Deceased/Not Found CA - Sierra LaMar, 15, Morgan Hill, 16 March 2012 #9 *A. Garcia-Torres guilty*

[cluciano63]

I remember a case in England in the early 90's I think, where they asked every man in the town to give DNA...and of course the one who wouldn't, and even tried to get his friend to give it, was the killer...

 

[Portabella]

Actually they do keep them on file, but not in their criminal database, they only keep them for one year. If for example you are a teacher, you must do them again yearly to keep up with your certification. However this is not a utilized database in searching for prints left at a crime scene, they can only utilize prints that were taken during an arrest. That is a shame, it would really help them if they changed this policy. I know people have the right to privacy, but I would not have a problem with them look at my prints, no innocent person would. IMHO

 

[JDB]

The LE has stated more than once that the family nor Rick are a suspect in the Case of Sierra Lamar . And that is good enough for me. That is why Websleuths has a policy that we are not allowed to sleuth anyone that is not a POI.

 

[cluciano63]

The LE has stated more than once that the family nor Rick are a suspect in the Case of Sierra Lamar . And that is good enough for me. That is why Websleuths has a policy that we are not allowed to sleuth anyone that is not a POI.

Did they state it more than once? And more recently than almost a month ago? Just want to be clear, I only saw one time.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

The LE has stated more than once that the family nor Rick are a suspect in the Case of Sierra Lamar . And that is good enough for me. That is why Websleuths has a policy that we are not allowed to sleuth anyone that is not a POI.

And none of the three are even a POI much less a suspect.

Even Sheriff Smith has not said that.

IMO

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I remember a case in England in the early 90's I think, where they asked every man in the town to give DNA...and of course the one who wouldn't, and even tried to get his friend to give it, was the killer...

I remember that and he did get a man in a pub to give him his blood and he used that to be eliminated. Later on a bar maid came to police and told them she overheard the men talking about it and that is how they caught him.

That was a fasinating case.

 

[krkrjx]

Actually they do keep them on file, but not in their criminal database, they only keep them for one year. If for example you are a teacher, you must do them again yearly to keep up with your certification. However this is not a utilized database in searching for prints left at a crime scene, they can only utilize prints that were taken during an arrest. That is a shame, it would really help them if they changed this policy. I know people have the right to privacy, but I would not have a problem with them look at my prints, no innocent person would. IMHO

They could look for matches in ALL available databases, not just criminal. And they can do that without looking at anyone in particular. Just search for a match to what is found on the evidence. If one comes up then that person is singled out and questioned. If none come up as a match, no one's privacy has been breached in any way.

 

[Portabella]

I consider this forum a think tank with many great minds and opinions.... I thank ALL of you as I value all opinions even those that are way off from my own. I think when dealing with a subject as near and dear to us, as a young girl disappearing, people get frustrated and its easy to think that someone is jumping on you. I see very strong minded people here, and those are the best type.... so KUDO's to everyone, and lets play nice.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Did they state it more than once? And more recently than almost a month ago? Just want to be clear, I only saw one time.

:moo: I thought it was only ONCE that that was stated ... and that was BEFORE the Sheriff's statement ...

Again, JMO, but the Sheriff's Statement on the Nancy Grace Show "is what it is" ...

Sheriff Smith did NOT mince her words ... she clearly stated that :

"Until Sierra's home safely, we're not eliminating anybody ..."

We = ALL of her Department ...

Ya just can't get any clearer than that ...

:moo:

 

[Pensfan]

Actually they do keep them on file, but not in their criminal database, they only keep them for one year. If for example you are a teacher, you must do them again yearly to keep up with your certification. However this is not a utilized database in searching for prints left at a crime scene, they can only utilize prints that were taken during an arrest. That is a shame, it would really help them if they changed this policy. I know people have the right to privacy, but I would not have a problem with them look at my prints, no innocent person would. IMHO

Please share a link for that info. Here is a link that states differently:

Employment background checks and legitimate firearms purchases cause citizens to be permanently recorded in the system. For instance, the State of Washington mandates that all applicants seeking employment in an inpatient setting that houses vulnerable minors are fingerprinted and entered into IAFIS as part of their background check in order to determine if the applicant has any record of criminal behavior.

Fingerprints are submitted to the FBI by local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies. These agencies acquire the fingerprints through criminal arrests or from non-criminal sources, such as employment background checks and the US-VISIT program. The FBI then catalogs the fingerprints along with any criminal history linked with the subject. Law enforcement agencies can then request a search in IAFIS to identify crime scene (latent) fingerprints obtained during criminal investigations.

Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have been fingerprinted several times. Once when adopting a child and again when applying to a medical facility where I cared for adult and children patients. Both of these were in different states. Both times I was told that my fingerprints would forever remain on file with the FBI.

 

[Portabella]

krkrjx...I made a call and that is not sadly how they do it. Not in Colorado anyway. Can anyone tell me if by chance California Bureau of Investigations is different? CBI only checks the criminal database.

 

[simlyme]

I find this site very odd to be on a very close family members FB.

Anyone else?

http://www.chemistry.com/Account/Logon?returnUrl=/MyAccount

Actually ,not a "family" member.

 

[JDB]

:moo: I thought it was only ONCE that that was stated ... and that was BEFORE the Sheriff's statement ...

Again, JMO, but the Sheriff's Statement on the Nancy Grace Show "is what it is" ...

Sheriff Smith did NOT mince her words ... she clearly stated that :

"Until Sierra's home safely, we're not eliminating anybody ..."

We = ALL of her Department ...

Ya just can't get any clearer than that ...

:moo:

Ok I might have misstated my bad. But until we know what the LE has I also suggest lets not get ready to Have Rick locked up or for that matter anyone else in the family. Seems Marlene could have came back after she said she went to work also.
But I don't see anybody doubting her?

 

[Portabella]

Okay you were partially correct. They do keep federal government employee and those that are in Armed Services prints in there also. I imagine because they are (owned/lol/work for) the federal government thus they can breach their privacy...

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/fingerprints_biometrics/iafis/iafis

 

[krkrjx]

Here's my take on the ruled out/cleared issue.

I believe LE has looked at their alibis and cleared the three adults...for now. LE saying "no one is eliminated" is par for the course in this kind of investigation because, really, until they know something about what happened, no one can be eliminated for certain. I do not think the statement of no one being eliminated means that those who were previously called "cleared" or "ruled out" have had a status change. Likewise, I do not think their being called "cleared" or "ruled out" means forever or not subject to change should the evidence necessitate a change.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

And none of the three are even a POI much less a suspect.

Even Sheriff Smith has not said that.

IMO

:seeya:

JMO ... but it seems like almost all of the cases I have followed lately LE rarely names someone a "poi" or a "suspect" ...

And the reason is simple : the minute LE names someone a "poi" or "suspect", the person will immediately "lawyer up" and "shut up" ...

So ... what is in the best interest of the investigation ?

Name a "suspect" publicly ... or ... Do not name a "suspect" publicly and let them keep talking -- that is IF they are "talking" ?

JMO ... but I "think" LE does have their own "list" of POSSIBLE suspects/poi's and they start at the top [family / friends ] and work their way down that "list" [neighbors, RSO, etc.]

:moo:

 

[krkrjx]

krkrjx...I made a call and that is not sadly how they do it. Not in Colorado anyway. Can anyone tell me if by chance California Bureau of Investigations is different? CBI only checks the criminal database.

I am sure you are right about that. My point was that they could check all databases for a match without breaching anyone's privacy. No names are known during the check...a name comes up only if there is a match.

 

[JTribley]

KRON4 has learned that Lamar

I don't know what happened to my post...on iPad and its auto correcting so will post it tomorrow

 

[kemo]

A little reality check,
In the US, there are approximately 250,000 children reported missing annually. A frightening number but most of these are "runaways". There are however around 58,000 who are classified as "abducted". This turns out to be a very broad category involving many situations I would not consider "abductions". Only 21 percent were actually reported to the police as "missing". Of these there was one sub-category that really applies to our concerns; the category of "stereotypical kidnapping" which is basically "abduction by force for nefarious purposes by a stranger or slight acquaintance resulting in the child being held overnight or taken over 50 miles away. This occurs about 115 times a year in the US and about 45 of these "events" result in the child’s death.

As there are 70 million children in the US, this occurrence is literally "one in a million". It is extremely rare. Like airplane crashes; we worry about them because they are horrifying, not because they are likely to happen’

http://www.missingkids.com/en_US/documents/nismart2_nonfamily.pdf

 

[Pensfan]

Okay you were partially correct. They do keep federal government employee and those that are in Armed Services prints in there also. I imagine because they are (owned/lol/work for) the federal government thus they can breach their privacy...

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/fingerprints_biometrics/iafis/iafis

I have never applied for a job with a federal agency. I'm not in the Armed Services. My fingerprints are on file on the Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System used by the FBI and state LE because I had a plain ol' employment background check and a child abuse clearance check.