-Caveat Lector-
>FACTS: Joyce was last seen on Saturday, January 9 around 8:30pm. She went
>to work that day at INS headquarters around 2pm, then went with 2 female
>friends to see a movie. The two friends decided to go to dinner, but
>dropped Joyce off near Connecticut and R Streets in Dupont Circle because
>she had a telephone call to make. She lives about 2 blocks from the dropoff
>point with her brother Roger,
[snip]
>Chiang, 28, is a lawyer for the Immigration and Naturalization Service. She
>was last seen Jan. 9, after a friend dropped her off at 19th Street and
>Connecticut Avenue NW, about three blocks from the apartment she shared
>with a younger brother, Roger, in the 1700 block of Church Street NW, near
>Dupont Circle.
[snip]
>But, first, the Immigration and Naturalization Service lawyer needed a hot
>cup of tea. The temperature had dropped to 24 degrees since she left the
>apartment she shared with her younger brother that morning. Chiang craved
>something warm to sip.
>
>So she asked a girlfriend, with whom she had just had dinner, to drop her
>off at Connecticut Avenue and R Street NW, across the street from
>Starbucks. Chiang's petite frame was covered by her hooded, thigh-length,
>green suede coat. Around her neck was a red paisley scarf; a black scarf
>was layered over the hood of her coat.
>
>At 8:20 p.m., she exited her friend's car and started across the
>intersection surrounded by bustling restaurants, two coffee shops, a church
>and a movie theater. She planned to buy her tea and walk the five blocks to
>her home.
Well now, we go from it being a 2-block walk to it being a 3-block walk
to it being a 5-block walk...so which was it?
We also go from a version that she went to work and then to the movies
with friends, but declined to go to dinner with them because she wanted
to make a phone call to someone...to a version where she DID have dinner
with them, and then got dropped off to make the supposed phone call...
So where did the friends head off to at that point? If they indeed had
had dinner, then it seems conceivable that the friends planned to go
partying at some clubs. If Joyce Chiang only planned to call a friend to
wish him well in the play he was starring in, why would she have had to
call it a night? Even if she and her friends hadn't had dinner, one
would have thought that Chiang would have said something like "Why don't
you go ahead, I have to make a phone call to a friend, but I'll meet you
later at..."?
If they indeed HAD had dinner together, then it would seem more likely
that Chiang would have made plans to meet her friends at the club
later...if indeed the phonecall to the acting friend in San Francisco WAS
the real reason she wished to be dropped off...
Which seems questionable. I might buy the story that a Chinese-American
woman might want to be dropped off at Starbucks to buy a cup of tea and
walk two blocks back to her apartment with it in 24-degree weather...but
I find it highly suspicious that she would do so if the walk were indeed
FIVE blocks. The tea would be cold by then.
And we are to believe that a Chinese-American woman, living with her
Chinese-American brother, did NOT have tea in her own apartment?
She perhaps DID order tea at Starbucks, but it is more likely that she
also DRANK it there...while waiting to meet someone? Or perhaps the
person was already there, and Chiang drank her tea as she talked to this
other person...
>Roger Chiang, who said he does not believe he is being treated as a
>suspect, said his polygraph test was "inconclusive."
An interesting contrast to Gary Condit, who is obviously at least hiding
something, if not outright directly involved in Chandra Levy's
disappearance, and who supposedly 'passed' the test administered by their
handpicked polygraph 'expert'...
>Jan. 9 had been a productive and ordinary Saturday for Chiang. She stopped
>by the office to finish some work before heading to Pentagon City to run
>errands at the mall.
>
>At 4 p.m., she met a friend, Patty First, a lawyer at the Department of
>Justice, and a co-worker for coffee at Xando, also at Connecticut Avenue
>and R Street. There, the three women caught up with each other's lives over
>coffee and peanut butter cookies.
Okay, in a previous news article in this post, it was stated that Chiang
went into work at about 2pm...if that is the correct time, it would seem
that she did little actual work there, if she could than do errands at a
mall and then meet friends at 4pm....
Could it be that Chiang just needed to pick something up at the office?
Something which she perhaps later that evening passed along to someone
else? Or had taken from her?
>"She was tired because she had had a long week and had been sick over
>Christmas," First said. "But she was still Joyce: funny and a little zany.
>It was so cold that day. She had her hood up and the drawstrings really
>tight around her face.
If she was feeling the cold that badly, it again makes the premise that
she bought tea at Starbucks to then take back to her apartment five
blocks away unlikely...
>Chiang and their other friend, who declined to be interviewed, took First
>home before heading to a theater to see "A Civil Action." After the movie,
>the two women had dinner; then Chiang was dropped off at the intersection
>that now has become a memorial of sorts to the missing woman.
Okay, in this version Chiang had dinner with only one friend before being
dropped off at Starbucks. It is interesting that this unnamed friend
declines to be interviewed. Could she somehow be more involved in
Chiang's disappearance? Or is it due to being afraid of something, or
someone? Could it be that this friend saw who it was that Chiang met at
Starbucks?
Also, did these young women have dinner or did they not? The original
accounts had it that Chiang just went to the movies 'with friends' --
implying at least 2 others -- but asked to be dropped off at Starbucks
RATHER than going out to dinner with her friends after the movie...
Anyone know how long "A Civil Action" runs? If Chiang indeed met her
friends at around 4pm, had coffee with them, and then went to the movies,
it seems unlikely they had enough time to go out to dinner afterwards for
them to be able to drop Chiang off at Starbucks at 8:30...unless 'dinner'
was a quick bite at McD's...
I know that when I've gone out with friends, the scenario would have run
something like this...
Meet them at approx. 4pm at the coffeeshop, and linger over lattes, or
whatever hot drink met our fancy. We would have chewed the fat for at
least half an hour, more likely closer to an hour. There may have been
some discussion as to whether we should do dinner first, then a movie, or
go to the movie first and then out to dinner. Either way, it would have
been 'a given' that we would have ended the evening at a club (or 2 or
3)...
If it was decided to see a movie first, we would have then taken in a
movie that started around 5pm, give or take a leeway of approx. 10
minutes before to about 20 minutes after; at least, those are the usual
late-afternoon show times for movie theaters in my area...anywhere from
around 4:50 to around 5:20. For a really popular movie which may have a
really early matinee start time, you occasionally find the late afternoon
start time is around 4:20, as the theater tries to squeeze in more
showings...
But I don't think the movie "A Civil Action" would have fit in that
category...
The earliest they could have gotten out of the movie would have been
about 6:30, if it started before 5 and ran for less than 2 hours...
More likely they got out closer to 7, perhaps a little later, but that's
pushing it in the other direction...my guess would be that the movie
ended between 6:40 and 7pm...
Now, when I and my friends had such an evening, we would have headed to a
NICE restaurant, where we could have a good meal which we could LINGER
over...
Even if the restaurant was right next door to the movie theater, and even
if by luck on a Saturday night we could get in without reservations and
not have to wait a long time for a table, it would have been very
unlikely that we could have had time to order and enjoy our cocktails,
appetizers, meal, dessert and coffee, and than have been also able to
drop one of our party off at Starbucks at 8:30...
Four and a half hours to meet friends for coffee, see a movie with those
friends, and to have dinner afterwards is do-able...but only if one were
rushing it. Gulping one's coffee down and rushing to the movie theater,
or going out to dinner where service is quicker -- a fastfood joint or a
diner...
Under normal circumstances, I and my friends would only do that if
someone had expressed a need to be somewhere at a certain time...so I
wonder if Chiang, when she met her friends at 4, and 'a movie and dinner'
were proposed, let them know at that time that she needed to be home at a
certain time...
Or did she announce that later on? Perhaps during the movie, or at its
end? It would be interesting to find out from the friends whether Chiang
left to go to the restroom during the movie, and if she did, could she
have spoken to someone on the phone before rejoining her friends?
>But a law enforcement source familiar with the investigation said: "It's an
>unidentified body; it appears to be the body of a female wearing clothing
>similar to the clothing described as Joyce Chiang's clothing. It's the same
>clothing described in the flier with the exception of the jacket, which was
>found in Anacostia Park with her ID."
This is strange...usually clothing is removed to hinder IDing the
body...but in this case, the outer clothing along with her ID seemed to
be DELIBERATELY placed so as to be found, and found by someone who would
turn them over to authorities instead of taking them to wear themselves,
or sell at a pawn shop...
Why not just burn them? And why not take the rest of her clothing off
and burn them also? That way, when and if the body WAS found, it would
have been all that much harder to identify the remains, especially if the
remains were in an advanced stage of decomposition...
It's almost as if the killer (or killers) wanted it to be easier to ID
the body...and the neat delivery of her outer garments right outside the
Naval station suggests that whomever killed her also wanted to get the
message to her family, friends, and authorities that "You haven't found
the body, and maybe never will, but here's something so that you will at
least know that she is dead"...
>Also, Chiang's bank card was found inside a stocking.
Interesting. Usually a woman only does that if she's not bringing a
purse...but she'd also stick a few dollars in the stocking, too...
Now, there ARE occasions when a woman would rather not have to be
bothered by a purse or worry about it being stolen...going for a walk or
jogging is one example...
Going into work for a few minutes, then doing errands at the mall, then
meeting friends for coffee, a movie, perhaps dinner, and then buying a
cup of tea at Starbucks is NOT the sort of occasion one would usually
leave one's purse behind...
Interesting, considering we now know that Gary Condit required the women
he has sexual liasons with to leave their IDs at home...
I notice that there's no mention of Chang having a driver's license...or
if she did, if it was included in what was recovered or if it went
missing...
If she went into work, that explains the government ID she had on
her...and the errands she supposedly ran at the mall perhaps explain the
Safeway and Blockbuster cards...but no driver's license? No insurance
cards (either auto or medical)? No SSN card? No credit cards? No
library card?
June
=======================================================================
Check out Alternative Kite Radio at
http://www.altkiteradio.trancetechno.com
Alternative Kite Radio (low-bandwidth)
Alternative Kite Radio (high-bandwidth)
Alternative Kite Summer Beachparty Radio (it's always summer somewhere)
Alternative Kite Holiday Radio (everyday's a holiday)
=======================================================================
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
