U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > True Crime
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 11-05-2015, 05:23 PM
 
1,562 posts, read 1,138,351 times
Reputation: 2686

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by CA4Now View Post
The pedestal....do mean the concrete block that the tanks are resting on? How did she get up the side of the water tank? If the maintenance man had to use a ladder to look into the tank, where was the one she used to get to the top of it and jump, fall, or get pushed in?
She used the same ladder he used. It was chained to the side of the tank. Again, from your own quote/link on page 4 of this thread:

"Assuming one could get onto the roof undetected, Tovar[Cecil Hotel engineer] said that you would first have to climb up to the platform the tanks sit on, then squeeze between them and other plumbing equipment. There, you'd find another ladder, which you could use to climb onto one of the four cisterns."

Notice his language, "you'd find another ladder". This indicates that the ladder was already in place and kept there regularly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CA4Now View Post
Where do you have information that they were "lighter"?
I said "lighter than I presumed". Look at them! The photo couldn't be more clear. You can see they aren't very thick. I'm sure they weren't light, but knowing that they're only 18x18, and hinged, how much force could they require? 40 lbs at the very most? Look, I'm done with the lids. It's just not reasonable after what I've shown to continue to believe she couldn't lift one of them.

 
Old 11-05-2015, 06:20 PM
 
Location: The Pacific Northwest
6,015 posts, read 6,368,678 times
Reputation: 8281
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Mysterious Benefactor View Post
She used the same ladder he used. It was chained to the side of the tank. Again, from your own quote/link on page 4 of this thread:

"Assuming one could get onto the roof undetected, Tovar[Cecil Hotel engineer] said that you would first have to climb up to the platform the tanks sit on, then squeeze between them and other plumbing equipment. There, you'd find another ladder, which you could use to climb onto one of the four cisterns."

Notice his language, "you'd find another ladder". This indicates that the ladder was already in place and kept there regularly.I said "lighter than I presumed". Look at them! The photo couldn't be more clear. You can see they aren't very thick. I'm sure they weren't light, but knowing that they're only 18x18, and hinged, how much force could they require? 40 lbs at the very most? Look, I'm done with the lids. It's just not reasonable after what I've shown to continue to believe she couldn't lift one of them.
I'm not following you. If a child could reach the top of the tank, why would she need a ladder? Why did the person who discovered her use a ladder? Both of those things can't be true. Furthermore, are you asking us to believe that despite the fact that the LAPD "could not conclusively determine how she reached the roof or accessed the tank" (item 39), she had access to a ladder that was hinged to the water tank and immediately accessible and in plain view? That would absolutely be conclusive evidence that would close the case right there.

With respect to the alarm, I realized what you were saying about the fire escape only after I wrote the post. But that doesn't explain how she knew she wouldn't set off an alarm by opening the door. Most fire escapes are clearly warned that an alarm will sound if the door is opened, and I'm sure it wasn't the first fire escape she had seen. How did she know an alarm would not go off?
 
Old 11-05-2015, 06:29 PM
 
Location: The Pacific Northwest
6,015 posts, read 6,368,678 times
Reputation: 8281
Also, am I not looking at the same photo you are?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-hgh5K4AWUO...+%28007%29.jpg

I see a man who looks at least 5'9" standing in front of the second tank from the left, and the top of the tank is a good 12 inches above his head. Is there some other access point or "pedestal" that I am missing? The only other point I see it the really high roof top where the group of men are standing and where you'd have to jump down to get onto the tanks.

Last edited by Bluefox; 11-05-2015 at 06:38 PM..
 
Old 11-05-2015, 07:24 PM
 
Location: NW AR
2,438 posts, read 2,171,362 times
Reputation: 2265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefox View Post
Also, am I not looking at the same photo you are?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-hgh5K4AWUO...+%28007%29.jpg

I see a man who looks at least 5'9" standing in front of the second tank from the left, and the top of the tank is a good 12 inches above his head. Is there some other access point or "pedestal" that I am missing? The only other point I see it the really high roof top where the group of men are standing and where you'd have to jump down to get onto the tanks.
She wasn't 5' 9" and was found 12 inches from the top and the hatch was open

---------

"I noticed the hatch to the main water tank was open and looked inside and saw an Asian woman lying face-up in the water approximately twelve inches from the top of the tank," he said.

Cecil Hotel Employee Explains How He Found The Body Of Elisa Lam: LAist
 
Old 11-05-2015, 07:26 PM
 
1,562 posts, read 1,138,351 times
Reputation: 2686
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefox View Post
I'm not following you. If a child could reach the top of the tank, why would she need a ladder? Why did the person who discovered her use a ladder? Both of those things can't be true.
I don't mind discussing this case with you, but you're going to have to read more carefully. I just don't have the patience to keep repeating myself. What I told you was that a child could easily reach the pedestal. That is, the concrete slab which the tanks are sitting on. One would still need to climb to the top of the tanks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefox View Post
Furthermore, are you asking us to believe that despite the fact that the LAPD "could not conclusively determine how she reached the roof or accessed the tank" (item 39), she had access to a ladder that was hinged to the water tank and immediately accessible and in plain view? That would absolutely be conclusive evidence that would close the case right there.
If your home had 4 unlocked doors and 8 unlocked windows, and you found a person dead inside, could you say conclusively how they entered your house? No, because they could've entered any number of ways and you don't know which one. That does not mean you're unable to see how it was possible. You follow me? It's the same in this case. Elisa could've accessed the roof using one of several routes. She could've reached the top of the tanks any number of ways. This is why they were unable to conclusively determine how she did it. There was no question that she could, they're just not sure exactly which way she went. And as it was, they did close the case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefox View Post
With respect to the alarm, I realized what you were saying about the fire escape only after I wrote the post. But that doesn't explain how she knew she wouldn't set off an alarm by opening the door. Most fire escapes are clearly warned that an alarm will sound if the door is opened, and I'm sure it wasn't the first fire escape she had seen. How did she know an alarm would not go off?
This fire escape, like many in older buildings, was nothing more than a small platform outside of the window with a ladder attached. Once again, there was no door, and no alarm. That was my point.
 
Old 11-05-2015, 08:07 PM
 
Location: So Ca
15,775 posts, read 15,012,062 times
Reputation: 13694
Quote:
Originally Posted by thegreenflute334 View Post
She wasn't 5' 9" and was found 12 inches from the top and the hatch was open
From the autopsy report, she was apparently 5'6". You wonder how it is that she was able to remove her clothing but could not swim to the top of the tank.
 
Old 11-05-2015, 09:08 PM
 
Location: The Pacific Northwest
6,015 posts, read 6,368,678 times
Reputation: 8281
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Mysterious Benefactor View Post
I don't mind discussing this case with you, but you're going to have to read more carefully. I just don't have the patience to keep repeating myself. What I told you was that a child could easily reach the pedestal. That is, the concrete slab which the tanks are sitting on. One would still need to climb to the top of the tanks.
Whoa there, okay, let's rewind a bit and revisit your initial comment:

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Mysterious Benefactor View Post
This would not have been a 13-15 foot climb. Reaching the pedestal and getting on the platform would've been easy. This photo better illustrates the true height of the tanks from the platform.
You're implying that she was able to access the tank because of the height of the pedestal. Why is the fact that the pedestal is easily accessible significant if she can't actually physically reach the tanks? So a child can reach the pedestal, so what? It doesn't explain how she got in the tank. So sure, it wasn't a 13-15 foot climb, but rather more of a 7 foot climb. You're saying that the fact that there was a pedestal somehow makes it possible for a 5'6" woman to reach the top of those tanks when the photograph you referenced clearly indicates that is exceedingly unlikely. You can make personal attacks about my reading comprehension skills, but I assumed you meant access to the actual top of the water tank, because I fail to grasp why you think her having access to a small pedestal is a material fact to this case


Quote:
Originally Posted by The Mysterious Benefactor View Post
If your home had 4 unlocked doors and 8 unlocked windows, and you found a person dead inside, could you say conclusively how they entered your house? No, because they could've entered any number of ways and you don't know which one. That does not mean you're unable to see how it was possible. You follow me? It's the same in this case. Elisa could've accessed the roof using one of several routes. She could've reached the top of the tanks any number of ways. This is why they were unable to conclusively determine how she did it. There was no question that she could, they're just not sure exactly which way she went. And as it was, they did close the case.This fire escape, like many in older buildings, was nothing more than a small platform outside of the window with a ladder attached. Once again, there was no door, and no alarm. That was my point.
Except there wasn't 4 unlocked doors and 8 unlocked windows in this case. Even if she were to have successfully accessed the roof from a fire escape, I'm still wondering why, if it was so easy and so apparent for her to reach the top of the water tank, the LAPD was not able to conclude how she was able to access the tank. Sure, they eventually closed the case, but why was that not an immediate conclusion? You say that she was able to access the tank "from any number of ways" but so far I've seen only two: she was able to physically push herself up to the top or she had access to a ladder. I'm skeptical that the first is even physically possible for her and as far as the latter goes, it just does not jive with the reports - if there was a ladder immediately available that would be the smoking gun. But no, even in a motion for summary judgment over 2 and a half years after the incident, the LAPD has no conclusive evidence how she got up there.
 
Old 11-05-2015, 09:22 PM
 
Location: The Pacific Northwest
6,015 posts, read 6,368,678 times
Reputation: 8281
Quote:
Originally Posted by thegreenflute334 View Post
She wasn't 5' 9" and was found 12 inches from the top and the hatch was open

---------

"I noticed the hatch to the main water tank was open and looked inside and saw an Asian woman lying face-up in the water approximately twelve inches from the top of the tank," he said.

Cecil Hotel Employee Explains How He Found The Body Of Elisa Lam: LAist
I'm talking about her ability to access the top of the tank. If someone with a height of 5'9" couldn't access the top without a ladder, how can someone with a height of 5'6"?
 
Old 11-06-2015, 06:47 AM
 
Location: So Ca
15,775 posts, read 15,012,062 times
Reputation: 13694
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefox View Post
I'm still wondering why, if it was so easy and so apparent for her to reach the top of the water tank, the LAPD was not able to conclude how she was able to access the tank.
Also, why, if the roof of the hotel was searched initially, and then later with a police search dog, did anyone with the LAPD not think of checking the water tanks? Weren't they at that time looking for a body? Lam had been missing for over two weeks by then.
 
Old 11-06-2015, 06:51 AM
 
1,562 posts, read 1,138,351 times
Reputation: 2686
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefox View Post
You're implying that she was able to access the tank because of the height of the pedestal. Why is the fact that the pedestal is easily accessible significant if she can't actually physically reach the tanks? So a child can reach the pedestal, so what? It doesn't explain how she got in the tank. So sure, it wasn't a 13-15 foot climb, but rather more of a 7 foot climb. You're saying that the fact that there was a pedestal somehow makes it possible for a 5'6" woman to reach the top of those tanks when the photograph you referenced clearly indicates that is exceedingly unlikely. You can make personal attacks about my reading comprehension skills, but I assumed you meant access to the actual top of the water tank, because I fail to grasp why you think her having access to a small pedestal is a material fact to this case
It's not a personal attack. You're not following and you've mischaracterized what was said numerous times. Reaching the pedestal and then the platform(with the railing) is material to the case because that would make it significantly easier for her to climb to the top of the tanks. Yes, there is a substantial difference between a 13 ft climb and a 7 ft climb with a rail to help you. Either way, it's a moot point. There was a ladder on the pedestal which was most likely how she reached the top.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefox View Post
Except there wasn't 4 unlocked doors and 8 unlocked windows in this case. Even if she were to have successfully accessed the roof from a fire escape, I'm still wondering why, if it was so easy and so apparent for her to reach the top of the water tank, the LAPD was not able to conclude how she was able to access the tank.
You're missing the point. They could not draw a definitive conclusion because there were so many ways she could have done it, and they're not sure which one she employed. She probably used the ladder, but she may have climbed the railing. She might have just climbed the other ladder to the second roof and jumped down to the tanks. Or she may have even climbed the piping. They're not sure, so they can not draw a definitive conclusion. Got it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefox View Post
Sure, they eventually closed the case, but why was that not an immediate conclusion?
As I mentioned before, the police suspected foul play and investigated this case as a homicide. They closed it within 4 months. Given the strange circumstances, I think that was rather quick.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefox View Post
You say that she was able to access the tank "from any number of ways" but so far I've seen only two: she was able to physically push herself up to the top or she had access to a ladder. I'm skeptical that the first is even physically possible for her and as far as the latter goes, it just does not jive with the reports - if there was a ladder immediately available that would be the smoking gun. But no, even in a motion for summary judgment over 2 and a half years after the incident, the LAPD has no conclusive evidence how she got up there.
I posted a photo showing how easy it would have been to climb to the second roof and simply jump down to the tanks, but I guess you missed that, too.

What reports are you speaking of? Media reports? The LAPD shared very little information. The media in all likelihood assumed that the ladder seen was placed there by the maintenance worker or the rescue crew after the body was discovered. As I pointed out, according to the hotel engineer, this was not the case. The ladder was kept there regularly.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > True Crime
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top