Elisa Lam possible victim of Serial murderer?

[findinganatta]

How would chlorine effect her blood system? I could see being in the water would wash DNA or trace elements off the body on the outside but I doubt it would wash the insides quite like you think it would. Plus this is drinking water levels of chlorine, not swimming pool

Yes, exactly what I was getting at. This assertion sounds even more odd the second time I'm reading it. Perhaps 2Hip2B got confused or read some bad information.

 

[Nickfalzone]

Thank you for the Morbid reference. I have done extensive research on him and actually believe him to be innocent and actually framed as he was supporting a female friend in a case against a group of men who drugged her and kidnapped her. My theory had been that maybe these men framed morbid with Elisa's death bc Morbid has said in publication he lives in attics and top floors of hostels. If they could ruin Morbid's credibility, it would make this rape gangs claims of innocence seem more valid. This is the only real theory I have as to morbid.

Although I don't think this is the case with Elisa. I think it probably has no connection with Morbid or his aid as a witness in his friends drug and rape case. I think it is all pure coincidence.

I read your other comments on this theory & I just don't buy it. Morbid being "framed" would suggest that there is now sufficient evidence that he is responsible... which is hardly the case (unless the police are holding it back). There's some weak internet speculation out there that puts him as a possible suspect, but if someone truly wanted to frame him, they did not do a great job of it. I think it's a stretch to say that he is the one that did it, then a huge leap of faith to believe that someone else did it and also framed him for it. Borderline preposterous.

 

[helenjean]

Does anyone know when toxicology reports are to be released? I know they tend to take some time.

Honestly, and I don't know why this has been brought up several times in a variety of news sources, but I just don't see panic or fear or anything of the sort in the elevator surveillance video. I know it's a bit grainy, but her face looks calm even expressionless most of the time aside from a few goofy or silly expressions like one would expect from someone under the influence.

It looks like she came in and pressed about every button to every floor, which is already strange. Why the elevator door stayed open so long is odd, but again, she did press several buttons. She seems to be talking go herself at one point outside of the elevator, and she comes back in holding head a little, like someone under the influence but doesn't seem distressed just out of it. I don't believe she was at this point in danger or with anyone else. I'm a actually a bit surprised that no one walked by, or came in the elevator, as she was waiting there awhile.

The mystery to me is not so much how she got to the roof - sometimes these doors aren't secure and from reading around, the hotel was known to not be in tip top shape or have the security other hotels may have - but how she got into those giant 10-foot tanks. Are there ladders on the sides? I somehow feel however that her death was accidental. I also remember reading (sorry, I'll have to see if I can dig up the sources again but I believe this detail was provided by a friend of EL's or even from an online journal entry of hers) that EL may have suffered from a mild form of bipolar disorder, which in any case, could lead to confusion or odd behavior.m

That's all I got but I think a toxicology report will help give us s better idea of what might've happened.

 

[Sillybilly]

Does anyone know when toxicology reports are to be released? I know they tend to take some time.

<rsbm>

IIRC, they said 6 to 8 weeks, and we're into the 7th week now. Shouldn't be long :crossfingers:

 

[2Hip2BSquare]

Interesting... I figured that DNA might be an issue given the circumstances, but is it really true about the chlorine/refiltering aspect affecting their ability to pick up drug toxicity in her system? I was not familiar with that information, and the news/police certainly didn't indicate that in their stories (not that they necessarily would, I guess). Did you read that somewhere? Thanks!

Also, in terms of signs of assault (sexual or otherwise), there would likely be other indicators, which was what I was actually referring to in my reply. I was taking the DNA part out of the equation altogether. However, whether those signs of intercourse/assault would be visible after the weeks in the cistern are another question. From what I read online regarding info about other cases, they can last in water--especially if it is relatively cold like that of the cistern apparently was.

Ugh, this is getting into some pretty unpleasant detail : / I can't imagine doing this kind of forensic or autopsy work for a living.

Thank you for your reply! I totally can understand your conjecture with the idea that the water would compromise the toxicology results. I believe you are right that there would have to be some of the substance she was drugged with left in her body.


I believe she had no putter signs of trauma because she was drugged and passed out while assaulted, unable to defend herself or fight to get away. Then she was dropped into the cistern while still completely passed out in a state of extreme CNS depression. She drown, but because she was incapacitated when put into the tank. Imo

 

[2Hip2BSquare]

I read your other comments on this theory & I just don't buy it. Morbid being "framed" would suggest that there is now sufficient evidence that he is responsible... which is hardly the case (unless the police are holding it back). There's some weak internet speculation out there that puts him as a possible suspect, but if someone truly wanted to frame him, they did not do a great job of it. I think it's a stretch to say that he is the one that did it, then a huge leap of faith to believe that someone else did it and also framed him for it. Borderline preposterous.

I don't believe morbid has anything to do with, though many people think he does. My point is that it is not in his character, given his loyalties to his friend who was drugged and raped. It would be more likely someone connected to him than him, if there's any connection to Morbid at all - but I don't believe there is. It's more in my support of him bc I believe him to be innocent although many in court of public opinion have already deemed him #1 suspect.

 

[cluciano63]

Does anyone know when toxicology reports are to be released? I know they tend to take some time.

Honestly, and I don't know why this has been brought up several times in a variety of news sources, but I just don't see panic or fear or anything of the sort in the elevator surveillance video. I know it's a bit grainy, but her face looks calm even expressionless most of the time aside from a few goofy or silly expressions like one would expect from someone under the influence.

It looks like she came in and pressed about every button to every floor, which is already strange. Why the elevator door stayed open so long is odd, but again, she did press several buttons. She seems to be talking go herself at one point outside of the elevator, and she comes back in holding head a little, like someone under the influence but doesn't seem distressed just out of it. I don't believe she was at this point in danger or with anyone else. I'm a actually a bit surprised that no one walked by, or came in the elevator, as she was waiting there awhile.

The mystery to me is not so much how she got to the roof - sometimes these doors aren't secure and from reading around, the hotel was known to not be in tip top shape or have the security other hotels may have - but how she got into those giant 10-foot tanks. Are there ladders on the sides? I somehow feel however that her death was accidental. I also remember reading (sorry, I'll have to see if I can dig up the sources again but I believe this detail was provided by a friend of EL's or even from an online journal entry of hers) that EL may have suffered from a mild form of bipolar disorder, which in any case, could lead to confusion or odd behavior.m

That's all I got but I think a toxicology report will help give us s better idea of what might've happened.

I have to agree with you. I do not see any fear or panic in her actions on the video, or signs of anyone else being around at all. I really do think that tox results will show a combination of medications that resulted in an accidental overdose. I might be convinced that someone found her body and hid it, rather than report it, if evidence points in that direction, but will have to wait and see. I have seen cases here at WS where even relatives have hidden the bodies of a loved one who overdosed, rather than risk being "blamed." So certainly casual "friends" might do the same. But I have a feeling her system will not show illegal drugs, but rather a deadly combo of prescribed meds. JMO

 

[Conductor71]

<snipped for space>


I believe she had no putter signs of trauma because she was drugged and passed out while assaulted, unable to defend herself or fight to get away. Then she was dropped into the cistern while still completely passed out in a state of extreme CNS depression. She drown, but because she was incapacitated when put into the tank. Imo

Yes, that has been my opinion all along too. She very well could have been slipped excess dosages of her own prescription meds which would further confound any death investigation.

 

[Conductor71]

<rsbm>

IIRC, they said 6 to 8 weeks, and we're into the 7th week now. Shouldn't be long :crossfingers:

Errm...someone posted in the Updates thread that an LA Times reporter is saying they expect it more like mid May.

 

[2Hip2BSquare]

Yes, exactly what I was getting at. This assertion sounds even more odd the second time I'm reading it. Perhaps 2Hip2B got confused or read some bad information.

Water in general affects many toxicology results. Toxicology simply checks the presence of drug or poison in the body, not DNA. Unfortunately GHB is a water soluble drug as well as a naturally occurring component of the body. Also after GHB has introduced itself to the body, it takes on the properties of Carbon and Hydrogen. Post mortem it is difficult, especially if the person did not digest the GHB into their urinary tract before death, to determine if the GHB in a body was naturally present or was ingested. This is why GHB is such a scary drug. 250ml can cause a coma in which the victim is not responsive to physical trauma/violence.

Whereas the measurement of postmortem GHB concentrations are of great medico-legal importance, these results must be interpreted cautiously because endogenous postmortem concentrations rise significantly immediately after death (Fieler et al. 1998; Roth 1970; Stephens et al. 1999). Not surprisingly, these elevated endogenous concentrations appear to overlap concentrations reported after alleged fatal GHB overdoses. In one review, blood GHB concentrations following fatal overdose were reported to range from 27-121 mg/L in 4 patients. A random sampling of 20 autopsy blood samples (no GHB ingested) found blood GHB concentrations ranging from 3.2-168 mg/L (mean 25 mg/L) in 15 of them (Fieler et al. 1998). Because postmortem urine GHB concentrations remain relatively unchanged, it has been suggested that urine GHB specimens are preferred during investigation of suspected GHB-related deaths (Stephens et al. 1999); however, more recent evidence indicates this is not the case. Urinary GHB was detected in 12 of 13 GHB-unrelated fatalities in concentrations ranging from 6-217 mg/L (Elliott 2001).

It is also of special concern that the analysis of whole blood containing trisodium citrate-citric acid buffer has yielded false-positive results for GHB (LeBeau et al. 2000). The findings from several reports of postmortem GHB and related drug concentrations have been included in Table 1. In each case the nature of the ingestion has been supported by analysis of ingested material or a history consistent with the reported findings.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/forensic-science-communications/fsc/jan2002/hornfelt.htm/

 

[2Hip2BSquare]

What is scary is that they must have seen from her autopsy that her lungs may not have showed as extensive signs of aspiration as they would expect with someone who is lucid during their suffocation. They must have seen that the state of her lungs (being they were not as bloated and damaged as expected) indicated some CNS depression before drowning. Also, if she struggled and was lucid, there would be a greater amount of internal bleeding within her brain as her CNS system would have been alerting like crazy, driving up her blood pressure and increasing the rate of internal blood flow/ circulatory trauma.

 

[findinganatta]

Water in general affects many toxicology results. Toxicology simply checks the presence of drug or poison in the body, not DNA. Unfortunately GHB is a water soluble drug as well as a naturally occurring component of the body. Also after GHB has introduced itself to the body, it takes on the properties of Carbon and Hydrogen. Post mortem it is difficult, especially if the person did not digest the GHB into their urinary tract before death, to determine if the GHB in a body was naturally present or was ingested. This is why GHB is such a scary drug. 250ml can cause a coma in which the victim is not responsive to physical trauma/violence.

Whereas the measurement of postmortem GHB concentrations are of great medico-legal importance, these results must be interpreted cautiously because endogenous postmortem concentrations rise significantly immediately after death (Fieler et al. 1998; Roth 1970; Stephens et al. 1999). Not surprisingly, these elevated endogenous concentrations appear to overlap concentrations reported after alleged fatal GHB overdoses. In one review, blood GHB concentrations following fatal overdose were reported to range from 27-121 mg/L in 4 patients. A random sampling of 20 autopsy blood samples (no GHB ingested) found blood GHB concentrations ranging from 3.2-168 mg/L (mean 25 mg/L) in 15 of them (Fieler et al. 1998). Because postmortem urine GHB concentrations remain relatively unchanged, it has been suggested that urine GHB specimens are preferred during investigation of suspected GHB-related deaths (Stephens et al. 1999); however, more recent evidence indicates this is not the case. Urinary GHB was detected in 12 of 13 GHB-unrelated fatalities in concentrations ranging from 6-217 mg/L (Elliott 2001).

It is also of special concern that the analysis of whole blood containing trisodium citrate-citric acid buffer has yielded false-positive results for GHB (LeBeau et al. 2000). The findings from several reports of postmortem GHB and related drug concentrations have been included in Table 1. In each case the nature of the ingestion has been supported by analysis of ingested material or a history consistent with the reported findings.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/forensic-science-communications/fsc/jan2002/hornfelt.htm/

Ok, I understand the gist of what you're getting at about GHB detection presenting difficulties, but I don't see how the body floating in water would be particularly relevant (unless, of course, it was so severely decomposed that almost any internal evidence would be gone, whether GHB or whatever).

Most of what you posted is general issues with GHB detection, but not specifically related to a body in water, unless I'm misreading it. Assuming the conditions of a corpse are such that GHB would be detectible, I don't understand how floating in water--water that is on the body--would wash out the inside of the body of GHB evidence. After all, skin functions as a barrier to the outside environment, even after some degree of decay. It's not as if the water a body is floating in somehow flushes through the body's system, or am I wrong? I don't see how the organs, veins, etc, inside the body would even come into contact with the water unless the body's decay reached those parts.

But I'm certainly no expert on such things. I'm just basing these ideas on a combination of logical analysis (my version of it, anyway ) and facts from previous cases in which substances were able to be detected in bodies that were in water for extended periods of time.

What I'm really trying to ask, in a long-winded way, is: by what mechanism or action would the water in the cistern clean out evidence of a drug from inside EL's body?

(BTW, they identified her from markings on her body, so her skin was presumably still intact)

 

[2Hip2BSquare]

Ok, I understand the gist of what you're getting at about GHB detection presenting difficulties, but I don't see how the body floating in water would be particularly relevant (unless, of course, it was so severely decomposed that almost any internal evidence would be gone, whether GHB or whatever).

Most of what you posted is general issues with GHB detection, but not specifically related to a body in water, unless I'm misreading it. Assuming the conditions of a corpse are such that GHB would be detectible, I don't understand how floating in water--water that is on the body--would wash out the inside of the body of GHB evidence. After all, skin functions as a barrier to the outside environment, even after some degree of decay. It's not as if the water a body is floating in somehow flushes through the body's system, or am I wrong? I don't see how the organs, veins, etc, inside the body would even come into contact with the water unless the body's decay reached those parts.

But I'm certainly no expert on such things. I'm just basing these ideas on a combination of logical analysis (my version of it, anyway ) and facts from previous cases in which substances were able to be detected in bodies that were in water for extended periods of time.

What I'm really trying to ask, in a long-winded way, is: by what mechanism or action would the water in the cistern clean out evidence of a drug from inside EL's body?

(BTW, they identified her from markings on her body, so her skin was presumably still intact)

A body floating in water in an enclosed space usually suffers head trauma and trauma to the shoulders, hands, and feet bc the rigormortis causes the body to become stiff and when the head hits the side of the cistern this culd make it difficult to differentiate between pre and post mortem physical trauma.

Water dilutes samples and softens tissues as well as secretes into the lungs and blood stream, making toxicology samples more difficult to contain. The water also causes masecation of the skin which also makes it difficult to determine any bruising or outter signs of trauma on the skin. It makes the body abnormally gassy, causing much gastrointestinal bloating and a change in the internal chemistry of the body. Bodies usually excrete more when in water - blood, urine, and feces. This cleansing of the bowels and bloodstream makes it even more difficult to obtain a sample. you add elements to a body like water, it complicates things especially with toxicology (which is what I thought we were talking about was toxicology and not trauma that would have been apparent during autopsy). That's why there is a specific field in post mortem toxicology for bodies found in water. Putrification in water causes the human body to even sucrete ethanol, which can cause a false positive for alcohol. Essentially, a human body in water in a cistern ferments like a grape fermenting in a barrel. The process of fermentation causes extreme elemental changes and metamorphosis.

Most times in toxicology with a body found in water, it is first understood to consider the external factors rather than rely on toxicology results. You are taught to consider that if they were said to have alcohol issues or have drank before their death, most likely that is the cause even if you can't get a positive result of ethanol.

If the marks they identified her with are due to scarring (tattoos or birth mark) typically these are deep tissue scars and extremely subdermal. Even if the outter layer of skin was compromised, the scarring of tissue remaining would still indicate where scars on the skin were.

Lol sorry this is all so complicated! Forensics sheesh.

 

[2Hip2BSquare]

Also a body in stagnant water makes it difficult for SAR dogs to pick up a positive scent. The microscopic flakes of skin and particles emmenating from the body need to be airborne for the scent to be picked up by dogs. Essentially the water helps smother the scent a bit and wind sheer can blow what scents are detectable to the Dogs into dispersion or a different direction from the body. Dogs can pick up bodies when they are in water, but it is typically less reliable. This is why we don't use SAR dogs on boats to detect a body during SAR above bodies of water.

 

[2Hip2BSquare]

<bbm>

They did not say what you have in quotes (unless you were quoting from another unlinked article). The article you linked to actually says:



In considering a possible SK, FWIW, the Newport Beach victim, Tina had a 1 month old baby (which the media has not addressed beyond that). We do not know where that baby is, but it is certainly something that sets her apart from both Elisa and the more recent death in Goleta of Giselle Esme Ayala.

What I wrote in quotes was a failed attempt at trying to signify sarcasm as if to say "oh yeah there's no foul play at all...". I often forget being new to message boards I need to watch my sarcasm fingers. Lol!

I do agree that there are differences considering Tina had a baby before and Giselle's case has a strong possibility of being an accidental drowning/overdose. Just thought it was interesting that these two women are found on the beach the way they were. Who just left their good friend there to die on the beach during that festival? What kind of guy would just leave her laying there like that? It was in a popular surf spot that her body was found. You'd think some stragglers from the Festival would have come across her before 8am. Everyone I talk to here thinks it was strange bc you just don't hear about young girls being found on the beach like this in southern California. I guess it is a sad freak occurrence maybe?

I can say the cases you hear of with bodies on the beach here are typically older transients who are male. The bodies that wash ashore are usually tourists bc they don't understand that they can get swept out to sea standing on a rocky jetty. Seems like if these girls were wondering around the beach aimlessly before they died that a lifeguard night patroling the beach would have seen them.

Lol sorry still laughing about my inability to find an accurate way to establish quoted fingers. Guess I'll have to use the emoticons

 

[2Hip2BSquare]

Possibly the poor victim in Santa Barbers simply drowned and when the tide went back out by morning time her body was left ashore. Poor girl. I just want to make sure we stay on top of her case JUST IN CASE. I'll keep everyone updated if anything else comes in/seems strange. Thanks guys for all your opinions on my serial murderer theory (one of my many theories in this puzzling and sad case as it seems there are so many possibilities surround Elisa's demise).

RIP Elisa. Feel free to add more opinions/validations/objections/etc!

 

[Ghostwheel]

Also a body in stagnant water makes it difficult for SAR dogs to pick up a positive scent. The microscopic flakes of skin and particles emmenating from the body need to be airborne for the scent to be picked up by dogs. Essentially the water helps smother the scent a bit and wind sheer can blow what scents are detectable to the Dogs into dispersion or a different direction from the body. Dogs can pick up bodies when they are in water, but it is typically less reliable. This is why we don't use SAR dogs on boats to detect a body during SAR above bodies of water.

But what about any scent from whatever path the body being scented takes? Most people, if walking, touch a railing, a wall, accidentally rub against a door frame, etc, leaving traces. An unconscious person being carried would, imo, even more likely get rubbed against something (a wall, a door, a door frame, etc). I would think (only MO) that the dogs would pick up on that somewhere on the roof or on the way to the roof, assuming the correct dogs were used (was she still alive, or deceased, we don't know).

 

[Ghostwheel]

What I wrote in quotes was a failed attempt at trying to signify sarcasm as if to say "oh yeah there's no foul play at all...". I often forget being new to message boards I need to watch my sarcasm fingers. Lol!

I do agree that there are differences considering Tina had a baby before and Giselle's case has a strong possibility of being an accidental drowning/overdose. Just thought it was interesting that these two women are found on the beach the way they were. Who just left their good friend there to die on the beach during that festival? What kind of guy would just leave her laying there like that? It was in a popular surf spot that her body was found. You'd think some stragglers from the Festival would have come across her before 8am. Everyone I talk to here thinks it was strange bc you just don't hear about young girls being found on the beach like this in southern California. I guess it is a sad freak occurrence maybe?

I can say the cases you hear of with bodies on the beach here are typically older transients who are male. The bodies that wash ashore are usually tourists bc they don't understand that they can get swept out to sea standing on a rocky jetty. Seems like if these girls were wondering around the beach aimlessly before they died that a lifeguard night patroling the beach would have seen them.

Lol sorry still laughing about my inability to find an accurate way to establish quoted fingers. Guess I'll have to use the emoticons

You can always do what I do: ****Sarcasm Alert On****

 

[2Hip2BSquare]

But what about any scent from whatever path the body being scented takes? Most people, if walking, touch a railing, a wall, accidentally rub against a door frame, etc, leaving traces. An unconscious person being carried would, imo, even more likely get rubbed against something (a wall, a door, a door frame, etc). I would think (only MO) that the dogs would pick up on that somewhere on the roof or on the way to the roof, assuming the correct dogs were used (was she still alive, or deceased, we don't know).

Thank you! This is a great question and one that I can somewhat answer.

Canine search dogs All are very different and have very different purposes.

http://www.ussartf.org/dogs_search_rescue.htm

The article above explains that there is a difference between an Airscent dog, tracking Dog, Trailing Dog, Cadaver Dog, etc. if Elisa was already deceased in water on the roof and they only had the canines that tracked her LIViNG scent or Airscent dogs, they would not be very likely to hone in on Elisa's deceased body. However, if a cadaver dog would have been brought to the roof, it most likely would have picked up on her scent. This may just be a case of detectives not believing a victim was deceased and choosing the corresponding SAR dog to track her living scent.

Man, you would think a canine SAR unit would have all the tracking, trailing, and cadaver dogs working. Maybe they were too busy sending the extra dogs over to find Chris Dorner? The idea alone makes me so sad.

 

[2Hip2BSquare]

You can always do what I do: ****Sarcasm Alert On****

Thanks ghostwheel! That actually works great for me! Great minds yadda yadda...