WA WA - Shantina Smiley, 29, & Azriel Carver, 8 (fnd deceased), Olympia, Mar 2010 - #7

[Calliope]

High tide 6:13 am on 3/14.

http://www.mobilegeographics.com:81/locations/781.html?y=2010&m=3&d=13

 

[Calliope]

Currents for the closest point to the van (that I could find), 3/13 - 3/17.

http://www.mobilegeographics.com:81/...=2010&m=3&d=13

2010-03-13 6:14 PM PST Sunset

2010-03-13 7:47 PM PST -2.40 knots Max Ebb

2010-03-13 11:12 PM PST 0.01 knots Slack, Flood Begins

2010-03-14 1:41 AM PST 1.70 knots Max Flood

2010-03-14 6:19 AM PDT -0.00 knots Slack, Ebb Begins

2010-03-14 7:26 AM PDT Sunrise

2010-03-14 9:30 AM PDT -2.08 knots Max Ebb

2010-03-14 12:41 PM PDT 0.00 knots Slack, Flood Begins


I'm not sure how to read this, but the time and description is of interest considering the report of the homeowner hearing someone around 1 am.

 

[Jules71]

I was just thinking more about what I posted above... I don't think my 8 year old son would get out of the car and walk down the beach to find me when it is pitch black dark outside, unless his life depended on it. I think he would be scared to death.

What time do you all think water would have been high enough to start coming in the vehicle? It seems like it would already be in to that inlet area before it would actually get really deep, but I don't know. Would it have been more shallow heading in the direction of the stairs than heading back up the driveway? If it was totally dark, could he have even seen that driveway? Would he be able to see the stairs?

 

[luckyducky]

On March 13th I believe it was a new moon - it would have been pitch black on that beach - unless they had flashlights I don't believe they could see anything.

 

[SMK]

"There is no evidence of foul play in this case," Chamberlain said. "Azriel's death still appears to have been accidental and there is no indication Shantina harmed her son or had any intent to harm her son."

No evidence of foul play does not mean 'no foul play'; it simply means what it says--- no evidence has been found. That is a quote from an article on 4/5, btw.

So far, everything I've found says 'no evidence' or 'no signs' of foul play. The comment about the van was specific. I haven't read (or heard) any direct quotes from LE that there was no crime committed elsewhere. Seems to me that until they find Shantina, they can't absolutely rule out anything.

Here is what has always confused me: The case took a turn when Azriel's body was found washed ashore. That is when the "no evidence of crime or foul play" began to overtake "very suspicious". To me, the child's death made things more suspicious, more pointing to foul play, not less. So I am baffled. This is what Lt. Mealy is saying BEFORE the child is found. Does anyone know why the child being found changes this, because I cannot for the life of me figure it out::waitasec:
The van was found Sunday morning, down a dead end dirt road north of Olympia. It was at the bottom of a hill, in the water. The back hatch and side door were both open. No one was inside.

"We have no idea what happened," said Thurston County Sheriff's Lt. Chris Mealy. "She could have been the victim of a crime, she could have wandered off."
http://www.helpfindthemissing.org/forum/showthread.php?t=20792

 

[Calliope]

Here is what has always confused me: The case took a turn when Azriel's body was found washed ashore. That is when the "no evidence of crime or foul play" began to overtake "very suspicious". To me, the child's death made things more suspicious, more pointing to foul play, not less. So I am baffled. This is what Lt. Mealy is saying BEFORE the child is found. Does anyone know why the child being found changes this, because I cannot for the life of me figure it out::waitasec:
The van was found Sunday morning, down a dead end dirt road north of Olympia. It was at the bottom of a hill, in the water. The back hatch and side door were both open. No one was inside.

"We have no idea what happened," said Thurston County Sheriff's Lt. Chris Mealy. "She could have been the victim of a crime, she could have wandered off."http://www.helpfindthemissing.org/forum/showthread.php?t=20792

Exactly. Who's to say that someone didn't put him into the water? As far as I know, there's been no reports of the tox reports from his autopsy, either. And JMO, but I think it's rather suspicious he ended up where he did.

I just have a sinking feeling that LE has washed their hands of this case.

 

[BeanE]

Here is what has always confused me: The case took a turn when Azriel's body was found washed ashore. That is when the "no evidence of crime or foul play" began to overtake "very suspicious". To me, the child's death made things more suspicious, more pointing to foul play, not less. So I am baffled. This is what Lt. Mealy is saying BEFORE the child is found. Does anyone know why the child being found changes this, because I cannot for the life of me figure it out::waitasec:
The van was found Sunday morning, down a dead end dirt road north of Olympia. It was at the bottom of a hill, in the water. The back hatch and side door were both open. No one was inside.

"We have no idea what happened," said Thurston County Sheriff's Lt. Chris Mealy. "She could have been the victim of a crime, she could have wandered off."http://www.helpfindthemissing.org/forum/showthread.php?t=20792

Because his death was accidental. Had he been murdered, then they would have reason to believe that Shantina was also probably murdered. Same with me, although I certainly am not LE or an ME.

I'm confused why finding Az's death was accidental would lead one to believe his death was murder? Or that Shantina was murdered? Or that a crime was committed? That doesn't seem logical to me.

When you hear of accidents, do you always suspect a crime has been committed? Or is it just this one? Or just this type of accident (accidental drownings)?

When I hear of professionals (LE, ME, etc) who have more knowledge, training, and experience in how to determine whether a death is accidental or murder, and more knowledge of the circumstances of the event and what led up to it, than I do, concluding that a death is accidental, and they state that there's no evidence of foul play, then, not being a professional, and having less knowledge of the event than they do, I become more confident that the death was accidental, not less.

I'm trying to understand how hearing of an accident leads one to believe a crime has been committed, and I'm baffled. Any clarification of that thought process would be appreciated.

 

[BeanE]

Exactly. Who's to say that someone didn't put him into the water? As far as I know, there's been no reports of the tox reports from his autopsy, either. And JMO, but I think it's rather suspicious he ended up where he did.

I just have a sinking feeling that LE has washed their hands of this case.

Do you think any of the people who believe a crime was committed have written up their reasons why and sent it to LE? Or do you think that no one has, and that LE is unaware of those aspects?

I've been going on the assumption that at least one person has written up a clear and articulate statement of the reasons they believe a crime has been committed, and that at least one LEO has reviewed it, thought about it, and investigated the leads therein, but maybe not.

Maybe my assumption is wrong, and no one has sent LE their reasons, and no LEO has thought about those things.

What do others think? That these leads have been sent in or not? That if so, these leads have been reviewed and investigated or not?

Maybe it's worth it to write up a clear statement of reasons to suspect a crime, send it to LE, and then follow up with a phone call to ask a LEO specifically assigned to this case to please review it and follow up on it.

 

[SMK]

Because his death was accidental. Had he been murdered, then they would have reason to believe that Shantina was also probably murdered. Same with me, although I certainly am not LE or an ME.

I'm confused why finding Az's death was accidental would lead one to believe his death was murder? Or that Shantina was murdered? Or that a crime was committed? That doesn't seem logical to me.

When you hear of accidents, do you always suspect a crime has been committed? Or is it just this one? Or just this type of accident (accidental drownings)?

When I hear of professionals (LE, ME, etc) who have more knowledge, training, and experience in how to determine whether a death is accidental or murder, and more knowledge of the circumstances of the event and what led up to it, than I do, concluding that a death is accidental, and they state that there's no evidence of foul play, then, not being a professional, and having less knowledge of the event than they do, I become more confident that the death was accidental, not less.

I'm trying to understand how hearing of an accident leads one to believe a crime has been committed, and I'm baffled. Any clarification of that thought process would be appreciated.

I think what did it for me, was finding that drowning can never be proven, but only surmised. And to drown fully clothed, when one is not swimming, is not a clear cut "accident", as no one witnessed it. Not trying to be argumentative, really just baffled. Where is the clear cut accident?

CONSIDERATIONS FOR INVESTIGATORS

Investigators can look for some distinctive signs to determine cases of drowning. Officers must recognize these indicators and then articulate them to the medical examiner
. Presently, no known and proven pathological test exists to determine drowning as the cause of death, so, by itself, an autopsy usually proves insufficient. Authorities can make this diagnosis only with a knowledge of the circumstances and exclusion of other causes.

Investigators need to answer several questions in apparent drowning cases. For instance, did the person drown, or did perpetrators kill the individual and dispose of the corpse in the water? Was the victim conscious upon submersion? Could the person swim well? Did the victim consume any alcohol or drugs? What was the individual doing at the time? Did anyone witness the incident? If any injuries exist on the body, were they caused before death (antemortem), at the same time (agonal
In the course of their investigation, authorities will find that a combination of external signs will provide valuable information. (11)

Bodily Substances

Investigators should look carefully around the victim's head, face, and mouth for any signs of vomitus. They should make this observation first as this very transient evidence easily can wash away. Presence of vomit serves as a reliable indicator that the victim became submerged while alive. http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Drownin...ns-a0143342211

 

[Calliope]

From all I've read, the determination of "accidental drowning" is made with consideration of other, circumstantial evidence. Since the circumstances surrounding why and how they got to that beach in the first place is in question, Azriel's death being classified as "accidental' is simply their best guess. Pretty much all that can be said for certain is that he wasn't already dead when he entered the water (and according to this, that might not even be true):

There are no pathological findings pathognomonic of drowning. Consequently obtaining proof that the victim was alive on entering the water and excluding natural, traumatic and toxicological causes of death are critically important. Some pathological changes are characteristic of drowning but the diagnosis is largely one of exclusion.

http://www.dundee.ac.uk/forensicmedicine/notes/water.pdf

 

[SMK]

From all I've read, the determination of "accidental drowning" is made with consideration of other, circumstantial evidence. Since the circumstances surrounding why and how they got to that beach in the first place is in question, Azriel's death being classified as "accidental' is simply their best guess. Pretty much all that can be said for certain is that he wasn't already dead when he entered the water (and according to this, that might not even be true):



http://www.dundee.ac.uk/forensicmedicine/notes/water.pdf

Right, it can be nothing but their very best deduction, as LE are not miracle workers nor psychics. And that even Robb has said "something does not smell right" and that he feels he has "no clear answers, only theories" has made me feel sympathy for him as well (and his daughter)---there is something not clear about this case.http://my.nowpublic.com/world/robb-simmons-fiance-shantina-smiley-still-seeks-answers

 

[BeanE]

I think what did it for me, was finding that drowning can never be proven, but only surmised. And to drown fully clothed, when one is not swimming, is not a clear cut "accident", as no one witnessed it. Not trying to be argumentative, really just baffled. Where is the clear cut accident?

Thanks, SMK. Now I understand a little better. In a case like that, where the ruling did come out as accidental, if I couldn't immediately see how it could be concluded by ME, then I would sit back and ask myself (just trying to explain my thought process here) what the ME may have that I don't that make him/her come to that conclusion. My answer to myself, which in most cases would satisfy me, would be "education, training, experience, direct access to the body, examination of the body, and more knowledge and information regarding the circumstances of the event than I (random public person) have".

It is that last, the info regarding the circumstances of the case they have, that gets me more than the others. And that is because, rightly or wrongly, I assume LEOs and MEs almost always have more information than I do. That could be a poor assumption - I don't know.

Thanks for talking about this with me I really do want to understand.

 

[BeanE]

From all I've read, the determination of "accidental drowning" is made with consideration of other, circumstantial evidence. Since the circumstances surrounding why and how they got to that beach in the first place is in question, Azriel's death being classified as "accidental' is simply their best guess. Pretty much all that can be said for certain is that he wasn't already dead when he entered the water (and according to this, that might not even be true):



http://www.dundee.ac.uk/forensicmedicine/notes/water.pdf

Thanks, Calliope. That helps me to understand a little better. I appreciate it.

Do you think LE has no more info than we, the public, do on how and why they got to the beach? No more than we that they know for certain?

 

[SMK]

Thanks, SMK. Now I understand a little better. In a case like that, where the ruling did come out as accidental, if I couldn't immediately see how it could be concluded by ME, then I would sit back and ask myself (just trying to explain my thought process here) what the ME may have that I don't that make him/her come to that conclusion. My answer to myself, which in most cases would satisfy me, would be "education, training, experience, direct access to the body, examination of the body, and more knowledge and information regarding the circumstances of the event than I (random public person) have".

It is that last, the info regarding the circumstances of the case they have, that gets me more than the others. And that is because, rightly or wrongly, I assume LEOs and MEs almost always have more information than I do. That could be a poor assumption - I don't know.

Thanks for talking about this with me I really do want to understand.

Thank you in turn. And of course their experience and training make them more than just "guessers". I think , though, that in this instance they are up against a really unusual, even bizarre, case. I have never felt they were in any way incompetent, only up against something that leaves questions, even when they have done their job, to the very best of their expertise and ability...:twocents:

 

[Calliope]

Thanks, Calliope. That helps me to understand a little better. I appreciate it.

Do you think LE has no more info than we, the public, do on how and why they got to the beach? No more than we that they know for certain?

IMO, if they are holding back information, it's because they aren't entirely convinced something untoward didn't happen, that they are open to the possibility there was foul play somehow, somewhere along the way.

 

[BeanE]

Right, it can be nothing but their very best deduction, as LE are not miracle workers nor psychics. And that even Robb has said "something does not smell right" and that he feels he has "no clear answers, only theories" has made me feel sympathy for him as well (and his daughter)---there is something not clear about this case.http://my.nowpublic.com/world/robb-simmons-fiance-shantina-smiley-still-seeks-answers

I don't want to give the impression that I'm under the impression that LE are all wizards or rocket scientists. I think they are 'just people' doing a job. I do give them credit for their education, training, knowledge, and experience, but I also know that as 'just people', subject to the same human traits as everyone else, they may just happen not to think of something. In fact, because of that, I have many times over the years, written up something and sent it to them to prompt them to think about something I think they may not have.

In regards to Robb and his daughter, I think they likely have some more info than the public does based on their close relationship and living situation with Shantina, but I'm not sure how much info LE would share with them. I know that LE doesn't share everything with family, and whereas Robb and his daughter were close to Shantina, they were not yet family. Additionally, I think it is normal for those close to a missing person to hold out more hope for a longer period of time than those not close. Denial is part of the grieving process.

 

[BeanE]

IMO, if they are holding back information, it's because they aren't entirely convinced something untoward didn't happen, that they are open to the possibility there was foul play somehow, somewhere along the way.

I don't know. In some cases, as time has gone on, I've found out pieces of info much later that LE held close to the vest that for the life of me I couldn't find to have any potential bearing on the case. I've found LE overall to have a "hold back everything" attitude. Sort of "best say nothing about anything rather than risk slipping about something important".

I do think that LE remains, of necessity, open to the possibility of crime, however remote, in all cases, until they can close it. It could potentially make them look quite foolish to do otherwise, and I wouldn't think they're fond of that potential prospect.

In this specific case, I believe one of Mealy's most recent statements was specifically something along the lines of "whereas we are open to other possibilities, we believe they were swept out by the tide and drowned". I take that at face value, particularly since Az's death was ruled accidental.

 

[BeanE]

Good conversation. Thank you again, Calliope and SMK. I understand better where you're coming from.

 

[SMK]

Good conversation. Thank you again, Calliope and SMK. I understand better where you're coming from.

Thank you, in turn!!!:innocent:

 

[LCoastMom]

Supposedly showed her passing by again after calling her grandfather from the Williams', yes.

ETA: that was what was reported; I haven't seen that particular video.

Was the clip of her looking in the window and the clip of her at the telephone with the Out of Order sign - the same time clip?

I'm 99% sure you can't see the inside of the van in the 10:30 ish clip if it is the one of her just driving by. (hazy figure at best) If she is in the actual parking lot you may be able to see into the front - like where she clipped the front tire on the curb at the pump - The windows are tinted but there is a sun/moon roof that allows overhead light. I thought I saw the 1030ish clip early on -once; but several of the vids seem to show up on the news - like the one Fox used of the Mercantile to show her driving out of HP - so I could be remembering incorrectly.