NC NC - Sara Graham, 18, Fairmont, 4 February 2015 - #2

[kdg411]

Someone in the last thread mentioned that LE still has the van when they talked to LE. That's a small, but important fact depending on what's IN the van.

It was released already to Sara's Dad but he's choosing not to park it in front of his home. This is what we've been advised of. I'd like to know more about where that other information came from? i.e. Source?

 

[EmmaRose]

It's a fill-in-the-blanks type case but some of the answers are pretty easy to guess. For purposes of discussion I will assume there are no witnesses or surveillance tape evidence (unless specifically stated) since none has been mentioned.

1. She was wearing nondescript clothing when she left for her job at Walmart at 6:30. She wasn't naked because that would have been descriptive and mentioned I imagine. Two witnesses have reported they were leaving at the same time. If she didn't leave for her job at Walmart aull bets are off. We've been deceived. None of the information can be relied upon if the basic assumption isn't true.
2. We don't know the route she took. The location of the van at the intersection of Chicken Road and McDonald Road is a weak indicator she took Chicken Road to work. Other routes are possible and Centerville Church Road may be the route that would provide the best opportunity for an abduction.
3. No abduction time is known other than to say that if there was an abduction it occurred before 10:30 when the van was reported.
4. No signs of an abduction were found such as indicators of a scuffle. The van was found empty and locked with personal effects removed.
5. She didn't arrive for work. Apparently she never even made it to the parking lot.
6. She's never returned home nor made contact with family or personal friends of which we are aware.

See if you can agree with these points above. The initial size and scope of the search seem to imply an abduction was suspected and we were told she was not a runaway. But what I see is a missing person.

ETA: Forgot to mention one little thing. And it's the reason I've never seen this as a missing person case. She left everything behind as far as we are aware. So what is this case?

You still got it, Han. Love reading your posts.

 

[FindHG]

Han... been think hard about your concern about the clothes. All the possibilities on why there's so little information that I'm able to think of seem not wise to post, speculatively even. I don't mean to bait you in any way by mentioning this, you're so smart and fluidly thoughtful that I'm sure you've considered them too. Why is only her Walmart vest given in the public description? There may be aspects of what they found only an abductor would know that an on going investigation precludes release off would be my vague guess. I'll appreciate reading what you think about this.

 

[carbuff]

The other thing that bugs me about mentioning only the work vest is that if she did leave on her own, that would be the first thing she would take off. So you'd think they would include at least a general impression of her clothing: dark pants, light-colored outfit, a skirt?

The focus on the vest makes me think they're only interested in sightings from that morning. Like they think they know what happened but can't find any evidence.

 

[FindHG]

The other thing that bugs me about mentioning only the work vest is that if she did leave on her own, that would be the first thing she would take off. So you'd think they would include at least a general impression of her clothing: dark pants, light-colored outfit, a skirt?

The focus on the vest makes me think they're only interested in sightings from that morning. Like they think they know what happened but can't find any evidence.

Agreed

 

[Yvettea]

Han, 808paradise is right. You are great grist to the mill, don't ever feel crushed

Didn't know you were a comic.

 

[FindHG]

Didn't know you were a comic.

Wanted to cheer you up, Han. So what do you think?

 

[Yvettea]

It was released already to Sara's Dad but he's choosing not to park it in front of his home. This is what we've been advised of. I'd like to know more about where that other information came from? i.e. Source?

This is the answer I received from the sheriffs dept. when I inquired, using their Facebook site, about their plans to have a press conference on the one-month anniversary of Sara's disappearance. I also suggested that reminding the public about the make, model, year, and color of the van might still be helpful, even a month later, because someone might still remember having seen it that morning. I did not ask if the county still had the van:

Robeson County Sheriff Kenneth Sealey
Sara's van is here in the county. The van is not gone, only Sara. It is still being investigated. Thank you for your concern.
Mar 4 at 8:06am · Sent from Messenger

 

[Yvettea]

Wanted to cheer you up, Han. So what do you think?

I think I feel like grist but you're probably asking me what I think about the clothing?

 

[granola]

It was released already to Sara's Dad but he's choosing not to park it in front of his home. This is what we've been advised of. I'd like to know more about where that other information came from? i.e. Source?

Oh, then maybe I'm misremembering. Never mind.

Edit: Just saw Han's reply, I think I must have misread that response.

 

[FindHG]

I think I feel like grist but you're probably asking me what I think about the clothing?

Yes, why do you think it is just the vest in the description? You're great grist.

 

[Yvettea]

Oh, then maybe I'm misremembering. Never mind.

Edit: Just saw Han's reply, I think I must have misread that response.

No, I don't think you're wrong. Because I think I heard that too. And then I get this response from the sheriffs department saying they still have the van. So I don't know what to think.

 

[Yvettea]

Yes, why do you think it is just the vest in the description? You're great grist.

Personally, I think it shows incompetence that the clothing was not mentioned in the description. Because the goal is to find Sara I would certainly describe what she was wearing beyond just the description of the vest. Not withstanding the fact that it could become evidence later, it would be of primary importance to include to help find Sara. MOO

It was just a guess on my part they may have omitted it because it was nondescript clothing.

 

[FindHG]

Personally, I think it shows incompetence that the clothing was not mentioned in the description. Because the goal is to find Sara I would certainly describe what she was wearing beyond just the description of the vest. Not withstanding the fact that it could become evidence later, it would be of primary importance to include to help find Sara. MOO

It was just a guess on my part they may have omitted it because it was nondescript clothing.

Thank you, good to know what you think. What could become evidence later, if you had to guess?

 

[Meri]

No, I don't think you're wrong. Because I think I heard that too. And then I get this response from the sheriffs department saying they still have the van. So I don't know what to think.

I don't interpret this the same way you are. Being "in the county' to me means the van is still in the area, not that they actually have it. It's not gone missing (like Sara) but is still local.

 

[Yvettea]

Why is only her Walmart vest given in the public description? There may be aspects of what they found only an abductor would know that an on going investigation precludes release off would be my vague guess. I'll appreciate reading what you think about this.

The focus on the vest makes me think they're only interested in sightings from that morning. Like they think they know what happened but can't find any evidence.

I can't think of anything we know they found or anything we know they know as far as what's happened

 

[Yvettea]

I don't interpret this the same way you are. Being "in the county' to me means the van is still in the area, not that they actually have it. It's not gone missing (like Sara) but is still local.

But if you look back at what I posted the information she sent said the van is still being investigated. Wouldn't that mean the van is still in the impound lot?

ETA: It should refer back to the subject in the prior sentence being the van. So the van is still being investigated should be the meaning but they may just be playing fast and loose with semantics.

 

[808paradise]

I read it to mean, "in the county's possession." Or short for I the county impound lot. Having lived in the south for many years, that is just how I read it. YMMV and JMO

 

[charminglane]

What time and by whom was Sara last seen the day before she went poof?
We have no idea, correct?

 

[Yvettea]

What time and by whom was Sara last seen the day before she went poof?
We have no idea, correct?

i don't think anybody ever bothered to ask that before. Why didn't we think to ask that? Since she went missing the very first thing the next morning It would have been nice to know. I do remember her father saying he was watching television with her the night before.

Makes me wonder what they were watching.