AK - Samantha Koenig, 18, Anchorage, 1 Feb 2012 - #3

[bdawk20]

Another dtail I am having issue with is the fact that the barista who opened the hut the following morning states that the hut was not cleaned, there were cups of coffee on the counter and SAM'S BELONGINGS WERE LEFT STILL AT THE HUT IN HER CUBBY.
http://www.adn.com/2012/02/03/2298379/police-continue-search-for-missing.html#storylink=misearch

Imo thats not something someone would just fabricate and state to reporters as well as I assume she reported to LE... This barista would have no reason to make up such details such as her coworkers belongings still being in the cubby at the hut when the barista came into work that following morning.. Those are criticial items and crucial details of the incident that had taken place the night prior.. Another reason I believe this barista in her stating this is the fact that she tells that at the time she sees her coworkers belongings were left there that at that point no one was under the impression something nefarious had occurred.. Therefor its not as tho shes stating this claim that it was her discovering the belongings that set in motion discovering the abduction.. Imo there just is zero reason or cause for this barista to have stated something absolutely false and untrue..

Yet sure enough several days later we are told that it is untrue
http://www.adn.com/2012/02/08/2307318/police-report-some-progress-in.html#storylink=misearch
and that Sam DID NOT LEAVE ANY OF HER BELONGINGS BEHIND AT THE HUT! MEANING THAT AS SAM WAS ABDUCTED SHE WAS EITHER ALLOWED OR INSTRUCTED TO RETRIEVE ALL OF HER BELONGINGS FROM THE CUBBY AND TO TAKE WITH HER AS WELL AS ALLOWED TO LOCK UP THE HUT PRIOR TO THEY'RE WALKING OFF(which realy makes no sense when the money was taken when they left, essentially robbing the establishment and then locking up to prevent what? Robbery? Wtf?)..
I find it to be highly suspicious that the barista would have any motive to lie and state Sam's belongings were there if they WERE NOT!

AND believe it or not, that answer was changed yet again. Some time ago, the question about whether her belongings were left behind or not was posed on her Help Find fb page, and the admin answered that they WERE left behind. This was quite a while ago, and I won't be able to copy iy here, but I will search around there and see if I can find the date and let you know. I agree that it makes the most sense that the original report that came from the barista was correct and her things were left behind. I have to wonder what the motivation to change that story was?

 

[Simply Caustic]

For you or I, maybe it would not be unlocked, but we don't know if maybe she would take the trash out and not relock it. Maybe she smoked, and would go in and out often without locking it. My next door neighbor goes away for the entire weekend and crazily leaves ALL of her downstairs windows wide open, so there's no telling from one person to another what the general rule is.


jmo

Some restaurants will prop open the backdoor while the employee tosses the trash - so the employee, especially if alone, doesn't get locked out. Same with smoking. While I worked at the coffee shop, I always propped open the backdoor with the trash can, while I walked the bags to the dumpster.

 

[SmoothOperator]

Common Grounds owners Tyler and Michelle Duncan said that the stand was locked up the next morning, but it was messy inside and all the cash was missing. Earlier reports that Koenig left behind her belongings at the stand were incorrect -- her purse, coat and cellphone were gone, Michelle Duncan said -- and there wasn't anything that immediately suggested an abduction, she said.

"The first baristas didn't see anything we haven't seen before (with other employees)," Tyler Duncan said. "It just looked like she did a real poor job of closing."

It wasn't the money that had them review the tape.. in fact they opened at 8 and none of the above were alarming(including the money) .. it wasn't until after noon they learned that Sam never made it home nor had been seen that at that point they reviewed the surveillance video and alerted LE.. it wasn't the money..

 

[Simply Caustic]

It wasn't the money that had them review the tape.. in fact they opened at 8 and none of the above were alarming(including the money) .. it wasn't until after noon they learned that Sam never made it home nor had been seen that at that point they reviewed the surveillance video and alerted LE.. it wasn't the money..

It's incredibly odd to me that they would be missing money and not review the tape. It's best practice in the QSR industry. The only thing I can imagine, then, is that they hadn't yet done the 'closeout' of the prior night's sales? Unless they don't even have a safe, and just leave the money in the drawer (which I'd also find highly unlikely).

Either way, I wonder why on earth they wouldn't wonder where their money was at - and why their employee had left the store in a shambles, and (maybe?) left their belongings in the store....

 

[Snowbunny]

Just another thought I thought I'd throw out there. I take it the cam in the hut faced the door and if this is the case is it possible SK stepped out the door to dump the trash and the perp went inside the hut while she was dumping the trash and the cam caught her reaction as she opened the door and the perp grabbed her then not facing the cam himself? Just a thought.

 

[Simply Caustic]

Common Grounds owners Tyler and Michelle Duncan said that the stand was locked up the next morning, but it was messy inside and all the cash was missing. Earlier reports that Koenig left behind her belongings at the stand were incorrect -- her purse, coat and cellphone were gone, Michelle Duncan said -- and there wasn't anything that immediately suggested an abduction, she said.

"The first baristas didn't see anything we haven't seen before (with other employees)," Tyler Duncan said. "It just looked like she did a real poor job of closing."]

The above bolded by me.

Those two statements seem conflicting (IMO). Sure, they may have seen crappy closing jobs before - I don't doubt that. But as far as 'anything we haven't seen before' - all the cash missing? Hmpf. Just not believable, IMO. Why on earth wouldn't you immediately research all avenues at your disposal to obtain information on where your money went - especially when you could, with a few clicks of a mouse, view it as it occurred.

If all the money in the till was missing, how did the first employees in, make change/complete sales? Did they not notify the managers/owners immediately that the cash drawer was empty (so as to not be liable themselves....'it was empty when we got here at such-and-such time'). Were they just so busy at opening time until they were contacted re: Samantha, that they didn't have time to review the tape? Again, not believable in my humble opinion.
--
How do we know that they didn't notify anyone until noon? Is there any scenario in which LE could be holding back that information, and if so, why? I can't imagine a feasible scenario, but in a case with as many twists and turns as this, I would not be surprised.

 

[Simply Caustic]

Speculation....

What if there is not a tape...and LE was bluffing...maybe the car 50 feet away DID observe someone? That's how they got the limited description, including the 'fear' of Samantha? It's possible for the end user in front of the cameras to stop recording, if they have the login information. If Samantha were involved, or if the perp knew the login info, the last recorded incident could be long before the robbery....perhaps they wanted Samantha and/or the perp to think that the tape WAS still recording (you can also turn on/off recording remotely, and the owners may have utilized this feature, had someone turned the recording off @ the store), hence the limited information given? I don't think this is very likely, because I think a lack of a video would trigger a call to police instantly upon the missing money being discovered - but I would ALSO think that any owner would immediately review the tape....if it existed.
---
I'm not big on conspiracy theories. I'm only offering this as a potential reason behind not showing the tape to the public, the limited information offered, etc.
---
MOO Speculation only

 

[Snowbunny]

Its very possible that LE put it out there that the perp obscured his idenity on the cam to let the perp think they don't know who he is but yet LE may very well know who he is and is watching him. If the dude thinks he got away with something he's likely to get a little overly confident and possibably screw up. I know we use to use that a lot when doing interrogations. JMO

 

[cluciano63]

I find it hard to believe LE would be playing games in a case with a missing and possibly alive victim...i.e. if they know who he is, but not where, they need to issue an APB and find him, not wait until they trip over him, maybe, someday...JMO

 

[Snowbunny]

I find it hard to believe LE would be playing games in a case with a missing and possibly alive victim...i.e. if they know who he is, but not where, they need to issue an APB and find him, not wait until they trip over him, maybe, someday...JMO

They may know who he is but not where he is and by letting him think they don't know who he is he may come out of hiding. This is what I was implying.

 

[TxLady2]

There would be no reason for him to come out of hiding, whether they know who he is or not. Why would he come out now and risk going to jail? So far he's got away with it.

 

[sfbaynancydrew]

I find it hard to believe LE would be playing games in a case with a missing and possibly alive victim...i.e. if they know who he is, but not where, they need to issue an APB and find him, not wait until they trip over him, maybe, someday...JMO

Heh. Maybe they were thinking they'd just catch him when they pull him over to generate revenue for the city or state. They figure he has to roll a stop sign, speed, fail to yield, use his cell while driving, etc at least one of these days! And when he does...they'll be there!!

Sorry, I'm a little bitter since that's all the police seem to do around *here* is glorified meter maid work...

 

[amber1]

Heh. Maybe they were thinking they'd just catch him when they pull him over to generate revenue for the city or state. They figure he has to roll a stop sign, speed, fail to yield, use his cell while driving, etc at least one of these days! And when he does...they'll be there!!

Sorry, I'm a little bitter since that's all the police seem to do around *here* is glorified meter maid work...

Agreed, my friend

 

[bdawk20]

There would be no reason for him to come out of hiding, whether they know who he is or not. Why would he come out now and risk going to jail? So far he's got away with it.

If they do not know who he is, he could very well already be out of hiding and walking among them.

 

[SmoothOperator]

My belief is that a) there is definitely a tape.. Michelle and Tyler Duncan's speaking in detail of what they viewed on the tape is not faked.. Sure LE may use a tactic such as this but I'm sorry they would not have innocent bystanders such as the owners be part of the tactic.. Tyler even speaks about the two people that were parked 50ft away from the hut were visible on the video and that they never even looked at what was happening with Sam.. These such details IMO indicate there is definitely without a doubt multiple video surveillance video from the hut of what occurred to Sam on Feb 1..

And b) is that I believe LE does not know who it is on the video that entered the hut and left with Sam.. This case is way too high profile for them to be sitting on evidence of who the perp is just waiting to pull him over for running a stop sign.. While I absolutely believe that LE many times unfortunately do handle their biz in this way(wait and catch em when they get pulled over for a traffic infraction).. But not in this case would that tactic be being used.. Jmo, tho!! IMO LE do not know who the perp is, plain and simple..

I've come to the conclusion that this was not a crime of opportunity as Id left open as an option until recently.. This abduction was planned ATLEAST to some degree, especially in the perp protecting his identity from the surveillance cams.. I believe it is someone that Sam knows, if even just knowing their face.. Because while I've ruled out crime of opportunity I still believe it possible to have been a sexually motivated abduction.. He having become obsessed with having Sam, maybe from afar, but IMO ATLEAST close enough that he had frequented this establishment enough times to know the layout and view range of the surveillance cams.. I am not stating that I believe it to be certain that it was a sexually motivated crime, but rather just one of several of the possibilities that I believe are still valid at this point..

I want to ask about the mask issue.. Last night I was out to dinner when the discussion of mask came up and I don't know why but I wrongly automatically assumed Halloween type mask.. After seeing that we could be talking about a winter/snow mask it now becomes much clearer as a relevant possibility.. I understand that to be seen wearing such type a mask, toboggan, covering the entire face would not be unusual in the least for a man to be seen walking thru a parking lot of the Alaska Club at 8pm.. Is this correct?? So, he would draw zero attention if this were the norm..*
Tho, IMO not absolutely necessary.. I'll explain my reasoning.. We know for certain he was wearing a dark colored hoodie, supposedly with the hood drawn.. All he would have had to do to keep his face concealed is that when walking into the view of the outdoor cams would be to just tilt his head down as looking at the ground, looking as tho he's possibly just shielding his face from the cold wind as he walked up to the hut.. That would successfully keep his face obscured from the outside cams..

Upon his actually coming up to the hut was it not stated at some point that he was seen walking up to one of the walk up windows, I believe that it was stated that he was observed at one of the walk up windows initially but will have to search.. Add to that the direct words we have from LE when speaking of Sam and the perps interaction.. There exact words were, " DURING THE INTERACTION AND HIM COMING INSIDE WE CAN'T SEE HIS FACE CLEARLY.".. To me this says that the interaction began before he came inside, no? He says it was during the interaction that he came inside that leads me to believe that the perp did in fact initially appear at the walk-up window and at that point he began to interact with Sam.. IMO I believe at that time the windows were already locked so his speaking to her would have been like talking "through" the window for example his saying Hey, are y'all already closed? Sam nodding yes.. And IMO it is likely that Sam ATLEAST recognized him at that point.. And that it is she that opened the door allowing him in.. Maybe that is who she was making the other coffee for.. By his persuading or guilting her into letting him under the presumption he was really wanting a coffee(just an example guys so don't tear me to shreds).. But I'm almost convinced that something similar occurred with him beginning the interaction with Sam while he was outside and she was safely inside.. And he persuaded Sam to open the door allowing him in.. It's why LE words above fit with that scenario as well as why there has never once been ANYONE speak of there being forced entry or breaking in.. He persuaded Sam to allow him in obviously UNDER FALSE PRETENSES..

Quickly I want to touch on the obstructed cam again.. I cannot make sense of how the perp could have successfully obstructed the camera to keep his face from being seen, BUT THE CAMERA STILL BE ABLE TO VIEW SAMS REACTIONS.. How could this be unless perhaps there were 2 cams inside the business.. Possibly the one we all know of and then the one I mentioned at the door that would have only captured THE PERP FROM THE BACK.. That would leave him to only have to obstruct the one domed camera and leaving the other cam untouched viewing only his back but yet CLEARLY VIEWING SAMS REACTIONS.. Hope that made sense..

I believe it's possible that something similar as just described is how this played out ATLEAST the first half of his gaining access to her..and how possibly they could view Sams reactions but still have no view of his face.. Still stuck on his tactic for obstructing the dome cam once entering the hut, tho???

And I sadly believe LE doesn't know who the perp is.. Any thoughts??

My other thought is why take the money? I'm assuming it was not a great amount AT ALL due to the fact that it was realized at 8am that the money was gone, but not alarming enough for LE to be called and the owners to say it wasn't a red flag.. That it wasn't till after 12:00pm when they learned Sam never made it home that they then reviewed the video and contacted LE.. IMO the amount of money had to be very little which ImO doesn't exactly fit with a sexually motivated abduction.. Idk??:crazy:

 

[cluciano63]

If LE does NOT know who the perp is, and I believe that they don't, then how or why can they indicate that they believe Samantha to be alive?

 

[SmoothOperator]

IMO its the same old BS that there is nothing to prove otherwise.. meaning that there is nothing to prove she's dead or alive so of course they are going to go with her being alive.. I used to believe the silence meant LE was close and knew so much.. sadly I've learned that just is not the case more times than not.. LE used to be able to rely on the silence as meaning something positive.. I'm sorry but they are going to have to go to a new tactic because the public along with the perps know that LE does not have the answers to bring those missing home.. alive or dead.. jmo

 

[Cheyne]

I don't believe that APD knows who the perp is. I too was confused by the statements that the perp was obscured, but they could clearly see Samantha's reactions. Either the camera was obscured or it wasn't. If the perp came in in a ski mask then the camera itself isn't obscured, the perp is in disguise.

It's been over 40 days. LE is no closer to finding Samantha than they were on day 1. I don't believe she is alive as it costs money, time and effort to restrain someone, plus an isolated location or a "prison" type basement/attic. The only way I would believe she is alive if she was forcibly abducted is if she is at a very remote location (no chance to escape or be heard by anyone), being used as a sex slave or has been taken out of state (country).

MOO of course

 

[Simply Caustic]

My belief is that a) there is definitely a tape.. Michelle and Tyler Duncan's speaking in detail of what they viewed on the tape is not faked.. Sure LE may use a tactic such as this but I'm sorry they would not have innocent bystanders such as the owners be part of the tactic.. Tyler even speaks about the two people that were parked 50ft away from the hut were visible on the video and that they never even looked at what was happening with Sam.. These such details IMO indicate there is definitely without a doubt multiple video surveillance video from the hut of what occurred to Sam on Feb 1..

And b) is that I believe LE does not know who it is on the video that entered the hut and left with Sam.. This case is way too high profile for them to be sitting on evidence of who the perp is just waiting to pull him over for running a stop sign.. While I absolutely believe that LE many times unfortunately do handle their biz in this way(wait and catch em when they get pulled over for a traffic infraction).. But not in this case would that tactic be being used.. Jmo, tho!! IMO LE do not know who the perp is, plain and simple..

I've come to the conclusion that this was not a crime of opportunity as Id left open as an option until recently.. This abduction was planned ATLEAST to some degree, especially in the perp protecting his identity from the surveillance cams.. I believe it is someone that Sam knows, if even just knowing their face.. Because while I've ruled out crime of opportunity I still believe it possible to have been a sexually motivated abduction.. He having become obsessed with having Sam, maybe from afar, but IMO ATLEAST close enough that he had frequented this establishment enough times to know the layout and view range of the surveillance cams.. I am not stating that I believe it to be certain that it was a sexually motivated crime, but rather just one of several of the possibilities that I believe are still valid at this point..

I want to ask about the mask issue.. Last night I was out to dinner when the discussion of mask came up and I don't know why but I wrongly automatically assumed Halloween type mask.. After seeing that we could be talking about a winter/snow mask it now becomes much clearer as a relevant possibility.. I understand that to be seen wearing such type a mask, toboggan, covering the entire face would not be unusual in the least for a man to be seen walking thru a parking lot of the Alaska Club at 8pm.. Is this correct?? So, he would draw zero attention if this were the norm..*
Tho, IMO not absolutely necessary.. I'll explain my reasoning.. We know for certain he was wearing a dark colored hoodie, supposedly with the hood drawn.. All he would have had to do to keep his face concealed is that when walking into the view of the outdoor cams would be to just tilt his head down as looking at the ground, looking as tho he's possibly just shielding his face from the cold wind as he walked up to the hut.. That would successfully keep his face obscured from the outside cams..

Upon his actually coming up to the hut was it not stated at some point that he was seen walking up to one of the walk up windows, I believe that it was stated that he was observed at one of the walk up windows initially but will have to search.. Add to that the direct words we have from LE when speaking of Sam and the perps interaction.. There exact words were, " DURING THE INTERACTION AND HIM COMING INSIDE WE CAN'T SEE HIS FACE CLEARLY.".. To me this says that the interaction began before he came inside, no? He says it was during the interaction that he came inside that leads me to believe that the perp did in fact initially appear at the walk-up window and at that point he began to interact with Sam.. IMO I believe at that time the windows were already locked so his speaking to her would have been like talking "through" the window for example his saying Hey, are y'all already closed? Sam nodding yes.. And IMO it is likely that Sam ATLEAST recognized him at that point.. And that it is she that opened the door allowing him in.. Maybe that is who she was making the other coffee for.. By his persuading or guilting her into letting him under the presumption he was really wanting a coffee(just an example guys so don't tear me to shreds).. But I'm almost convinced that something similar occurred with him beginning the interaction with Sam while he was outside and she was safely inside.. And he persuaded Sam to open the door allowing him in.. It's why LE words above fit with that scenario as well as why there has never once been ANYONE speak of there being forced entry or breaking in.. He persuaded Sam to allow him in obviously UNDER FALSE PRETENSES..

Quickly I want to touch on the obstructed cam again.. I cannot make sense of how the perp could have successfully obstructed the camera to keep his face from being seen, BUT THE CAMERA STILL BE ABLE TO VIEW SAMS REACTIONS.. How could this be unless perhaps there were 2 cams inside the business.. Possibly the one we all know of and then the one I mentioned at the door that would have only captured THE PERP FROM THE BACK.. That would leave him to only have to obstruct the one domed camera and leaving the other cam untouched viewing only his back but yet CLEARLY VIEWING SAMS REACTIONS.. Hope that made sense..

I believe it's possible that something similar as just described is how this played out ATLEAST the first half of his gaining access to her..and how possibly they could view Sams reactions but still have no view of his face.. Still stuck on his tactic for obstructing the dome cam once entering the hut, tho???

And I sadly believe LE doesn't know who the perp is.. Any thoughts??

My other thought is why take the money? I'm assuming it was not a great amount AT ALL due to the fact that it was realized at 8am that the money was gone, but not alarming enough for LE to be called and the owners to say it wasn't a red flag.. That it wasn't till after 12:00pm when they learned Sam never made it home that they then reviewed the video and contacted LE.. IMO the amount of money had to be very little which ImO doesn't exactly fit with a sexually motivated abduction.. Idk??:crazy:

BBM

This is an excellent point. I was imagining a deposit of a few hundred dollars - but that was entirely my own conjecture. Glad you brought up that we don't know how much is missing.
Does anyone have any ideas as to why it wouldn't be a red flag, to have ALL the money missing? I still can't imagine how they made change, even if all the coin was left - singles are necessary for making change, and most restaurants start off each shift with at least $100 cash drawer (at least, in Chicago. I have no idea of the sales mix of cash vs. credit in AK, but I can imagine they'd need some form of cash flow to even make change for the first four hours worth of customers.)

Why wasn't it worthy of calling the police, that all the cash was removed from the location? Even if their nightly sales were only $100 - didn't the missing money make them wonder about their employee? :waitasec:

 

[DadinAK]

BBM

This is an excellent point. I was imagining a deposit of a few hundred dollars - but that was entirely my own conjecture. Glad you brought up that we don't know how much is missing.
Does anyone have any ideas as to why it wouldn't be a red flag, to have ALL the money missing? I still can't imagine how they made change, even if all the coin was left - singles are necessary for making change, and most restaurants start off each shift with at least $100 cash drawer (at least, in Chicago. I have no idea of the sales mix of cash vs. credit in AK, but I can imagine they'd need some form of cash flow to even make change for the first four hours worth of customers.)

Why wasn't it worthy of calling the police, that all the cash was removed from the location? Even if their nightly sales were only $100 - didn't the missing money make them wonder about their employee? :waitasec:

It could be that Common Grounds has a drop-style safe for employees to make enveloped drops of cash into throughout the day. This is usually done to limit the "ante" for possible robbery. I managed an establishment that had one of these, and more than once, upon opening I realized that the employee from the nightshift had made their last drop and absentmindedly included the "change money" in their final drop. I would just wing it for change on the first few transactions. I would use my own cash and maybe go to a neighboring establishment exchange some larger bills of mine for 1's and 5's. I also found that even some customers would helpout and go next door if I did not have correct change for them. JMO