Isn't the argument we are having because I said that the hotel looks better since the hatch being open means that she probably wasn't murdered after all. Not sure where you get the idea that I don't think it was a big deal whether it was open or closed. OP is talking about the fact that the water tower hatch was open when the body was found in it, killing all of the 'she had to have been murdered because she couldn't have closed it from inside'. You seem to be confusing the hotel saying that they always shut the tank door, vs them saying that it was open when they found it. If you just really want to believe that the hotel staff was completely honest, and that Elisa was either murdered or somehow managed to get up there and both open and close the gate herself, then that's fine. ![]() The same web sleuths who claimed the "shoe" that appears in one frame of the elevator footage is evidence that someone else was there, even though it's very obviously Elisa's own heel. So the web sleuths were saying that it's must've been murder So you think regulations allow for the fact that this short, small framed woman should have easily been able to access and open the gate that houses the hotel's water supply? You realise that were are talking about after she got in right? I'm sorry the show that makes it seem spooky and haunted made you believe that the tank door wasn't that big of a deal and that the hotel somehow wouldn't have made any claims to whether the door was opened or close? I don't know how you would expect the real investigation to go. One worker that maintained the tank claimed it was open, another claimed it was always shut, and the hotel backed up the latter. The question of whether the tank was open or closed was a big deal, and the investigation made it a priority at one point. I followed the case when it was making waves across the internet. Not that I think they're really liable, because no one actually expects it to be an issue. ![]() People are making it much more mysterious than it has to be, but it was an accident and the hotel really should have had the tanks locked. If you look at articles from the time around her body was found, like this one from USA Today, you see the same insistence that it would have been impossible for her to even get to the roof (coming from the hotel) and get to the tanks in the first place. If it was an accident and they admitted it, they opened themselves up to lawsuits, as it what happened anyway. They were doing damage control, and they would rather have implied it was a murder rather than an accident, because if it was a murder there would have been no liability on their part. If I recall, the hotel suggested that it was impossible for anyone to get onto the roof and to the tanks unless they had a key to the door, and insisted the door to the roof was never unlocked. Attorneys for both the Cecil Hotel and the Lams declined to comment for this story. ![]() The couple sued the hotel in September 2013, alleging negligence led to the wrongful death of their 21-year-old daughter a trial is slated for February. The new declarations, issued by three staff members, are part of the hotel's push to dismiss a trial pursued by Lam's parents, David and Yinna Lam, who live in Vancouver, Canada.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |