AZ AZ - Adrienne Salinas, 19, Tempe , 15 June 2013 - #5

[2Hip2BSquare]

I didn't see a link that verified through pings she was at her apartment at 2:53 am when she made her last call to the cab guy saying she'll be there in a minute. Need a little help on that please.

The person who provided the info has to get verified.

 

[cab guy]

What's clear, and you know this, is that the police have much more info. than you have. They release stuff when it benefits their investigation, and again, though it bugs me, that's exactly how it should be. Tom told them he came to my home after the call, he told them where he travelled from to get AS, the GPS, phone records, and pings showed them he told the truth. I don't like how long it took them to clear him, but I love the result. Cops never just take your word for it, nor should they. Can you imagine a conversation with Dad Salinas: "What about the cab driver?" Detectives: "Oh, he didn't do it, we talked to him and his Dad and we 'took their word for it.'" No they went overboard with their investigation of Tom, and it's exactly what they should have done. And thank goodness, now when the uniinformed say: "Why didn't they just take your word for it?" We can reply, they didn't!--Cab Guy
s

 

[cluciano63]

Can they even ping right to her apartment? I thought I had read she was in same general area of her apartment during all of the calls.

 

[MissDemeanor]

But maybe I'm not as 'uninformed' as you think I am.

ETA: This was in response to a post of the cab guy that got deleted.

 

[Seajay]

Can they even ping right to her apartment? I thought I had read she was in same general area of her apartment during all of the calls.

That's what I read, that's why I was confused about statements that her phone actually pinged from her apartment, verifying she was there when she made the call.

 

[cluciano63]

That's what I read, that's why I was confused about statements that her phone actually pinged from her apartment, verifying she was there when she made the call.

Maybe her phone has GPS?

 

[Tonto]

cab_guy, please get verified. It's not a binding type of thing. It's just so they can verify that you are who you say you are. My understanding is that it's a simple phone call to you and that's it. I feel like you have valuable insights that aren't published in the media, but the only way you can post that kind of inside/personal information is if you're verified.

Again, please take a few minutes and go through the process. It will help all of us out a great deal.

 

[mamacita]

REMINDER:

We cannot posts facts without links UNLESS the member is a VERIFIED INSIDER. Here is how to become verified: Verification Process for Professional or Insider Posters - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

If you are posting facts without links and you are not a verified insider, your posts will be removed without explanation.

totally saw that one comin'! hopefully that happens.. and quickly

 

[AngelaH]

I believe the info on the phone pings was stated by LE on Nancy Grace earlier this week. I'll have to go back and find the post

 

[Seajay]

I believe the info on the phone pings was stated by LE on Nancy Grace earlier this week. I'll have to go back and find the post

I remember the phone CALLS being verified on NG this week, but not the phone PINGS. Pings give location and I've seen nothing about location of any of her phone calls. kwim?

 

[AngelaH]

Quoted from NG show on 7/23/13.
ok i see a red flag right there because when adrienne left her two female roommates she was alone in teh car.

sgt pooley thank you for coming on do you believe 2 people were in teh car at that time?

you know what we've gone and talked to taht lady again in her second interview she said she's not sure what she saw exactly, from things in her passenger seat, things on her back passenger seat when we found her car, we think we could tell if someone else was in there iwth her, all indications are that she was alone.


driving so fast, was she trying to get away from somebody?

you know the timestamps we have and everything... i mean.. we can't rule anything out but she just left her aparment just prior to that accident happening so.. uh.. and it was only like a quarter mile from her apartment to where she hit the median, so..

have you found her cellphone and have you been able to use pinging to find the last place?

we do not have her cellphone that is the one piece of evidence that we lack, the cellphone towers indicate that yes she was in that area where her apartment is and where all this transpired at, before her phone turned off.

(commercial)

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

Yeah, I must've missed out during my college years 'cause all I did was study. Great thing is that I didn't have to pay a dime 'cause I got scholarships---NOT bragging but it irks me to no end hear about how these college kids are wasting the taxpayer funded money for books & courses and their parent's monies too, by and large.

It is a bad cultural enigma to think college is about beer, wild parties, and steroids.

Self-Discipline, anyone?
'Cause Houston, we have a problem.

The student loan debacle will make the housing crash when it comes tick-tocking in. And it will.
So we'll have a bunch of college kids with no skills other than how to chug from a keg through a funnel.
Fun (not).

And it puts young ladies like AS in very compromising situations.
Parents beware.....

Hugs GGE. So many of us here have experienced similar circumstances. In Terrilyn's thread, many of us discussed being roofied, etc.
($%^&*()#!! I'm so sorry!!

Adrienne's story reminds me a lot of my college days, walking home alone at night, parties, fights with boyfriends, etc. It scares me to think about my vulnerability back then and my own poor decisions, accepting drinks from strangers, etc etc. I think that's one reason this case hits at me so hard, is because it could have been me back then, and it could even be me today. There are perv perps everywhere just looking for an opportunity to take advantage of an unsuspecting female. The difference for me today is that I'm no longer unsuspecting. Just yesterday this happened:

Yesterday I was walking when it started pouring down rain and lightning (lightning has been sooo bad here in Colorado this month). A man in a truck, approx age 40-50, pulled up next to me and offered me a ride. I politely declined. He said, "Are you sure? I don't want you to get struck by lightning." Again, I politely declined. He said, "I'm a good guy, I'll make sure you get where you need to go safely" (or something very close to that). I declined a third time and he drove off. Maybe he was "a good guy". Maybe he wasn't. Either way, I decided to take my chances on being struck by lightning.

The point of all this is that nobody ever knows anyone. And the old saying is as good as gold today as when it was first invented. NEVER EVER EVER accept a ride from a stranger. (Of course, in your case GGE, he wasn't a stranger bc your brother thought he knew him and trusted him. That must have been very hard for your brother too. )

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

This long post - your first - is fantastic, but I snipped the bejeezus out of it to both welcome you and then add something to this:



Welcome to my world. I've been processing this case for the past few hours and no matter where I turn - no matter how many theories I posit - no matter how much I see, re-see, and see again - no matter how many times I hear (or post myself even!) that we should no probably longer discuss certain subjects - I end up back at the same. damn. place.

I truly feel that LE may have cleared certain folks because they were pressured to by an attorney. LE doesn't make it a habit to go out of their way to clear folks publicly like that, especially when they never even named them a suspect or POI in the first place. I mean, I suppose that everything likely checks out like they say, but if they haven't a clue what happened to Adrienne, when it happened, where it happened, why it happened, how it happened, and where she was placed/where she is now, then how can they clear someone based on GPS data and the like?

Now, one problem I have is in one or more of cab_guy's posts, and since he posted it here, it is fair game to analyze. We've heard that his son was cooperative, volunteered his DNA, volunteered to let them search his house, yada yada yada, but then we hear that police interrogated him from the get go, they had to retain a warrant for his DNA and everything else, and that he invoked his right to counsel very early on. Of course that doesn't imply guilt, but it does mean he is remaining silent at the advice of counsel - and not just to the media and to the public - but likely to LE as well. Well, I don't know about you, but I've never seen LE clear someone when they invoked counsel early on. Just the opposite, actually.

But let's say that he is cleared. What about this other cab driver that works for the company who was also interrogated (per cab_guy)? LE would need a reason to interrogate another cab driver. What would that reason be? Was he in the area? Did he get the initial dispatch? If so, did he go to pick her up? And so on, and so on.

Sigh. This case. This. damn. case. If I didn't sense Adrienne demanding a voice right now, I would have moved on. But there is that nagging feeling that keeps kicking me in the gut. That nagging feeling that just keeps circling back around no matter where I try to go with the imagination.

Logic can be an utter burden sometimes.

Very well stated, Tonto.
And I agree, logic is a bee-atch in a world of insanity/stupidity/naivete.

ykwim?

:banghead:

 

[Seajay]

Quoted from NG show on 7/23/13.
ok i see a red flag right there because when adrienne left her two female roommates she was alone in teh car.

sgt pooley thank you for coming on do you believe 2 people were in teh car at that time?

you know what we've gone and talked to taht lady again in her second interview she said she's not sure what she saw exactly, from things in her passenger seat, things on her back passenger seat when we found her car, we think we could tell if someone else was in there iwth her, all indications are that she was alone.


driving so fast, was she trying to get away from somebody?

you know the timestamps we have and everything... i mean.. we can't rule anything out but she just left her aparment just prior to that accident happening so.. uh.. and it was only like a quarter mile from her apartment to where she hit the median, so..

have you found her cellphone and have you been able to use pinging to find the last place?

we do not have her cellphone that is the one piece of evidence that we lack, the cellphone towers indicate that yes she was in that area where her apartment is and where all this transpired at, before her phone turned off.

(commercial)

In this case, her phone pinged off the same tower during all the activity. Whether she as near her apartment, crashing her car, driving it back flat, or walking to the AM/PM mini mart, she pinged off the same tower. She stayed in the general vacinity of her home, which doesn't mean she was at her apartment per se when she called the cab, but in the general area when she called the cab. FWIW.

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

Hey guys,

I am another local lurker ready to chime in.

First things first, I want to point out that the curve on Rio Salado, where she crashed, is not only very sharp but is also a little unsuspecting - many who have not driven on that stretch of Rio Salado would assume that Rio Salado was like every other main street that ran parallel to it - meaning very straight. If she had hit 60, she likely must have slowed down a bit before the curve or I would have expected more damage. The other implication: this crash does not by itself suggest she was drunk.

Second: Despite the above, I think you guy generally underplay the trauma which could have been caused by the prospect of a DUI. Even if you are over 21 in AZ, if you innocently clip a curb, the law allows an officer to cite you with DUI even if you are below the legal limit and show no real signs of impairment (this basically happened to an ex-roommate of mine). I could elaborate a lot more, but it comes down to: cops here are thirsty for DUIs at night, and there are immediate penalties which are not affected by whether or not you are eventually found guilty. These penalties could be quite costly and inconvenient for a 19 y/o without much money in the bank, and then there could be the issue of how your parents might react if they find out, i.e. if they are paying your way on the condition that you don't act so irresponsibly as to drive drunk or what not.

Third, with the recent info available, here are some ominous thoughts regarding the timeline. Please excuse me if I have any details wrong.

4:23 - first known contact with the cabbie. 3-4 minute phone call, it likely ends at 4:27

4:37 - the cabbie calls Adrienne. Unless he is already at the destination, this seems abnormal to me unless this call is to the extent of "I am leaving now, should be there in about 15." Maybe he was returning a call from her, but I am assuming the cabbie is on his way after the call ends. If he is near old town Scottsdale, I'd say that's a 15 minute drive that time of night (slash day). An estimated arrival time between 4:50 and 4:55 seems reasonable.

4:47 - Adrienne texts "I'm coming over." This could be 4:43 but 4:47 seems to be more common. I would be reasonable to assume that this text would coincide with when she left her apartment. I am pretty sure I have walked from 5th and Hardy to Hardy and University at least a couple times in the past. I anticipate that the intersection would be about two, maybe three minutes away from Brown and Hardy. Depending on the exact location of her apartment, I am thinking it's probably a five minute walk. As such, if she leaves her apartment at 4:47, we can expect her at University/Hardy around 4:52.

4:52 - woman who meets Adrienne's description closely enough to be mentioned in the police report, is on surveillance at the intersection of University and Hardy. If this is not her, I would say that would be a coincidence.

4:53 - Adrienne calls cabbie, or the cabbie calls her, not clear. A minute ago, her location to the west of O'Reilly's suggests she is headed west on University, by foot. By 4:53, she would have been at least near the tattoo shop next to O'Reilly's. This call doesn't make sense to me, unless one of the two parties has arrived at a decided destination, or one of them sees the other and wants confirmation regarding identity. Or, maybe she is letting cabbie know that her phone might die at any moment, but then it doesn't make sense that she would be where she was rather than at the AM/PM.

4:53-5:06 - after using her phone often for the prior 40 minutes, I am not aware of any activity from Adrienne's phone during this time. Could simply have to do with a low battery.

4:54 - dark sedan is seen cutting through the Oreilly's lot, headed north (and then east would have been the only way out of the lot). I suppose someone turning north on Hardy, from University, might cut through the lot if they had a red light. But there isn't much traffic at this time and traffic on University would have probably had a green light and if not most cars wouldn't cut through this parking lot anyways. It is however worth noting that if a vehicle was heading from the tattoo shop, cutting through the O'Reilly's lot would probably be the easiest, lowest key way of getting to the AM/PM. A cabbie might know or assume this, I assume. Despite speculation online, LE has not clarified that this vehicle was not the cabbie's cab.

4:54-5:00: sometime within this span, cabbie shows up at or by AM/PM. He is on AM/PM's surveillance at 5:00, but AM/PM shares this corner of the intersection with a strip mall. There are many parking spaces where his vehicle would not have been caught on AM/PM's surveillance. I assume he would not have arrived before 4:54 as he purportedly waited til 5:04 to call Adrienne again. I recall one prior article or video which stated that the cabbie was at AM/PM as early as 4:53.

5:00 - cabbie shows up on AM/PM's surveillance. This would be a minor coincidence - if he was not trying to do so how likely is it that he shows up at 5:00 on the dot?

5:04 - cabbie is alleged to finally call Adrienne to let her know that he is at the AM/PM waiting for her. Another coincidence - this is exactly ten minutes after the 4:54 mark in our timeline.

Purely hypothetically, if the cabbie had picked up Adrienne between 4:53 and 4:54, this could be significant, because:

http://mentalfloss.com/article/12490/11-tv-and-movie-clichés-you-never-see-real-life

5:06 - Cabbie says Adrienne called and told him she'd be another minute. If nothing else, I assume this means that Adrienne was not blowing off the cabbie.

5:07 - Cabbie claims to have interpreted that literally as he didn't wait more than a minute before calling back. If I am not mistaken, he doesn't wait much longer, although he has X many minutes of phone time and X many gallons of gas invested in the call thus far, and he has no further calls to respond to.

It's ironic because I've been reading here thinking amongst other things, "these guys are too overzealous - if the cable guy is supposed to show up at 2:00, but doesn't show until 2:15, it doesn't mean he abducted someone on his way to your house, it simply means he was late." I initially didn't see the cabbie as the least bit suspicious. Now I am the guy who thinks he is the prime suspect.

Incorrect in your timeline there (what I've boldened). Some of us here have worked it from backwards to forward----the timeline that is. There are some "hiccups" to the timeline. Like a major one at 4:23......who called who? And again at 5:06am where cabbie (son) claims to have called As and said he'll be there in a minute and yet video time-stamped surveillance shows him at the AMPM at 5:00am sharp.
Two major inconsistencies to the timeline has already been established.

Just so you know.

:banghead:

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

Why call a cab without cash? Unless maybe she was planning on having the BF pay on the other end, and that is partly why she kept calling and also, finally warned him she was on the way.

I would think that it was a huge bet to make in thinking the bf would pay for her cab ride---considering he wasn't even answering her calls.
She may have felt the need to pick up a little "gift" to help smooth things out?
After all, she did text him "did you find it" and the response was a smiley face.
Make of it what you will but I doubt knowing the dynamics of their fighting would AS assume bf would pay for the cab. Nope.

 

[Seajay]

I would think that it was a huge bet to make in thinking the bf would pay for her cab ride---considering he wasn't even answering her calls.
She may have felt the need to pick up a little "gift" to help smooth things out?
After all, she did text him "did you find it" and the response was a smiley face.
Make of it what you will but I doubt knowing the dynamics of their fighting would AS assume bf would pay for the cab. Nope.

This is pretty much what I have thought anytime someone suggested that the bf would pay for the cab. He wasn't even answering the phone. How did she even know at that point where he was, let alone back at home. Considering they had a fight, he might have been out riding around, trying to blow some steam off. I don't think she could count on him paying the cab.

 

[cluciano63]

Other than the lake, has any searching taken place?
I know she most likely vanished via car and that makes it nearly impossible to know where to search. But most abductions are done by vehicle, yet searches still take place as a rule.

 

[AmandaReckonwith]

Adrienne Salinas Case Archive:

http://s296.photobucket.com/user/crankycrankerson/library/#/user/crankycrankerson/library/Adrienne%20Salinas%20%20-AZ-?sort=6&page=1&_suid=137488541702506010823393425124

 

[Kimster]

Cab guy is a verified insider and posts have been restored.

Find Adrienne!!! :rocker: