Discussion in '2000's Missing' started by dotr, Oct 13, 2017.
The link is expired or broken, but I found the pic.
So what did Brian have to pass through to get from the stairs/elevator to the construction area? My understanding was that they opened into a hall but how did you get from the hall to the construction area?
Also did you happen to ask Hurst how the back hall camera could have missed Brian, given it captured the band members in the same area? I don't think it's ever been clearly explained.
Finally, any further hint on what law enforcement's three theories are as far as what happened to Brian once he left the building?
Link and pics included in this post..
OH - Brian Shaffer, 27, Columbus, 1 April 2006 - #2
Some Mexico pic. discussion at thread ..
OH - OH - Brian Shaffer, 27, Columbus, 1 April 2006 - #2
I too look forward to more on the record statements from those involved to clear this up.
His exact statement is awkwardly worded and I don't think your reading of it is the only possible take away.
Hurst's "most likely" is not definitive in the sense that he could have meant nothing more than "most likely" left via the construction area vs leaving by way of any other exit (rather than the possibility that he did NOT exit at all).
Yeah, at some point, when you read, watch, or listen to every single bit of information that's out there on this case (probably multiple times)... you start to see little cracks in the father son relationship. And if you can see them with such sparse information, you get the idea they're probably a lot bigger in reality. So I'm not surprised at all, but it's definitely useful that someone has confirmed this for you.
I think I am even more haunted by the legacy post now though. Immediate family relationships can be kind of "broken", even though the parent still loves their son or daughter, and vice versa (which goes without saying really). And if it were the case that Brian was still out there, you can just imagine what kind of intense mixed emotions would come with the news of his father's sudden passing.
My understanding is that the legacy post was determined to be a hoax, even though the identity of the poster was never determined. Could Brian have deeply wanted there to be a goodbye message from him to his father... even if he had to get a trusted person to post it from a public computer on his behalf? And even if he had to throw a small red herring about his location into the message that didn't change the sentiment of it?
Will you be able to reveal which street this was at some point? I'm just wondering what the route he would have taken looks like on a map... and how many cameras would have had to miss him in that direction (of course, the latter none of us could know by looking at a map anyway).
That one must have come out of a Chinese whispers situation I suppose. I bet Brian's cousin had every reason to think he was speaking in fact when he said that, but had been misinformed.
Yes, this photo was floating around years ago, they seemed to have spoken with a "local" lady to find out more about this homeless man. He went by the name "John". I think he resembles Brian but I don't think it is him. This guy is super flexible/hypermobile and it makes me wonder if Brian is as well. Either way, I don't think it's Brian but I do think Brian is alive. I hope by now this man is off the streets and in a safe and loving place.
Just thinking about the robbery theory. Randy said Brian never carried cash, only credit cards. If he was robbed of his wallet and killed, why didn't the robbers use his credit cards? They would've had a good 24 hours at least to charge to the max, stuff they could later pawn or sell. Yet his cards were never used after that night. If he got out of the building and anything happened to him, I feel it had to be personal, someone who knew him and had a grudge or debt to settle.
I don't believe in a robbery theory really (possible I guess, but improbable)... purely for the reason that I don't think desperate opportunists would have committed the perfect crime, without a trace of forensic evidence.
However, just for the sake of looking at why credit cards might not be used even if this theory were true... normally in a basic mugging, the perpetrator wants to get the money and then get away. They're not looking to kill anyone, but if they did because a blow to the head, or a punch, that was meant to stun the target for moment... actually proved to be fatal instead, I doubt that they'd use the credit cards. These kinds of offenders can be both desperate and unsophisticated, but they'd know exactly how different the manhunt for a murderer would be in comparison to that for a mugger. Cash can be virtually invisible to LE, but credit card trails are damnable... and there's cameras virtually everywhere that you can pay with cards.
I don't buy the robbery theory either, just threw it out there. I don't think robbers would be too concerned about getting rid of a body, just getting away as fast as possible. If it was a robbery, I think someone would've found him lying in an alley or on the street.
If someone robbed him on the street then it's very unlikely they would take time to get rid of the body.
However, the robbery theory doesn't have to include a perfect scenario for getting rid of the body... If he got into their car for any reason, and was taken out of the search area, it would be easy to just dump the body somewhere that it hasn't been noticed. Lots of people go missing and the bodies don't turn up for years or decades (or ever).
So all you really need is a reason he might have gotten into someone's car.
You'd also need for Brian to have made it out of the building. There is compelling evidence he may not have. There is no solid evidence he did.
I've not seen any evidence presented, compelling or otherwise, to indicate he is still in the building. Nor have I heard any professional involved in the case clearly suggest he might be... What evidence we do have, little though it may be, suggests his remains are elsewhere.
What's more likely; that he is still in a tiny, finite area that was exhaustively searched repeatedly by numerous people and dogs with zero evidence a body could even be hidden there OR that he is somewhere else in the world outside the search area that was missed?
Considering that the "tiny, finite" area is his last known location and was an active construction site that was changing on a daily basis, with cement possibly being poured between the time of Brian's disappearance and the time the site was searched, it is far more likely that Brian is within the "tiny, finite" area.
Where has anyone ever said cement was poured? Let alone on a weekend? If I've missed that I would love to read it.
The family began searching for Brian the Sunday after his disappearance. Police were out in force beginning to search the bar and construction area by noon the following Monday. It was repeatedly searched in that first week by both man and dog and there was never any mention of cement being poured at the time.
Do you not know what the word possibly means? That isn't a rhetorical question; it occurred to me that you might not be a native English speaker and actually might not know that word.
We don't know when cement was poured; the police don't seem to know either—or maybe they know that cement was poured on Sunday or on Monday morning and they're deliberately ignoring that inconvenient detail.
We also don't know the dates on which cadaver dogs were used. And since tend to interpret others' words to suit your theories, I will stress that the emphasis is on cadaver.
For argument's sake, let's suppose that live-scent dogs were used during the initial searches on Monday afternoon. (That's probably a stretch.) If Brian was already dead and buried in the construction area, then live-scent dogs could easily have missed him.
If cadaver dogs weren't taken to the site until a month later, and concrete had been poured in the meantime, then the cadaver dogs could have missed Brian's scent; it's doubtful that even the best cadaver dog could detect a scent through six inches of concrete.
LE has never provided a clear timeline that includes:
A) the dates on which cement was poured at the construction site,
B) the dates on which live-scent dogs were used at the construction site, and
C) the dates on which cadaver dogs were used at the construction site.
That LE has concealed those details from the public tells me that LE finds those details inconvenient or embarrassing for one reason or another.
The problem with the "covered in concrete" story is this:
Someone would almost have to willingly want to hide a body to cover it in concrete. Pouring concrete is a very active process, from preparing the area (as in laying down rebar) to spreading it around the area, with many people involved. The chance of a body going undiscovered is very small. Even if a cave in buried a body, they would dig the cave-in back out before pouring concrete. Now if someone knew concrete was going to be poured, they could dig a hole, bury a body and then it would be covered over. But at that point, it's no longer an "accident in the construction area".
I hear you. But the way I see it, the best explanation for Brian's inexplicable disappearance is that something really weird happened in this case. Some weird - weird by it's unlikeliness - sequence of events likely took place. Hurst thinks Brian may have, very weirdly, been in the construction area. Likely all alone. Quite weird. He says he thinks Brian most likely made it out. But radio silence for 13 years suggests not.
Yes, I'm aware of what "possibly" means but I'm not debating that. I also know what "likely" means and to me it stretches credulity to suggest a theory, while theoretically within the realms of possibility, is "likely" that has absolutely no evidence to support it. Is it technically possible he could still be in the building? Yes, but it seems to be an incredibly slim one and is a theory that only lives on due to the lack of evidence, not because there's any real evidence to still put him there. In fact, what evidence we do have, though scant and not conclusive, works against the theory.
In addition, even though Hurst now speculates that Brian exited via the construction area - he was never seen on the camera heading in that direction. The same camera that did capture the band leaving by that back hall. So the lack of being seen on camera that is used to suggest he never left also works against I'm being in the area some people think he still hidden in.
Out of ALL the people that were through that area, just in the first week, you don't think that someone would have mentioned if cement was freshly poured or would have investigated that fact if it had? Never mind the police, numerous other parties were also through there ...including Randy Shaffer... you don't think his father would have made a fuss if concrete were poured in the middle of searching for Brian?
Also, I posted a link to news footage a while back that offers a brief glimpse of the construction area in question. It's the best view we have of that area so far, though it's not much. However, if news crews were able to survey the scene before floors were finished then that also goes against the idea that cement was quickly poured.
While we don't have searches logged down to the exact date and hour, there's more information available than you suggest. Just going off the original NBC4i reports from the time he went missing, you can piece together how exhaustive the search was there, both by people and dogs, within the first 7-10 days.
Not just in the gateway building that housed UTS but also the surrounding area and the local trash dumps were searched with dogs.
"concealed"? What if they just haven't belabored the point because none of them believe he's still there? Hurst said they have three theories of what happened to Brian and won't talk about them but he has no problem discussing Brian maybe going through the construction area and possibly exiting there.
It's interesting, and can be potentially helpful, to speculate on how things might have happened but when you base a theory on unsubstantiated conjecture (such as "maybe they know that cement was poured on Sunday or on Monday morning" or "cadaver dogs weren't taken to the site until a month later") then you should at least try to back up the conjecture before you use it to state a particular theory is "likely".
I'm not suggesting this theory shouldn't be entertained, explored, or discussed but when I ask if you have any info to suggest when the concrete was poured and you resort to suggesting it's being "concealed", etc, then it doesn't seem very sound in the face of what we do know.
In terms of pouring concrete, there are places where only the six-inch(?) floor would be poured, but there would be other areas where rat walls, footings for stanchions, etc., would need to be poured much deeper. Workers might not have been conscientious enough to peer down into every deeper hole or trench. Even if they did look, Columbus is a low-lying area: at any given construction site in Columbus, deep holes or trenches could be expected to descend below the water table. Brian could easily have fallen into a trench and ended up beneath the surface of muddy water; gravel or cement might then have been dumped on top of him before the area was searched.
Perhaps Clint lied about Brandon doing all those shots. If Brandon only had one shot at the last visit to UTS, he would've been sober and perhaps ready to disappear to a new life that only Clint was privy to. But how did he get out without being seen in the most CCTV covered city in all of Ohio?