and got them attached to the ceiling in my dining room at a position of about 14 feet away from a door that leads to my backyard. Now I got dressed with a hooded sweatshirt and a ball cap. For the first test I wanted to see what wearing an LED headlamp would do to the captured image. The light from the headlamp caused a glare off of the glass which somewhat distorted the image, and it also effectively concealed my face until I walked close enough for the light in the room to somewhat washout the brightness of the headlamp. Interesting, I thought, so on to the second test. I stepped outside my backdoor still wearing the hood, ball cap, and headlamp. I then opened the door and very quickly stepped in as I threw the armload of snow, I had picked up outside, directly towards the camera. Now most of the snow kind of spread out similar to what flour does when thrown, some however made its way to the bowl and instantly turned to water, which heavily distorted the image. However, some of the snow that did stick together (I did not compress the snow when I picked it up like you would to make a snowball) and made it onto the dome in a clump directly between myself and the camera lens, and it managed to stay there for about 5 seconds. Now all that was visible of me in the captured image was my very blurry feet and my arms when they were out past the sides of the snow clump.

I think that even with a very blurry image some body language may be read and from that, it could possibly be discerned whether or not she knew the person or if there was a struggle. Could the reason that they do not show the video be that the video was rendered usless with very little effort in a way that is not commonly known, and they do not want to show other would be criminals another method nor get the public panicked with knowledge of how easy security cameras can be disabled. I cannot say for sure this was how the camera was tampered with, but if I found one uncommon way, I am sure there are other ways out there as well. Maybe if this is not the reason they are withholding the video, they could describe what specific actions this person took towards the camera. With that knowledge maybe someone in the public will remember seeing someone experimenting or talking about disabling security cameras for nefarious reasons.
I still cannot understand how they can be positive it was a man, with no clear image of his face. Was there a flash of facial hair? There are face masks worn during this time of the year that if seen on a blurry camera image, may appear as facial hair. It has to be highly unlikely that the person would have dropped their pants unless they were the super-baggy ones that can fall easily.

I apologize for the long-winded post, and these are only my thoughts and opinions here.

 

[DadinAK]

Sorry....forget two other thoughts I wanted to add in there. If someone comes in and throws an armload of snow towards you, you are probably gonna be somewhat stunned for a moment effectively giving the perp time to gain "physical" control. Also after the snow melted, you can probably guess what my dining room looked like......it looked like a "mess".

 

[TxLady2]

does anyone know if SK's father has been shown the video?

I would think that there is a reason behind not releasing it to the public...(aside: in other cases I have seen LE say were showing things to the public if it would help for public to have that knowledge to solve the case...

I think something else is going on that we don't know about in the investigation... )

of course that is just :moo:

I could be wrong but IIRC, her father said he had not been shown the video. And that could be a wise decision on the part of LE. Since he comes across to many people as sort of a loose cannon, LE may suspect that he would go gunning for the guy and make a bad situation a whole lot worse.
One reason for not making the video public may be for Sam's protection. If she is being held captive, and that video becomes public, he might think he is recognizable and he might get desperate and do serious harm to her or kill her. I don't buy the part of being prejudicial to a jury... unless it clearly shows he had a gun or some other weapon which then makes it an aggravated kidnapping which probably carries a bigger charge, hence a longer sentence. Juries tend to take that kind of crime a lot more seriously. Other than that, I have no idea.

 

[nursebeeme]

welcome to websleuths dadinak :cheer:

 

[z560]

I'm pretty sure I read that James had not seen it either. That seems quite odd...if my child were missing I'd be demanding to see it so I could give any help possible! I've been picking my wee brain trying to figure out what could possibly be on there that's keeping them from releasing it.

Just a thought--it's possible he has seen the video but claims that he hasn't so the media won't hound him about what is in the video. Despite all the public comments he has made he has actually been quite good about not saying what the police are telling him re: the status of the case.

 

[z560]

I have been running the whole not showing the video issue around in my head a lot, and coupled with the coffee shop owners' comments, I have a theory why they are not showing the tape. I think that it doesn't show anything, except that someone was at the shop with Sam. I think the tape cannot conclusively prove anything other than she was taken, but no distinguishing features or mannerisms of the perp. The police, in my opinion are withholding it bc they want the perp to wonder and agonize over what may be on the tape. A panicked perp is more likely to make a mistake or slip up. While, on the other hand, if he were to see the tape, know that he is in the clear, it would give him the confidence to believe, that he did in fact get away with it...it's the only true evidence they have and they don't want to show their hand. KWIM?

I think you are on to something there. The rationale is likely this or something like that. For whatever reason, the police think that keeping the information tightly under wraps will help them solve this case.

 

[SmoothOperator]

Welcome dadinak! :welcome:

Thanks so much for deciding to join in on Sam's discussions here on WS... Your first post clearly shows that you will definitely be an asset to discussions regarding this case.. I like the way you think and are willing to put in the effort in even testing/experimenting with theories.. Again thanks for sharing..and please dont hesitate to jump in now that youve taken the plunge in registering and getting the first posts outta the way...

Looking forward to hearing more of your thoughts and theories regarding Sam's case

 

[amber1]

Thank you for that post DadinAK, very interesting!
I agree, from the video they should be able to at least read her body language to hint at if she knew him or not

 

[bessie]

Sorry....forget two other thoughts I wanted to add in there. If someone comes in and throws an armload of snow towards you, you are probably gonna be somewhat stunned for a moment effectively giving the perp time to gain "physical" control. Also after the snow melted, you can probably guess what my dining room looked like......it looked like a "mess".

That's some nice sleuthing, DadinAK.

ead more here: http://www.adn.com/2012/02/08/2307318/police-report-some-progress-in.html#storylink=cpy[​

:welcome5:
​

 

[bessie]

Thank you for that post DadinAK, very interesting!
I agree, from the video they should be able to at least read her body language to hint at if she knew him or not

Apparently they could tell that Samantha was "scared".

The video shows an armed man approach the coffee stand on foot, wearing a dark, hooded sweatshirt. He forced Koenig to leave with him just before 8 p.m. Feb. 1, police said. The 5-foot-5 Koenig walked west with the "significantly" taller man, a detective said.
Police say Koenig looked scared in the video. The cameras did not get a good look at her abductor's face, police said.

http://www.adn.com/2012/02/08/2307318/police-report-some-progress-in.html

For those who might have missed it, here is LE's explanation for withholding the video:

“Our detectives have gone over those videos frame by frame, slow motion, fast motion, normal speed, everything they could possibly do to make that determination as to who that is,” said Anchorage police spokesperson Lieutenant Dave Parker. But APD is not sharing what it says is proof Samantha Koenig was kidnapped – not even with her family.

Police say it will not help them solve the crime. “There is an evidentiary nature to those videos that were taken in by these security cameras and they can be used later on in court,” said Parker. “But if we are to present them now it would have the effect of tainting the jury.”

http://www.ktva.com/news/samantha-k...ease-Video-of-Koenig-Abduction-138943419.html

 

[katydid23]

Apparently they could tell that Samantha was "scared".

http://www.adn.com/2012/02/08/2307318/police-report-some-progress-in.html

For those who might have missed it, here is LE's explanation for withholding the video:

http://www.ktva.com/news/samantha-k...ease-Video-of-Koenig-Abduction-138943419.html

I just don't understand why fears about 'tainting the jury' would take precedence over trying to figure out who took her.

 

[DadinAK]

I tend to think that it is possible that the whole "tainting the jury" was only put forth because it was a convenient answer to inquiries of releasing images from the security video, which they may want to keep hidden for other reasons. Misleading tactics/statements are not unheard of during an investigation, and I feel it is reasonable if LE thinks it is necessary to mislead while investigating. I believe they have good reason for witholding the video but I do not fully believe the "tainting the jury" reason.

 

[sfbaynancydrew]

I'm just confused how a video can simultaneously not help solve the crime, yet possess enough evidence that releasing it would compromise the outcome of a trial???

It all sounds like a bunch of made up bs.

 

[IHAVENOCLUE]

Hello Everyone. I have been following these threads since the very first posts, and would like to throw a few of my thoughts/opinions into the discussion. I will try to stick only to the security video.

I was pondering a piece of the video puzzle the other night, when something dawned on me. In an effort to test my thought I decided to perform a little experiment. Please let me share.

1 medium sized glass mixing bowl (used to represent the dome shaped cover of the security camera which was shown in a picture someone posted earlier)

1 point and shoot style digital camera that can record video (used to give an idea of what the coffee shop’s camera may have seen)

1 small piece of dense foam (used to hold the camera in an angled downward position while inside the glass bowl)

I then took these items and got them attached to the ceiling in my dining room at a position of about 14 feet away from a door that leads to my backyard. Now I got dressed with a hooded sweatshirt and a ball cap. For the first test I wanted to see what wearing an LED headlamp would do to the captured image. The light from the headlamp caused a glare off of the glass which somewhat distorted the image, and it also effectively concealed my face until I walked close enough for the light in the room to somewhat washout the brightness of the headlamp. Interesting, I thought, so on to the second test. I stepped outside my backdoor still wearing the hood, ball cap, and headlamp. I then opened the door and very quickly stepped in as I threw the armload of snow, I had picked up outside, directly towards the camera. Now most of the snow kind of spread out similar to what flour does when thrown, some however made its way to the bowl and instantly turned to water, which heavily distorted the image. However, some of the snow that did stick together (I did not compress the snow when I picked it up like you would to make a snowball) and made it onto the dome in a clump directly between myself and the camera lens, and it managed to stay there for about 5 seconds. Now all that was visible of me in the captured image was my very blurry feet and my arms when they were out past the sides of the snow clump.

I think that even with a very blurry image some body language may be read and from that, it could possibly be discerned whether or not she knew the person or if there was a struggle. Could the reason that they do not show the video be that the video was rendered usless with very little effort in a way that is not commonly known, and they do not want to show other would be criminals another method nor get the public panicked with knowledge of how easy security cameras can be disabled. I cannot say for sure this was how the camera was tampered with, but if I found one uncommon way, I am sure there are other ways out there as well. Maybe if this is not the reason they are withholding the video, they could describe what specific actions this person took towards the camera. With that knowledge maybe someone in the public will remember seeing someone experimenting or talking about disabling security cameras for nefarious reasons.
I still cannot understand how they can be positive it was a man, with no clear image of his face. Was there a flash of facial hair? There are face masks worn during this time of the year that if seen on a blurry camera image, may appear as facial hair. It has to be highly unlikely that the person would have dropped their pants unless they were the super-baggy ones that can fall easily.

I apologize for the long-winded post, and these are only my thoughts and opinions here.

Wow! Great sleuthing! Interesting experiments, DadinAK! And a lot of work, too!:seeya:

Good theory that police don't want to show the video because of the strategy(ies) used to blur the image may then be used by others who never thought of that strategy! And, therefore, lead to copycat activity!

 

[IHAVENOCLUE]

I could be wrong but IIRC, her father said he had not been shown the video. And that could be a wise decision on the part of LE. Since he comes across to many people as sort of a loose cannon, LE may suspect that he would go gunning for the guy and make a bad situation a whole lot worse.
One reason for not making the video public may be for Sam's protection. If she is being held captive, and that video becomes public, he might think he is recognizable and he might get desperate and do serious harm to her or kill her. I don't buy the part of being prejudicial to a jury... unless it clearly shows he had a gun or some other weapon which then makes it an aggravated kidnapping which probably carries a bigger charge, hence a longer sentence. Juries tend to take that kind of crime a lot more seriously. Other than that, I have no idea.

Thanks, TxLady1
Could there be a possibility that the perp and LE are in some kind of a "contract" and not showing the video is one of the stipulations to keep Samantha alive?

Just a thought.