Homegate Hotel

[BeanE]

Isn't the information about the hotels, the 3 adults, and EJ pacing in the parking lot while with them, the reason the family believes she passed him off?

Hi Cathy. Could you please put your question in the Questions for the Family thread so I don't lose track of it?

Thanks!

 

[chell]

making it much more likely that everyone involved understood they were dealing in an ILLEGAL placement!!

 

[b4e]

That's odd to me. In adoptions I know of and read about, the new 'parents' are doing things for the birth mother. I can't remember a situation in which the birth mother was doing things for the 'parents'. KWIM?

Very true. I am just searching the far recesses of my brain, trying to come up with any reason she might have rented that second room for the same night.

 

[BeanE]

making it much more likely that everyone involved understood they were dealing in an ILLEGAL placement!!

I totally agree. I have no doubts that everyone involved knew what they were doing was highly illegal. I would never believe for a second that anybody thinks it's okay to buy or be given a baby on the street, in a park, in a hotel, in a parking lot, etc and in a period of a few days.

 

[OneLove]

Very true. I am just searching the far recesses of my brain, trying to come up with any reason she might have rented that second room for the same night.

I still believe the answer could be as simple as EJ wanting to move on with her life and not have any reminders of Gabriel after the 'handoff'. So she left his stuff right where it was and walked across the parking lot to check into her new life as a single, unencumbered woman.

If she had rented the first hotel room for 5 days in advance, especially if the cost was covered by someONE or some entity involved in the shady handoff, then she probably had no financial or emotional investment in the "wastefullness" of having two rooms paid for the same night. She may have paid out of pocket for the room her last night and thought nothing of the first hotel already being paid for (by someone else).

I think its probably just a sign that she was soooo ready to thumb her nose at the 'suckas' in her past and start that exciting life ahead of her. Spending the night in that same room after the 'handoff' would have been such a downer on her first night of what she intended to be heavenly freedom. moo

 

[captdj]

I still believe the answer could be as simple as EJ wanting to move on with her life and not have any reminders of Gabriel after the 'handoff'. So she left his stuff right where it was and walked across the parking lot to check into her new life as a single, unencumbered woman.

If she had rented the first hotel room for 5 days in advance, especially if the cost was covered by someONE or some entity involved in the shady handoff, then she probably had no financial or emotional investment in the "wastefullness" of having two rooms paid for the same night. She may have paid out of pocket for the room her last night and thought nothing of the first hotel already being paid for (by someone else).

I think its probably just a sign that she was soooo ready to thumb her nose at the 'suckas' in her past and start that exciting life ahead of her. Spending the night in that same room after the 'handoff' would have been such a downer on her first night of what she intended to be heavenly freedom. moo

In Elizabeths way of thinking, No way for the couple or Hispanic male to find her either......

 

[stormmolly]

Was it confirmed that a call did come into the room to EJ when the supposed babysitter was there, and said one did, Because somewhere I remember but cant remember were that a person who worked there said someone was babysitting but it was not the one who was on NG, which could explain why she did not see a crib if she was not there, ?

Just trying to catch up on the threads Arthur been real bad so I am here for bit then feet up ss,

 

[BeanE]

Was it confirmed that a call did come into the room to EJ when the supposed babysitter was there, and said one did, Because somewhere I remember but cant remember were that a person who worked there said someone was babysitting but it was not the one who was on NG, which could explain why she did not see a crib if she was not there, ?

Just trying to catch up on the threads Arthur been real bad so I am here for bit then feet up ss,

I took what the housekeeper said to mean that the person in the room was not Elizabeth (the one in the news), but was the babysitter. The babysitter acknowledges the housekeeper coming to the door, and that seems to support that.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Another housekeeper has also realized that she had seen a Hispanic woman with baby Gabriel.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The person that she saw on the news is not the person that was in the room with the baby. The person in the room was a Hispanic girl, and she told her she was baby-sitting. The housekeeper had asked if she could touch the baby, and she said, No, I`m not allowed to let anybody in the room (INAUDIBLE) You know, Just give me towels, and you can`t come in.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: That was on the 23rd of December.

and

ANALISA: Yes. Elizabeth told me if anyone knocked at the door, not to answer it. But then the housekeeper came and opened the door with a key.

 

[Prof]

IT was reported on the original January 13th news source which may only have more ounce of credibility than NG, that houskeeping saw a hispanic girl in the room who told her she was babysitting and that hispanic girl was a different girl than the one interviewed on the news --

(By searching Google with the quote posted previously from NG I can see that was on a January 14th NG broadcast a day later than the KABB broadcast -- but no source mentioned -- love how they credit their sources,)


Here is the link to the original source
http://www.foxsanantonio.com/newsroom/top_stories/videos/vid_968.shtml

I say Yami's interview for KABB SA is more credible as 1 - NG producers took the story from this original source and played telephone games with it 2 - The witness goes into specific detail about other things involved in the case 3 - this witness seems pounds more credible than NG or the babysitter all over the news (for one thing she did not want her face shown, and she did not seem a sensationalist)

 

[BeanE]

IT was reported on the original January 13th news source which may only have more ounce of credibility than NG, that houskeeping saw a hispanic girl in the room who told her she was babysitting and that hispanic girl was a different girl than the one interviewed on the news --

(By searching Google with the quote posted previously from NG I can see that was on a January 14th NG broadcast a day later than the KABB broadcast -- but no source mentioned -- love how they credit their sources,)


Here is the link to the original source
http://www.foxsanantonio.com/newsroom/top_stories/videos/vid_968.shtml

I say Yami's interview for KABB SA is more credible as 1 - NG producers took the story from this original source and played telephone games with it 2 - The witness goes into specific detail about other things involved in the case 3 - this witness seems pounds more credible than NG or the babysitter all over the news (for one thing she did not want her face shown, and she did not seem a sensationalist)

Prof, if you watch the video, and read the NG transcript in the post directly above yours, you'll see that the NG transcript is actually a transcription of the very video you refer to.

What is said regarding this in the KABB video is what is transcribed in the NG transcript and vice versa.

There are only two differences, and they are completely insignificant:
1) in one place in the video, the housekeeper stutters a bit and says 'and and'. It is transcribed simply as 'and'.
2) in the video, the housekeeper says 'and i can't', where the transcription says 'inaudible'.

The witness indeed goes into other details in the case as you said. Specifically that - *other* details. Not another single thing about *this*.

There are no 'telephone games'. There are the credibility issues.

I see no reason to think anything other than that the "woman in the news" the housekeeper is referring to is Elizabeth, as opposed to the Hispanic babysitter - Analisa - that the housekeeper says she saw in the room and gave towels to, and that the housekeeper is the same one that Analisa said gave her towels.

Each woman corroborates the other's story via the exchange of towels.

 

[TXHOPE]

Baby Gabriel search focused on missing green bag
video and article

http://www.kens5.com/news/Exclusive...-bag-with-Gabriel-Johnsons-body-84220907.html

 

[BeanE]

New thread for the babysitter discussion here:

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=95674"]Two Babysitters at Homegage? - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

 

[scandi]

Baby Gabriel search focused on missing green bag
video and article

http://www.kens5.com/news/Exclusive...-bag-with-Gabriel-Johnsons-body-84220907.html

Thanks for that link TXHOPE, as it is what I wanted to learn about. Do you know if that search at the landfill is ongoing? On NG it sounded like it would take many days to do what was needed, moving and searching that garbage.

I am giving positive thoughts to Baby Gabriel being found alive. I guess I am hoping beyond hope that the meaning of his name, 'strong man of God', has held him in safety. xox


ETA: Sorry, I thought I was posting on the landfill thread. ;}

 

[b4e]

Sources have revealed to KENS 5 that when Elizabeth Johnson vacated her hotel room at the Homegate Inn & Suites in late December, she left behind all of her son's personal belongings.

But there reportedly was one item investigators could not find: a green diaper bag that belonged to Gabriel Johnson. Of course, the 8-month-old was missing too.

http://www.kens5.com/news/Exclusive...-bag-with-Gabriel-Johnsons-body-84220907.html

This article implies that Gabe's belongings were left at Homegate, not at Quality. Is this bad reporting, or something new?

 

[BeanE]

http://www.kens5.com/news/Exclusive...-bag-with-Gabriel-Johnsons-body-84220907.html

This article implies that Gabe's belongings were left at Homegate, not at Quality. Is this bad reporting, or something new?

We have one reporter saying that Maricopa County court documents say Quality. I don't know if the reporter had the documents in hand, or if s/he was saying what somebody else said the court documents said.

We have another reporter saying that an unnamed sources says that investigators say Homegate.

I saw Esau kissing Kate. The fact is, we all three saw. For I saw Esau, he saw me, and Kate saw I saw Esau.

In other words, does anyone have the Maricopa County court document? I'd like to see what LE says myself.

 

[chell]

Could she have left some of the belongings in one room and taken some to the other room for the adoptive parents who either took the items with them or discarded? Maybe EJ threw or gave all of G's things away. I've been assuming it was EJ who left things in a hotel room, perhaps it was and perhaps it was the other parties that did. The fact that she even brought his hospital band or brought pictures of her family suggested to me that she had at least an understanding of the kinds of things sentimental ppl do. Maybe the pictures were so she could prove he was hers one day or so he'd know where he came from. Some adoptive parents, especially illegal parents, might regard that as totally unallowable and left it in the room.

 

[captdj]

ok after sleeping on this
I think EJ paid 5 days 12/21 to 12/25 leaving the 26th then it make sense to me that the houskeeper saying they thought she was gone when she went in to clean the room.. check out time is prolly around 10 and from Analisas report that the housekeeper came in during the two hours she was there....so on 12/26 around noonish when she went in to clean EJ and Gabriel was NOT there but the items she named was still there .....
going back to listen to the housekeeper again ... I think she said high chair and didnt say portable crib...

 

[captdj]

The housekeeper on 12/26 that thought she was gone but found a High chair ,(one the goes on a chair) a tray, a basket of clothes, toiletries ,Ipod charger

The house keeper thought she was gone..... did she think that because the room was only paid for 5 days meaning her check out time was 12/26...

EJ and Gabriel was not there when she cleaned


http://www.foxsanantonio.com/newsroom/top_stories/videos/vid_968.shtml

 

[captdj]

Now this report
When Johnson left the Quality Inn and Suites, where she was last seen with the child, she left behind baby items including a portable baby bed and Gabriel’s hospital identification band from his birth.

http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/150453

She checked out before going to the bus station 12/27..... but portable baby bed? I thought EJ had one but that it was left at trailer....
Was this portable crib brand new? hmmmm

 

[MDATCA]

Just to add to the confusion regarding room numbers, the website says that there are only 124 rooms on two levels. The hotel also appears to be two buildings. If it's an even split, that would be 62 rooms per level. So they might start numbering the rooms on the ground floor at 100 and the rooms on the second level at 200? That is the only way I could see them even having a room #150 and a room #262.

Just thought I'd put a picture of the exterior of the hotel in here to for a reference as to what type of hotel this is. It's really just a two story motel with individual outside entrances. After check-in, EJ would have had no reason to go to the lobby area/front desk unless she was using the computer or requesting something. I believe it was stated that she was seen using the lobby computer although it wasn't mentioned how many times or when and I also believe she went to the front desk to ask for milk late one evening. There is free wifi so if she only used the lobby computer once, she was using something to update her myspace on several occasions during the week. I'm still not convinced that she didn't have her laptop with her and ditched it somewhere in SA.

In November I stayed at a quality inn in Pennsylvania and the room numbers were like you said. The bottom floor were 100's and the top was 200's. There were no rooms numbered below 101. I am thinking that is how it works there. Now the extension 262 makes no sense. Even the housekeeping sounds to be about the same so IMO the homegate is probably like the Quality Inn and they have gone way down in standards than from the last time years ago I stayed in one. I was very disappointed.