Elisa Lam - What Happened?

Discussion in 'Elisa Lam' started by gitana1, Mar 2, 2013.

?

Why did Elisa die?

  1. Homicide/crime of opportunity - Murder due to chance encounter with someone on the day she died

    162 vote(s)
    47.4%
  2. Homicide/preplanned - Elisa was lured to her death in a scheme planned before the day she died

    46 vote(s)
    13.5%
  3. Accidental death - related to an altered mental state: drug induced, psychosis, sleep walking, etc.

    86 vote(s)
    25.1%
  4. Suicide - Elisa intended to end her life due to mental issues/other

    7 vote(s)
    2.0%
  5. Occult/supernatural/conspiracy - related to occult, supernatural phenomena or gov./other conspiracy

    5 vote(s)
    1.5%
  6. Unsure/Do not know

    36 vote(s)
    10.5%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Xavier

    Xavier New Member

    Messages:
    955
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0


    Peter If Elisa's practically blind w/out eye wear, how would she have found the train to depart from Vancouver to the West Coast?

    I like your post, except the eyewear doesnt jive with me
     


  2. noodled1

    noodled1 Active Member

    Messages:
    584
    Likes Received:
    57
    Trophy Points:
    28
    I'm still not sure why we think she left her glasses behind or if she lost them. Did she wear contacts? I have never read anything about that other than speculation. And how would we know what they did and didn't find in her room when there has been nothing on the matter by the LAPD other than to say they wouldn't talk about it.

    Xavier, I believe the LAPD said she flew into Los Angeles and I know Elisa commented on her Tumblr that she had missed the plane
     
  3. Sillybilly

    Sillybilly Administrator Staff Member Administrator

    Messages:
    31,261
    Likes Received:
    80,330
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't recall that it was ever established that Elisa went to California without her glasses .. only that she was not wearing them when she disappeared.

    Presumably she had either glasses or contacts with her on the trip in order to visit The Last Bookstore and be able to see the books.

    JMO
     
  4. Peter Brendt

    Peter Brendt New Member

    Messages:
    2,244
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    0
    True, but if I write that, I get jumped again for dismissing the possibility. I know, I don't go anywhere without glasses.
     
  5. findinganatta

    findinganatta New Member

    Messages:
    200
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    0
    My understanding was that her cell phone, purse, and other belongings were found in her room, or at least that the police indicated that. I've had difficulty finding actual police statements about those details (if they exist), but multiple people here were stating that. So that would leave only the clothing/shoes she was wearing to account for. I don't necessarily have a definitive answer for that, but I do have ideas that are quite possible, IMO (ie. clothes blew off, were thrown off by EL and can't be located, or were removed/thrown off by someone else who didn't murder her and didn't know they were hers, etc).

    The police may have already accounted for her clothes/shoes by now; they've announced nothing, and probably won't until they get something that answers the big questions. Which is why it doesn't make sense to me to change my whole theory based on that particular aspect, at least not for now.

    One thing about this case is that there are many holes in the information being provided by authorities. Therefore, it's impossible for any of us to form a theory that is "complete" or lacks holes. Unless we all stop theorizing (unlikely), then we're going to have to tolerate the idea of incomplete theories.

    My theory, IMO, has the least holes and the most evidence in favor of it given what we know (and it isn't rigid--it includes different possibilities). It's more of a broad concept that addresses the big questions, and I'm not at all married to it. I'd gladly change gears in an instant if new information emerged... and obviously that very well may happen soon. What I'm interested in is what actually happened.

    So I'm all for you or anyone questioning my ideas. My issue was with the tone of your comments. I just ask that you be respectful.

    Anyway, let's move on from that :)
     
  6. TheRoger

    TheRoger New Member

    Messages:
    41
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Point of what I am saying:

    1 the frame of reference we have is extremely limited.
    2 psychiatry is an interpretive science and is not based on concrete facts but an opinion, an educated one but an opinion nonetheless. One shrink may not come to the same diagnosis as another as what is said during a session cam be interpreted differently by different professionals and the diagnosis may differ based on what is said in two separate analyses of the same subject.
     
  7. Montjoy

    Montjoy Inactive

    Messages:
    5,230
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Perhaps, but there's even less direct evidence of a second person outside the elevator. The lack of a second person is likely what drives some people to think that Elisa was off-kilter that day.
     
  8. Peter Brendt

    Peter Brendt New Member

    Messages:
    2,244
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Which is a big assumption, given, that in the video we can't see more than a few inches to the left and right of the elevator door due to the camera angle.
     
  9. Sillybilly

    Sillybilly Administrator Staff Member Administrator

    Messages:
    31,261
    Likes Received:
    80,330
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I agree Peter. It's akin to taking Silence of the Lambs, removing everything related to Hannibal and all the victims, then saying that Clarisse appears to be suffering from mental illness ;)
     
  10. masootz

    masootz New Member

    Messages:
    542
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    to play devil's advocate, it's like saying hannibal acted the way he did because there was someone else in the jail cell with him that we didn't see.
     
  11. Montjoy

    Montjoy Inactive

    Messages:
    5,230
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    48
    No, it's not an assumption. What I wrote is that there is no *direct evidence* of someone outside of the elevator. If you want to infer that there is someone there, it's your prerogative. But that is not direct evidence, that is an inference.
     
  12. Peter Brendt

    Peter Brendt New Member

    Messages:
    2,244
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I didn't infer, assume or claim, there was someone. I claimed, we don't know and have no way to figure it out. No evidence for A and B doesn't mean, neither is true, it means merely no evidence. And yes, I am sure, we don't know for sure.
     
  13. Courage100

    Courage100 New Member

    Messages:
    28
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    But these are just your assumptions. From near the beginning of this case, the police wouldn't comment on the cell phone and close sources were showing what she looked like without glasses. It could be a real possibility that her belongings, including her clothes would be in her room.

    But this isn't really something that changes the probability because she had to go up to the roof whether it was by herself or someone forced her or carried her.
     
  14. Peter Brendt

    Peter Brendt New Member

    Messages:
    2,244
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    0
    <modsnip> if they would have found that stuff, they could use it to convince people, it was actually no foul play. Which LE tried, but not too successful because they have nothing to support it, for example her clothes.

    in fact it does. Because who would take more care not to be seen?

    - a murderer carrying a dead body around?
    - a suicidal girl who doesn't give a damn what will be in an hour?
    - a girl guided by her to-be-killer up to the roof?

    It changes the probabilities, because in all those scenarios (and the list isn't complete), the motives of the determining factor are different.
     
  15. Doruk

    Doruk New Member

    Messages:
    68
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    <modnsip>

    What <modsnip>does the "motives of the determining factor are different" mean? You mean the motives for whether it is a suicide vs. accident vs. foul play, correct?

    How does her not being seen going up to the roof lead you to conclude definitively that she was therefore carried by or coerced by someone else up the roof? <modsnip>there are no cameras in the fire escape, no cameras in the hallways leading to the fire escape, no cameras on the roof, no cameras on the hatch leading to the roof. Just because no one including EL was seen going up to the roof doesn't mean no one actually went, because obviously EL ended up in the water tank in the roof somehow, right? The only conclusion you can logically draw from EL not being seen going up to the roof is that there were no cameras and no eyewitnesses that caught anyone going up to the roof, not that there was foul play.
     
  16. gitana1

    gitana1 Verified Attorney

    Messages:
    28,090
    Likes Received:
    210,752
    Trophy Points:
    113
    BBM. Please see below:
    The nudity connection to psychosis is pretty well known.


    As to the release of info, we have seen here on websleuths in case after case after case, how much information is held back in such investigations. So we just don;t know if Elisa's clothes were found and it is simply not true that the police would release such info to the public before their investigation is concluded. That defies logic.

    Finally, every mental health professional who has weighed in here has had the very same opinion: That Elisa was experiencing a mental break in the elevator.

    <modsnip>

    People in a psychotic state may have disorganized behavior or thinking but that doesn't mean they can;t accomplish things. My sister in law is a psychologist and has worked with dual and triple diagnosis patients/clients for years at various facilities in the Bay Area. I had a conversation about a year ago with her about full blown schizophrenics and how they are able to survive on the streets - get food, shelter, etc., - while in the midst of psychosis. They can do it. Sometimes they also eat their own fingers. But they can also wander around and get what they need to live, most of the time.

    P.S., we simply do not know if Elisa's clothes were found. Nothing has been reported either way.

    Not according to actual mental health experts who have weighed in here. She could have gotten onto the roof and into the tanks while psychotic.

    I mean, don;t you guys see mentally ill people wandering the street all the time, talking and stalking around? They can go places and do things. I don;t know. I have been around them all my life and have been friends with many. We have several in my neighborhood (by Disneyland) and also several up the road in Fullerton by the train tracks. One lady in particular steals people's dogs. Once she was rolling around on my neighbor's porch after trying to steal her dog. But she usually just walks around talking to herself and yelling. However, when I pass by and say hi, she often just smiles like she's totally sane and says hi right back.

    <modsnip> Why would it be impossible for Elisa to have wandered onto the roof and then climbed into a water tank unless she knew the tank was there to begin with?

    I have seen some of Elisa's tumblr posts. She had several surreal drawings of people sitting on roof tops, ledges and climbing vertically up the sides of buildings. In a psychotic state, Elisa could have felt the need to go onto a roof or to be high up. She could have felt the need to hide on the roof. She could have seen a way up via the fire escape and once up there, found the water tanks and decided that would be an even better place to hide.

    Now I don't say that this is what must have happened. It's just one possibility. I think a person experiencing psychosis is very vulnerable to victimization by a perp. She just as easily could have fallen prey to a predator.

    But the idea that Elisa was experiencing psychosis and that this somehow contributed to her death is very far from arbitrary:

    1. The behavior exhibited by Elisa in the video is a typical manifestation of psychosis to those who are familiar with it. I for one recognized psychotic behavior the moment I saw the video. I am not a mental health professional but I have been exposed to such behavior all my life. But much more important than my lowly observation, every mental health professional who has posted on here has been of the opinion that Elisa was experiencing psychosis in the video.

    2. Elisa apparently has a significant mental health background including bi-polar depression and hypomania, insomnia (which can lead to psychosis), and was on several, potent medications, a combination that a few professionals on here felt was recipe for disaster and could precipitate mania. There is also evidence that Elisa had experienced episodes prior and wandered away and that she may have been acting inappropriately at the bookstore, the day before she disappeared.

    3. Comments and actions of LE indicate to many that they are leaning heavily toward a mental health angle resulting in death.

    Thus, I fail to see how such an opinion is arbitrary. :waitasec:

    I'm not sure why you believe that a person must shows noticeable signs the day before a psychotic episode? I mean, it has to start sometime, right?
    However, there may be changes, in what is called a "prodomal phase", that occur right before psychosis, but those may be very hard for a stranger to notice or even for a person who knows the patient to realize are significant, unless the patient has already had diagnosed, psychotic episodes:
    But in any event, there is evidence that Elisa may have been behaving strangely, the day before she disappeared:

    _________________________________________________________________________________

    True. But interestingly, every mental health professional who has posted on here believes Elisa was manifesting signs of psychosis in the elevator.
     
  17. Peter Brendt

    Peter Brendt New Member

    Messages:
    2,244
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I argue with behavior and motive, <modsnip> <modsnip> nobody in the LAPD said loudly "we try to get the attention off the case by claiming, it was no foul play, even if ..." <modsnip>.

    English isn't my first language. <modsnip> So, lets try it easy and in short words <modsnip>:

    - people do things
    - people do things because they have reasons
    - sometimes, people do things voluntarily, sometimes forced by other people

    so, if they are forced by other people, the goals and motives of those people, in short those people forcing them become the determining factor. You know, the factor that determines what is done.

    <modsnip>
    that this was a list of possible scenarios which would cause different probabilities. <modsnip>

    <modsnip> Yes, EL was in the tank, so somehow, she had to get there, voluntarily or involuntarily. Now, under this roof is a hotel. Lots of people. People moving around, over floors, using elevators, hanging out in lounges, lots of people. Now, you try a network analysis of a cloud of moving people. They are not equally dispersed and the distribution at every time t changes dynamically. In other words, at for example 8 am it is much more likely to meet someone on the way to breakfast than at 4pm (just examples, I don't say, someone met EL at 4pm on the way to her breakfast).
    The point is, it is more likely at some times to meet someone on a floor than in other times. Intentionally using those times indicates a plan, a motive. Which inherently means, if nobody saw her at time, some hundred people in the hotel should have been awake already, that either she went in a direction off the mainstream or, even higher probability, she moved/was carried at a time, less people are out there. Talking for example early morning of Feb. 1st. So, I could probably write up the needed math, make a picture, attach it,<modsnip>
     
  18. Courage100

    Courage100 New Member

    Messages:
    28
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Their main goal isn't to convince people on here of anything. They also have not officially concluded anything. Even in the beginning when they were trying to find any information in this case, they did not reveal what items were left in her hotel room.


    But you are ignoring the probability of someone remembering a random girl walking down a hallway versus a person carrying a body.
     
  19. Doruk

    Doruk New Member

    Messages:
    68
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    <modsnip>

    <modsnip> since no one saw anyone else going up to the roof, no one, not even the killer, went up to the roof either, correct?

    <modsnip>
     
  20. findinganatta

    findinganatta New Member

    Messages:
    200
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    0
    In terms of what the public has access to, particularly with a silent video of a single person's behavior, a psychological analysis of Elisa's behavior is as valid as anything else, if not more so. I'm not only referring to her possible mental health or intoxication issues, but also trying to assess her emotions, reactions, etc--in other words, trying to interpret stuff we can actually see, not stuff that's happening off camera (not that there is anything wrong with speculating about that, too).

    Doesn't mean any of us are right, of course. But such is the case with so little info :waitasec:
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page



  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice