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

[Coldpizza]

I can't imagine that she would do something illegal or shifty on camera, just in the hopes that no one would happen to review it. Would she know whether or not management looked at the tapes all the time, or just when something seemed strange? I know I would assume that if there is a camera, I am being watched, JMO.

I would assume I'm being watched as well if there is a camera. That being said, if I am doing something illegal or shifty I would be well aware of the camera angle and know what area's are covered. Lets say I was going to deal drugs out of a drive thru coffee shop. And in no way shape or form am I suggesting this is what Sam was doing. But, I would be very aware of camera angles, when the boss called, when money was deposited, when the trash got picked up, when the deliveries were made, what customers were regular and when they got coffee on and on so as not to slip up.

Do I believe drugs are involved in her going missing? I have no doubt in my mind. But that's just my opinion.

Do I believe she got in too deep and had minimal intentions and didn't realize how serious things were? yep, but again that's my opinion.

I have more opinions but thats it for now.

I truly hope she is found and found safe and at this point I still believe she is alive and being held.

 

[ryanemsmom]

I don't know...I don't think I agree. I highly doubt she would have intentionally done something illegal on camera. I also personally don't think those first interviews we heard would have sounded the way they did if that were the case...

As the days pass it sure doesn't seem like a good thing. I really hope LE are close and aren't giving this poor family false hope. Unreal how up and down a case can seem with so little information being released!

BBM

Was it actually stated that the abductor obstructed the camera? IIRC, LE just stated the camera was obstructed. IMO Samantha could have obstructed it, especially if she was about to do something she didn't want captured on video.

 

[bdawk20]

I don't know...I don't think I agree. I highly doubt she would have intentionally done something illegal on camera. I also personally don't think those first interviews we heard would have sounded the way they did if that were the case...

As the days pass it sure doesn't seem like a good thing. I really hope LE are close and aren't giving this poor family false hope. Unreal how up and down a case can seem with so little information being released!

There's nothing illegal about her handing him money and him handing her a bag or whatever. If someone saw that on video and she wasn't abducted, no money was missing, etc....then she did nothing other than give the guy some money for something in exchange. Not illegal. BUT since they were looking at the video because she went missing, and perhaps saw that take place before something went awry, it would have then appeared nefarious.


jmo

 

[CincinnatiKate]

As far as being on camera-- most bosses don't review tapes unless something goes wrong, and I worked many gas stations... Bosses don't care about anything other than the equipt not breaking and the til being accurate. More often than not, in my experience, pot heads only work for other pot heads.

 

[joslmaman]

BBM

Was it actually stated that the abductor obstructed the camera? IIRC, LE just stated the camera was obstructed. IMO Samantha could have obstructed it, especially if she was about to do something she didn't want captured on video.

I'm trying to find a link for you. Working on it

 

[joslmaman]

I'm sorting through links at the moment looking for something else and came across this. I didn't remember reading this before.



http://www.ktuu.com/news/volunteers...tion-for-fresh-clues-20120206,0,1136772.story



APD has surveillance footage that allegedly shows the abduction, but detectives are not releasing it to the public.

"In the state of Alaska, we don't release anything of an evidentiary nature before trial unless that has some bearing on trying to solve the case," said APD spokesperson Lt. Dave Parker. "The images of the person we believe responsible are not clear enough to make an identification."

 

[cluciano63]

Hadn't she only worked there for about six weeks? I know that when I was six weeks into a job at 18, I was not about to do anything to possibly get in trouble, or even let friends come to where I worked, but I don't know if all that has changed, these days, along with everything else...JMO

 

[joslmaman]

BBM

Was it actually stated that the abductor obstructed the camera? IIRC, LE just stated the camera was obstructed. IMO Samantha could have obstructed it, especially if she was about to do something she didn't want captured on video.

Soon after, when the Duncans watched the surveillance video, they saw something that made them call police immediately, he said. The couple would not elaborate on what triggered the call but said the video was obscured somehow.

"This perpetrator took obvious and deliberate means to avoid being captured on video," Tyler Duncan said.

The abduction was apparently so stealthy that a person seen in the video, sitting in a pickup about 50 feet from the stand, didn't appear to notice anything strange, Tyler said.

"They were just oblivious," he said.


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

 

[ryanemsmom]

Soon after, when the Duncans watched the surveillance video, they saw something that made them call police immediately, he said. The couple would not elaborate on what triggered the call but said the video was obscured somehow.

"This perpetrator took obvious and deliberate means to avoid being captured on video," Tyler Duncan said.

The abduction was apparently so stealthy that a person seen in the video, sitting in a pickup about 50 feet from the stand, didn't appear to notice anything strange, Tyler said.

"They were just oblivious," he said.


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

BBM This doesn't say that the perpetrator obstructed the camera IMO. I interpret this to mean he wore a hat/hooded shirt pulled down and purposely didn't look at the camera.

 

[SmoothOperator]

BBM

Was it actually stated that the abductor obstructed the camera? IIRC, LE just stated the camera was obstructed. IMO Samantha could have obstructed it, especially if she was about to do something she didn't want captured on video.

It was not Samantha that obstructed the video.. The owner who carefully viewed the
Video of his surveillance cams states that IT WAS THE PERP WHO PURPOSEFULLY OBSTRUCTED THE VIDEO..

This perpetrator took obvious and deliberate means to avoid being captured on video," Tyler Duncan said.

With much more at this link
http://www.adn.com/2012/02/08/2307318/police-report-some-progress-in.html#storylink=misearch

 

[joslmaman]

BBM This doesn't say that the perpetrator obstructed the camera IMO. I interpret this to mean he wore a hat/hooded shirt pulled down and purposely didn't look at the camera.

I was mostly addressing your comment that Samantha could have obstructed the camera. IMO that is not what they're saying.

 

[joslmaman]

This perpetrator took obvious and deliberate means to avoid being captured on video," Tyler Duncan said.


IIRC the "camera being obstructed" was just a discussed possibility and was not reported. The above bolded statement is the only thing I remember reading in regards to the camera/video itself.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

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

 

[Joe Friday]

It was not Samantha that obstructed the video.. The owner who carefully viewed the
Video of his surveillance cams states that IT WAS THE PERP WHO PURPOSEFULLY OBSTRUCTED THE VIDEO..


With much more at this link
http://www.adn.com/2012/02/08/2307318/police-report-some-progress-in.html#storylink=misearch

It doesn't say that he obscured the camera. It says he took measures to not be captured by the camera.

Like someone said up thread and I have said in the past this could mean that he disguised himself or just wore clothing such as the hoodie or a MASK so he could not be identified by the video.

This perpetrator took obvious and deliberate means to avoid being captured on video," Tyler Duncan said.

Well lets see, some guy comes into the coffee shop and is seen wearing a ski mask. Yep, that is obvious and deliberate means to avoid being captured on video. It didn't say that he burst in and placed something in front of the camera or spray painted the lenses. (OK watching to many movies) He had to make sure he couldn't be identified on the camera's that were positioned on the exterior of the building also. What better way to do that then wear a mask.

Bank robbers don't come into a bank and start messing with each and every camera so their image won't be captured on camera. They wear a mask.


I think everyone knows by now where the camera's are located inside and we can't discuss that here now. It would be impossible for this guy to have enter the door and not have been captured by one of the camera's inside. There is no way he could have obscured that camera where it was positioned without his image being clearly captured before he would have obscured the lens. You don't walk up to a camera that is recording and not manage to have your image captured before you obscure or disable it.

There was no sign of a struggle, he said. Soon after, when the Duncans watched the surveillance video, they saw something that made them call police immediately, he said. The couple would not elaborate on what triggered the call but said the video was obscured somehow.

Read more here: http://www.adn.com/2012/02/08/23073...ress-in.html#storylink=misearch#storylink=cpy

The above bolded statement.

If you seen a MASKED man enter your coffee shop wouldn't that be something that would make you call police immediately?

JMO

 

[cluciano63]

Did he actually go into the building? I mean it is not exactly a coffee shop, per say, as much as a manned hut, right?

 

[SmoothOperator]

Joe don't ya think the people in the parking lot wouldve noticed a mask? I do..

 

[bdawk20]

Joe don't ya think the people in the parking lot wouldve noticed a mask? I do..

Not if he had it pushed up under his hood, and only pulled it down over his face as he walked in, and then removed it on his way out.....

 

[katydid23]

Did he actually go into the building? I mean it is not exactly a coffee shop, per say, as much as a manned hut, right?

Exactly. And I still don't buy that she would just leave the door unlocked. When you are working in a vulnerable position like that you are aware of safety factors. And LOCKING the door is a major, key safety concern.

 

[SmoothOperator]

MOO there was no tampering with the cams.. I believe where the obstructing of the cam idea came from was innocently thru dadinak detailing his tested theory of how he successfully obstructed a domed cam with snow.. That's where the obstruction idea was innocently was derived..

 

[bdawk20]

Did he actually go into the building? I mean it is not exactly a coffee shop, per say, as much as a manned hut, right?

The man allegedly entered the Common Grounds Espresso hut in the parking lot of the Alaska Club on East Tudor, then walked away with her toward the Old Seward Highway, and she hasn’t been seen since.

http://www.alaskapublic.org/2012/02/10/koenigs-father-plans-vigil-says-stands-not-safe/

 

[katydid23]

Not if he had it pushed up under his hood, and only pulled it down over his face as he walked in, and then removed it on his way out.....

But how is he just going to walk in? It is a drive through only business. He would have to know the door was unlocked, which it shouldn't be as a general rule. But if he pulled his mask down and then tried the door and it was locked---then what? She would have seen him with a mask and jiggling the handle.