FSC: Ali Lowitzer: Missing Person’s Case

Ali Lowitzer Missing Person Case

Part 1: Ali Lowitzer Missing Person’s Case:

Ali Lowitzer was 16-years-old when she disappeared. By all accounts, it was a typical day. Lowitzer went to school that morning. After school she boarded a school bus as do hundreds of thousands of school kids do during the school year. The bus stop was three houses away from where Lowitzer lived. The school bus was equipped with surveillance cameras and captured her departing the bus around 245PM.  Then Ali vanished.

Ali’s mother reported her daughter as missing to the Spring Texas Police, by 11PM Monday April 26, 2010. According to reports the Spring Texas Police did not consider Ali a victim of foul play but believed she had runaway.  It would take a week for Ali to be listed as Missing and Endangered and another month before Ali’s case was handed over to Homicide Detectives with the Harris County Sheriff’s Department.

In the meantime, during those first few weeks, a non-profit organization, The Laura Recovery Center, came to the aid of the Lowitzer family and conducted searches and handing out fliers to bring attention to Ali’s case. 

Nine years have passed since the day Ali went missing.  Ali’s mother continues to run a Facebook page, reportedly still lives in the same home and Ali’s room has been left the way it was the day Ali disappeared. 

Over the last nine years the Lowitzer family has worked with at least 2 separate Private Investigators to search for Ali. The first investigator found evidence that Ali may have been seen talking to someone in a white truck on the day she disappeared.  Around the same time, a man by the name of Brandon Lavergne had been arrested and convicted for murdering a young girl in Lafayette, Louisiana. Lavergne was found to have ties to the Spring, Texas community and many considered this a breakthrough in the case when it was learned that Lavergne’s white truck was found burned a few miles North of Spring, Texas.

However, detectives working the case soon cleared Lavergne of having any connection to Ali’s disappearance when they learned that Lavergne had been employed and was working on an oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico. 

A few years later, the Lowitzer family hired another Private Investigator.  This investigator believed it was possible that Ali had been abducted and was being held captive by sex traffickers.  The investigator received a tip from someone in Ohio claiming they had seen Ali at a local church. Following this tip, the investigator went undercover and began speaking to prostitutes in the area, and after showing them the photo of Ali, the women stated they knew and had visually seen Ali and could direct the investigator to a brothel Ali was being held captive.

According to the investigator, she along with one of the prostitutes working as a police informant visited the brothel under the pretense of purchasing or selling illegal narcotics, and during the undercover operation as the investigator walked through the home, she too spotted Ali. 

Nevertheless, for unknown reasons, the investigator did not immediately seek to correspond with the missing girl, and instead flew back to Texas to speak with the Lowitzer family.  A month passed before the investigator would return to Ohio, and working with local police, the alleged brothel was stormed by police armed with a search warrant, but by this time Ali was gone.

Although it is impossible to rule out the investigator’s story she saw Ali alive and being held captive in Ohio, it is rather difficult to understand why it is it took a month for the Private Detective to return to Ohio and why she didn’t act the day she witnessed Ali in the alleged brothel. 

While it is possible that Ali Lowitzer was abducted against her will on April 26th 2010, and subsequently forced into sex trafficking, this review will attempt to go back to the day Ali Lowitzer disappeared and retrace the movements, and actions of those closely associated with Ali, and examine possible theories and motives that led to Ali’s disappearance.

Background; Spring Texas; Harris County; Suburb North of Houston:

Ali Lowitzer lived in Spring, Texas, in Harris County, a suburb north of Houston, Texas.  Her home was in a middle-class residential area on Low Ridge Road. The neighborhood was situated a few miles from major highways and two interstates, an international airport and to the north bordering her neighborhood is the Spring Creek Greenway.  According to an overview of the Greenway, “There are nearly 40 Miles of green space with hiking and biking trails.”

With a population of approximately 60,000, the crime rate statistics do seem to be above-average when compared to national crime-rate statistics.  However, when examining the FBI database it appears that Spring Texas does not report data of crimes to this database making it difficult to know actual real-time annual data. 

Ali’s Family:

Ali lived with her mother in Spring, Texas on Low Ridge Road. Ali’s mother and father had divorced 2 years earlier and her father was most likely living nearby, but not at the residence. Ali’s 18-year-old half-brother was also living at the residence on Low Ridge Road with Ali and his mother. Ali’s mother was at work, it is unknown if her father was at work at the time Ali exited the school bus, while Ali’s half-brother was at home, but apparently left the home to meet with friends a few minutes after he heard the school bus stopping just up the street from the house. 

Ali Lowitzer’s known Movements on 4/26/2010:

On Monday morning, Ali slept in late and woke up just in time to get dressed, and make it to the bus on time, and went to school. 

After school, Ali boarded the bus to take her back home. During the ride back to her neighborhood, according to Ali’s mother, Ali contacted her and informed her mother she did not have her keys to get into the house. The mother purportedly contacted Ali’s half-brother, who was 18, recently graduated and still living at home, and informed him to keep the door unlocked for Ali.

Then according to the mother, Ali contacted her mother again and asked for permission to walk to her place of employment to a) obtain her paycheck b) to attempt to work an afternoon shift.  Ali worked as a waitress at a local restaurant, (now closed) called “The Burger Barn”. The restaurant is approximately 0.7 miles from Ali’s home, and should take approximately 10-15 minutes to walk from Ali’s neighborhood to “The Burger Barn.”

Ali had worked at the restaurant for the last five weeks. But according to the mother, this was the first time Ali had asked permission to walk to the restaurant.  The mother has stated in interviews she denied Ali’s request stating that she didn’t feel it was safe to walk on Treaschwig Road, because there were no sidewalks on the heavily traveled road leading to Cypresswood Drive, where The Burger Barn was located in a shopping plaza. She also stated that Ali always had always relied on a family member to drive her to work over the last five weeks.

Ali pressed the matter, and the mother relented and gave Ali permission to walk.  Ali departed the bus at around 245PM. After she exited the bus two other neighborhood teens witnessed Ali and stated she appeared as she was “lagging behind” and perhaps was heading in the direction leading out of the subdivision Ali lived.

At approximately 257PM Ali sent a text message to a friend known as “Jay” and asked him if he wanted to come to her house and visit after school.  This would be the last text message Ali would send and by 3PM her phone either died, or Ali turned it off purposefully, and Ali would never been seen or heard from since.  

*There is some confusion as to where Ali may have been when her phone died or was purposefully turned off. If Ali had began walking to her work one could postulate if she exited the bus at 245PM, left her neighborhood and it takes approximately 10 minutes to walk to Cypresswood Road via Treaschwig Road, she could have been on Treaschwig Road at the time her phone went off and Ali went missing. Nevertheless, according to the mother after utilizing AT&T’s Family Locater Application, Ali’s phone last pinged near where Ali exited the bus placing her still being in her neighborhood.

Ali Lowitzer’s Route

Ali is Reported Missing; Harris County Homicide takes over Investigation:

After work, Ali’s mother arrived to the empty house, and realized Ali was not home, but did not panic. She stated she believed that Ali must have taken a shift at work, and would arrive home, or text soon to ask for a ride.  As time passed and Ali did not answer her mother’s texts, Ali’s mom drove to “The Burger Barn” and realized the restaurant had closed for the evening (apparently this was around 9PM).

Ali’s mother then called her estranged husband and he did not seem to panic believing that Ali may have been visiting with a friend and after the call Ali’s mother began calling Ali’s friends, but no one had seen her since school.  After driving around the neighborhood looking for her daughter, Ali’s father met his wife at her home on Low Ridge Road and at approximately 11PM contacted law enforcement.

The family claims that an officer arrived at around midnight and took a report, but apparently the officer believed Ali had runaway and would come home soon.  The parent’s were given instructions to contact the police in the morning if Ali did not arrive. 

When Ali did not arrive home, police were called again, but still refused to list Ali as a missing person. The father also visited the school and was able to obtain the video footage of Ali leaving the bus that Monday afternoon. He also visited “The Burger Barn” and learned from the owners that Ali did not show up that day and had not picked up her check.  To verify this, Ali’s father visited a local convenience store at the corner of Treaschwig Road and Cypresswood Road and asked to review their surveillance footage that overlooked the pathway Ali would have most likely taken from her neighborhood to “The Burger Barn.” Ali was not seen in those tapes confirming that she never made it to the “The Burger Barn” that day. 

A week later, Monday May 3rd, the Lowitzer family contacted local police and showed them the footage from the school bus and the store near the plaza Ali worked, and police determine that Ali should be listed as missing and endangered. Police search Ali’s room. While searching her room the police came across a journal and found where Ali had written about running away from home.  The parent’s dismissed this claiming that Ali’s writings were not a reflection of reality.   

At this point, the family reached out to the Laura Recovery Center, a non-profit organization that assists in searching for missing persons.  The Laura Recovery Center began organizing and searching the wooded Spring Creek Greenway woods that bordered the neighborhood Ali lived, canvassing the neighborhood and placing flyers with information about Ali around town.

With this information and the publicity garnered by the search for Ali by the Laura Recovery Center being covered by local news stations, Ali’s case was turned over to the Harris County Sheriff’s Homicide Division.

Harris County Homicide Investigation:

Once Harris County Homicide Detectives took the lead on the case, they spoke with the young man “Jay” who Ali texted at around 257PM and learned that he had informed Ali he would not be able to visit due to prior obligations, and after the detectives checked out his alibi, ruled him out as a suspect. The detectives then focused on interviewing Ali’s father and Ali’s half-brother. While both men passed a polygraph test, only Ali’s father was ruled out as a person of interest.  It is unknown why detectives still consider the half-brother as a person of interest. 

9 years since Ali’s disappearance law enforcement still receive tips from the general public, and have looked into allegations stemming from investigations conducted by at least two Private Investigators hired by the Lowitzer family.  Detectives ruled out Brandon Lavergne’s involvement in Ali’s disappearance by confirming his alibi.  Detective’s also take note that although sex trafficking is rampant, they have found no credible evidence to suggest that Ali is a victim of sex trafficking believing that Ali would have most likely encountered Law Enforcement during the last nine years if she is engaged in prostitution against her will.  If so, her fingerprints would have been taken and would have been discovered through the national database. 

Re-examining the Investigation into the Disappearance of Ali Lowitzer:   

Using the methodology of the Modified Schrodinger’s Cat Thought Experiment (MSCTEM), in the case of the disappearance of Ali Lowitzer it appears that not only is the “cat” missing, but the “box” containing the answers and evidence is also missing.  It’s as if the cat and the box never existed and we only know of its existence because of the missing report filed with police.

The lack of evidence means that it is difficult but perhaps not impossible to rule out whether Ali Lowitzer:

  1. Left on her own volition/Left with someone on her own volition
  2. Left with the Intent to Commit Suicide
  3. Left due to an undiagnosed mental illness
  4. Left and subsequently died as a result of an accident
  5. Abducted Against Her Will 1. Unknown Random Opportunistic Suspect  2.Unknown Outlier/Non-Opportunistic Suspect
  6. Murdered and Body Disposed

Finding Ali means finding the Box:

By examining this case by looking for the box as opposed to looking for the cat using the modified thought experiment, the box, and who holds the box has the answers. 

Hypothesis A:  Ali Ran away of her own volition:

If Ali left on her own volition one would have to surmise being 16 years of age, she most likely would have had help in “running away.”  This scenario would suggest that “Running Away” was premeditated at least within 24 hours prior to her up and leaving, and that her phone was turned off purposefully to prevent her movements from being tracked. 

It would also suggest that the conversation with her mother asking permission to walk to “The Burger Barn” was a ruse concocted by Ali to give her time to not only leave but distance herself from home before her mother realized she was missing. 

Still, one would have to argue, why ask permission to go to work if the intention was to runaway and had been premeditated? If this were the case, why would Ali call anyone and not just turn off her phone and leave?

Ali Running Away of her own Volition is Problematic: 

One of the major hurdles in attempting to work the hypothesis that Ali ran away of her own volition is there was no apparent need for Ali to ask permission to walk to work as opposed to just meeting with someone during the time Ali arrived home from school and her mother returning from work. 

The second hurdle is the text made to her friend Jay at 257PM inviting him to come over and visit that same day. Again unless this was a ruse to throw investigators off Ali’s track, it suggests that Ali had no prior plans and were looking to make plans.

The third issue is that during the phone call with her mother Ali made her mother aware that she did not have her house keys.  If Ali were preparing to leave of her own volition, she would not need her house keys, unless she planned on returning to the house to gather her belongings before running away.  However, according to the known facts, Ali’s personal belongings were never retrieved before Ali’s disappearance.

Reasons for Ruling out Hypothesis A:

There appears to be no evidence to suggest that Ali ran away of her own volition. In fact the hypothesis asks more questions than it answers. One would argue that if Ali’s intent were to run away and had made this decision prior to April 26th, she would have just left without calling anyone, and would have packed ahead of time because she would be excited about leaving.  There is no evidence of this. Instead, Ali is making plans to meet with another person and informing her mother she did not have the house keys expressing a clear intent that Ali had no plans after school, began making plans with a friend, and would need the keys in order to go home.  This evidence is not indicative of a person considering running away from home.

Ruling out Hypothesis A also answers Hypothesis B, C and D:

If Ali Lowitzer had a vehicle and her own means of transportation it would be difficult to rule out hypothesis A, B, C, and D. If her means of transportation were by foot, and she had no money to secure other means of transportation and her intent were to leave in order to commit suicide, as result of an undiagnosed Mental Illness or wandered away and accidentally succumbed to injuries and died, one would assume that Lowitzer would not have wandered too far from the immediate area and she would have been discovered soon after when searches were conducted in the general vicinity where Ali lived.

Hypothesis EF 1: Ali Lowitzer was Abducted/Murdered (Unknown Random/Opportunistic Suspect):

Out of all hypothetical scenarios, Hypothesis EF1 is difficult to answer. Abductions can happen very quickly, in broad day light, and a victim subdued and taken to whereabouts unknown.

This hypothesis will be labeled as Theory 1A.

 Hypotheses EF 2: Ali Lowitzer was Abducted/Murdered (Outlier/Non-Opportunistic Suspect):

Hypothesis EF 2 operates under the assumption that Ali Lowitzer may have been using social media to communicate with individuals unbeknownst to family and friends. 

This is important to understand, because even if Ali had no intentions to run away from home, she may have been in contact with someone intending to harm her. 

*It is possible that Law Enforcement has been able to obtain access to Ali’s online profile and social media and ascertain that she was not engaging in communications with individuals who used information learned from the messages to locate her and then abduct her.

This scenario is real and cannot be ruled out.  One could argue that Ali may have been speaking with individuals online and inadvertently giving information to the person providing the person clues enabling them to find and stalk her. 

If for example Ali is having problems at home, she may be inclined to go to social media and speak with others about her problems. In doing so, it is not a stretch to hypothesize that while online she encountered a person using a fictitious identity, posing as someone Ali’s age, and gaining Ali’s trust. 

By gaining Ali’s trust the person may attempt to lure Ali into meeting and Ali accepts the invitation, or it’s possible the person does not attempt to lure her into meeting but are able to learn pertinent information enabling them to find Ali and begin stalking her.  For instance, if the perpetrator is aware of the school Ali attends, or her place of employment the perpetrator could be stalking Ali, following her from school to her home or from her work back to her home.  It’s possible in this scenario that Ali may have actually encountered the perpetrator not knowing this was the same person she was communicating with online. 

Following this hypothesis, if Ali has met the person prior to April 26th at work for instance, and the person were to appear on Low Ridge Drive after Ali exits the bus, the person would be familiar to Ali as a customer and seems non-threatening and Ali enters the person’s vehicle voluntarily. 

This scenario would be considered an Outlier type suspect, who knew Ali through some context whether it is from social media, to a person living in the neighborhood, or a person who has encountered her at her job. 

To better define the term Outlier/Non-Opportunistic Suspect the recent abduction of Jayme Closs would fit this profile.  On 10/15/2018 Jake Thomas Patterson abducted the thirteen year old girl from her home after murdering her mother and father. Patterson held Closs captive 88 days until Closs managed to escape captivity.  Prior to 10/15/18 there is no evidence that Closs or her abductor had ever known each other.  However, after Patterson was arrested he made investigators aware that while driving home one day after work he spotted Closs exiting her school bus.  Although later Patterson apologized for his crimes and admitted that the murders and abduction were made “mostly on impulse”, he also stated the moment he saw her step off the bus he “knew that she was the girl he wanted to take.”

Patterson may state his crimes were impulsive, the moment he saw Closs exit her bus in September he began making plans on how he would go about abducting her.  Although he may not have come across Law Enforcement’s list of suspects had it not been for Closs escaping captivity, Patterson was not acting impulsively and the abduction was not opportunistic. If Patterson had stopped the day he first noticed Closs exiting her bus and abducted her it be an example of the crime being classified as disorganized and opportunistic.

As a result it is impossible to rule out Hypothesis EF 2, but it may be more probable than Theory 1A, in which an unknown person abducted Ali Lowitzer. 

The box in this case using the MSCTEM could be accessing Ali Lowitzer’s social media activity (if applicable) and learning if she were speaking with someone who may have had intent to harm her by stalking her or luring her into meeting. 

Subsequently this hypothesis will be labeled as Theory 2A.

Hypothesis EF3: Ali Lowitzer Abducted/Murdered by Known Suspect:

Unfortunately, an all too familiar suspect is someone the victim knows personally/intimately.  Statistics confirm this scenario (read Part 1).  At the time Ali Lowitzer was abducted, she was not married, and although she had a “boyfriend” he has apparently been ruled out due to having a strong alibi. There are no known person’s of interest in which Ali had dated and the break up was not amicable.

An example of this scenario is the disappearance of Kara Kopetsky in 2007.  At the time Kopetsky disappeared she was 17-years-old and was last seen leaving the high school she attended in Missouri.  It took ten years to find Kopetsky’s body and a suspect arrested. However, the suspect had been a primary suspect since Kara’s disappearance because they had recently dated and Kopetsky had ended the relationship and filed a restraining order against the man.  In 2017 Kylr Yust was arrested and charged for Kopetsky’s murder and the murder of Jessica Runions, killed in 2016.  He is currently in jail and his trial date still pending. 

To date, there is no information or evidence suggesting that Ali had problematic issues with a former or current boyfriend or that anyone Ali may have dated or even known socially from school or the neighborhood had any motive to hurt Ali.

On Monday April 26th 2010 when Ali Lowitzer exited the school bus she was near her home.  Her mother was at work, and her father did not live at the residence. However, Ali’s 18-year-old half brother was at home.  According to reports, Ali’s brother heard the bus when it arrived in their subdivision, but left within minutes of the bus arriving to meet with a friend(s).

A month later when Harris County Homicide Detectives took over the investigation Ali’s father and her half-brother were interrogated.  Although the father and half-brother took and passed polygraph tests, Homicide Detectives ruled out Ali’s father as a suspect, but refused to rule out Ali’s half-brother. 

It has also been noted that Ali’s half-brother continues to refuse questioning by Law Enforcement and the press and has subsequently moved away from Texas to the Seattle, Washington area. 

When examining this hypothesis it is possible to surmise that something happened to Ali before she left her neighborhood.  According to Ali’s mother in the last five weeks Ali had been employed at The Burger Barn, there was always a family member available to take her to work. 

It begs the question if Ali’s half-brother was at home, and was supposedly going to leave soon after Ali arrived from school, why didn’t the mother ask him to take Ali to work? 

Another question one has to ask is why Ali uses her mother to speak to the brother instead of texting or calling him herself?

The mother never states that when Ali asks for permission to walk to work that she reached out to Ali’s half-brother to take her to work and he refused.  Instead, Ali’s mother states she only made sure that the brother kept the door unlocked so Ali could get into the house. 

Also, it has been stated that soon after the bus arrived Ali’s half-brother left the house, and if this is true, depending on his direction of travel it is possible that he may have encountered Ali.

As a result of these questionable circumstances that happened the day Ali Lowitzer disappeared, Ali’s half-brother was the only family member at home when Ali exited the school bus and because Law Enforcement are reluctant to eliminate Ali’s half-brother as a suspect, this hypothesis seems as likely a plausible scenario as Theory 1A.

Therefore this Hypothesis will be labeled as Theory 3A.

Theory 1A: Ali Lowitzer was abducted By Unknown/Opportunistic Suspect:

It is impossible without ruling out Theory 2A and Theory 2C to rule out a scenario in which Ali Lowitzer was possibly abducted by an opportunistic disorganized suspect.  This theory operates under the assumption that if Ali left her neighborhood she may have been abducted at some place along her route from Low Ridge Road or as she traveled up Old Pike Road and took a left turn on Treaschwig Road. 

However, there are problems with this theory.  One would assume that 3PM were peak hours for traffic along Treaschwig Road and someone would have seen Ali fending off the suspect attempting to abduct her.  Also, there are no reports that Ali’s belongings such as her phone or her book bag she carried were found along the route that may have been dropped by Ali if she were being attacked. 

This does not rule out that Ali voluntarily entered into an unknown person’s vehicle and was subsequently abducted.

Theory 1A operates under a similar assumption detailed in Theory 2B in regards to the suspect that the suspect lived near Spring Texas within 30-50 miles. The most significant change would be an assumption that the abductor may between the ages of 30-55 years of age, married, with children/step-children, disorganized, but respectable, disarming personality and most likely expressed concern for Ali’s well being and offered her a ride to which she volunteered to get into the suspect’s vehicle.

Even so, this does not explain why Ali’s cell phone data shows no evidence of this. The only way this could be explained is to surmise that Ali’s phone died or the suspect subdued Ali soon after she entered the vehicle and took possession of her phone.

The search perimeters in respects to this suspect’s location would seem to stay in the same 30-50 mile radius as defined in Theory 2B.

Theory 2B: Ali Lowitzer was Abducted/Murdered by an Unknown/Non-Opportunistic Outlier Suspect:

The rationale behind Theory 2B being a more plausible explanation then Theory 1A, is it seems more likely that due to the fact Ali Lowitzer had expressed thoughts of running away from home, was known to text 4000+ text messages per month, and there is doubt as to whether Ali even left her neighborhood, and if so was seen by no one as she walked down Treaschwig Road, Ali may have been stalked by someone she had met online, someone from work, school, and her abduction was premeditated by the unknown suspect.

Theory 2B is also dependant on a further explanation of Theory 3C to be analyzed in next chapter.  Because it cannot be ruled out that something happened to Ali by someone she knows such as a family member.

To understand Theory 2B, (Scenario 1) Ali may have been in communication with someone unbeknownst to her family and friends through social media.  Ali may have intended to meet this individual on the day she disappeared.  For example, Ali may have contacted her mother for permission to walk to work as opposed to asking her mother to ask her half-brother to drive her to work in order to meet with the person she has met on Social Media.  The person is running behind and as Ali waits she grows impatient and reaches out to her friend Jay to see if he wants to hang out later.  As she is sending this text the online “friend” arrives.  Ali gets into the person’s vehicle willingly and is abducted. 

It is possible as she enters the person’s vehicle she is subdued immediately and her phone taken and turned off or disabled. 

(Scenario 2) Another possibility is Ali had no intention to meet with anyone, but upon exiting the bus and walking towards work, she is met by a familiar face, perhaps someone who has met her through the place she works, and Ali enters the vehicle and then is subdued and her phone disabled. 

The difference between scenario 1 and 2 is that in the 1st scenario Ali intended to meet with the person versus, the person Ali was familiar and just so happened and without notice appeared in her neighborhood.

Scenario 1 and 2 of Theory 2B suggests that the suspect in Ali’s disappearance near Spring Texas. The suspect was organized and the abduction was premeditated. In both scenarios Ali entered into the suspect’s vehicle willingly because she had made prior arrangements to meet the person, or the person was familiar and she believed them to be non-threatening. 

The possibility of a chance encounter by someone who just happened to frequent the place she worked is possible, but it seems more plausible that in scenario 1 and 2, that the suspect may have had purposefully sought out Ali after meeting her through social media and a) lured her into meeting or b) began stalking the places Ali visited such as school or The Burger Barn using information learned during conversations Ali had with the suspect through social media to give the suspect vital clues as to how to find her.

Scenario 2 would imply that after gaining information vital to places Ali worked or visited, the suspect possibly approached her and met her at her work posing as a “polite” customer.  The suspect had visited the establishment on more than one occasion and becomes a familiar non-threatening face and on April 26th the suspect appears in Ali’s neighborhood under false pretenses (e.g. claims he too lives nearby) and offers Ali a ride and Ali enters the suspect’s vehicle willingly. 

Scenario 1 would imply that Ali accepted the suspect’s invitation to meet and subsequently entered the suspect’s vehicle willingly.

The suspect in Theory 2B is most likely between the ages of 20-35, and someone who spends a lot of time on the internet and social media, posing as a kind understanding, but depressed person who is able to hone in on vulnerable young girls and act as a kind mediator allowing the victim to vent and by doing so establishing a level of trust with the victim. 

The suspect lives near Spring Texas, within a 30-50 mile radius.

This suspect most likely has a criminal record and has been cited for this type of predatory behavior, but never has gone as far as actually abducting someone, but the thought of doing so becomes overwhelming and the suspect becomes more obsessed by the idea and begins stalking Ali over a two-three week period of their initial conversation.  This suspect is organized, and is sure to not send messages through text or give out his number and prefers to speak through some type of encrypted social media application. 

The suspect does not necessarily have to be tech savvy but clever enough to not use any personal information and is able to hide in the shadows on the internet. 

If this suspect has murdered Ali, it is quite possible that the suspect did not go to great lengths to dispose of her body, but placed her in a location off the beaten path, but in a location the suspect can return too and visit.

The suspect most likely lives outside Harris County, but uses the major interstates to travel quickly to and from their home to Spring Texas. 

The suspect is familiar with police procedure and technology and perhaps has considered working in Law Enforcement, but is aware that Law Enforcement uses Cell Phone data to track victims.  On the day Ali disappears, the suspect most likely subdued Ali quickly, using some type of weapon such as a stun gun, taking her phone and removing the battery immediately before leaving the area. 

Scenario 1 of Theory 2B seems to answer more questions than it asks.  It operates under the premise that Ali Lowitzer had known the suspect prior to April 26th, 2010, and on the day of had agreed to meet with the person she most likely met online, but believed it would be a short encounter, possibly one in which she believed the suspect would take her to her work to pick up her check and then maybe go on a date.  This would explain Ali’s behavior and asking her mom to walk to work, giving her an alibi as to where she would be, without informing her mother that she was meeting a stranger she had met online. 

This scenario operates under the premise that the suspect and Ali were to meet on Old Pike Road, which explains why Ali according to witnesses who exited the school bus with her states she seemed to be lagging, but also why her phone’s last ping seems to come from somewhere close to her residence.

As Ali waits for the suspect to arrive she grows impatient and texts her friend Jay to make other arrangements believing she had been stood up, but perhaps the suspect was running behind, and the suspect was running behind because of traffic issues or it’s possible the suspect drove around the neighborhood scoping it out ahead of the abduction.

It’s also possible that the suspect does not immediately subdue Ali, but does ask her to turn off her phone, and she does so willingly under some false pretense and the suspect after picking up Ali on Old Pike Road, turns right on Treaschwig Road, heading towards The Burger Barn, and then left on Cypresswood Road, and only then does Ali realize something is wrong as the suspect continues to I-69 or passes by Cypresswood Road via Treaschwig Road, to I-45. 

This theory will be expanded and labeled as Operational Theory 1AS1.

Theory 3C: Ali Lowitzer was a victim of someone she Knew (Domestic/Relative):

NOTE: OPERRATIONAL THEORY 1AS1 OPERATES UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT ALI LOWITZER WAS MANIPULATED BY A PREDATORIAL UNKNOWN OUTLIER SUSPECT SHE MET MOST LIKELY THROUGH SOCIAL MEDIA AND WAS BEING DECIVIOUS WHEN SPEAKING WITH HER MOTHER TO ASK HER PERMISSION TO WALK TO WORK TO HIDE THE FACT HER INTENT TO MEET THE UNKNOWN SUSPECT.

THEORY 3C OPERATES UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE FAMILY IS BEING DECIVIOUS IN THEIR COMMUNICATIONS WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT ABOUT THEIR CONVERSATIONS THEY HAD WITH ALI ON THE DAY SHE WENT MISSING.

Although surveillance footage shows Ali Lowitzer exiting the school bus at around 245PM, prior to exiting the bus, Ali spoke with her mother.  Because Ali cannot verify the conversations she had with her mother we have to accept the mother’s version of the events that day as fact. 

Following the MSCTEM, everyone is considered a suspect and maybe even statistically, it is an absolute necessity to investigate those closest to the victim. One must also reiterate that Harris County Law Enforcement has not ruled out Ali’s half-brother as a person of interest even if her half-brother passed a polygraph test.

Theory 3C operates under the assumption that on the day Ali went missing there is no evidence to rule out that although Ali was seen “lingering” in the neighborhood on Low Ridge Road, that she ever left the neighborhood and instead didn’t turn around and go back to her home. 

If Ali did not leave the neighborhood and returned home she would have most likely encountered her half-brother.  And if Ali did return home everything that is known about this case changes dramatically.

According to Ali’s mother, prior to exiting the bus Ali contacted her and informed her mother that she did not have her house keys.  After this conversation, the mother contacts Ali’s half-brother to make him aware to keep the doors unlocked to the house. 

Ali’s mother then states Ali contacted her mother to ask permission to walk to work.  However, Ali’s request was declined because the mother did not think it was safe for Ali to walk down Treaschwig Road which had no sidewalk.  Also, in the past five weeks Ali had been employed Ali’s mother confirmed that there was always a family member available to take Ali to work. 

If this were the case, and the mother knew her son was home Ali’s mother never states she asked Ali’s half-brother to take Ali to work which again is only 0.7 miles from where Ali lived meaning it would have taken about 4 to 7 minutes for the half-brother to drive Ali to work. 

When the mother comes home a couple hours later the house is empty.  She states she texts Ali to make sure she made it to work and states she assumes that Ali didn’t text back because Ali was able to pick up a shift and was busy working. 

Ali’s mother does not contact Ali’s place of employment or drive the 0.7 miles to check in on her daughter, who only a couple hours earlier was worried about her daughter walking down Treaschwig Road.  Instead, at 9PM she drives to The Burger Barn and finds the restaurant closed. 

This is a perplexing and problematic issue: if the mother is reluctant to grant her daughter permission to walk to work at 245PM because she feared for Ali’s safety, when the mother returns home and has not heard from Ali in 2 hours, she assumes her daughter must have made it to work safely instead of verifying that her daughter made it to work safely by calling the restaurant she worked, or drive the 0.7 miles to the restaurant to verify her daughter made it safely to work. 

Perhaps even more perplexing is that Ali’s mother was not aware of the hours of operation of the restaurant her daughter worked and instead of being at the restaurant a few minutes early to pick up her daughter who she believed had made it safely to work, she arrives after the restaurant has closed for the day. 

Six hours have passed from the time Ali last spoke with her mother and Ali’s mother drives the 0.7 miles to the restaurant only to find it is closed.

Further complicating matters is Ali’s mother has claimed that Ali is never without her phone and on average sends 4000 texts per month.  If Ali’s mother had feared for her daughter’s safety walking down Treaschwig Road, and has not heard from her daughter in 6 hours, it would be safe to assume that Ali may have been involved in an accident confirming Ali’s mother’s worst fears, but Ali’s mother reportedly does not contact local hospitals or police to inquire as to whether her daughter may have been injured is disconcerting.  Instead, Ali’s mother contacts Ali’s father.  Again, instead of contacting hospitals or local police, they choose to contact Ali’s friends. 

To put this into perspective, according to Ali’s mother, Ali has never walked to work, tends to stay close at home in her room and on her phone texting on average 4000 texts per month, she does not know when the place Ali has worked for the last five weeks closes, and although her residence is less than one mile away does not call or drive there to verify that Ali made it to work safely.  Another troubling factor to consider is that Ali’s parents are adamant that she has never run away before, yet on a school night by 9PM Ali has not come home, is not at work, and yet they wait until 11PM to contact police to report Ali missing.  By this time 8 hours have elapsed since the last known communication between Ali and her mother, and the time the parent’s decide to contact police. 

Police arrive around midnight and give the parent’s the impression that Ali may have run away, and give instructions for the parents to contact the police in the morning if Ali doesn’t return home.  Another interesting fact is that although the police are seemingly under the impression that Ali has run away, and the parents are equally convinced Ali has not run away, 24 hours pass before Ali’s mother enables the AT&T Family Map GPS locator.  Once the application is activated, the data reports that Ali’s last pinged location was near the bus stop.

*In defense of Ali in regards to Law Enforcement: it is difficult to not admonish the local Law Enforcement in not classifying Ali’s disappearance as a “missing person’s case” immediately on April 16, 2010.  It is unknown if although Ali wasn’t classified as a missing person, that police were not actively looking for her.  It is also disturbing that it took an entire week for Law Enforcement to re-classify Ali as a missing and endangered person. 

**In defense of Ali in regards to the parents: it is plausible that the parent’s actions in the first 6 hours were appropriate, in which they too were holding out for hope that Ali would return home and were attempting to not overreact. Even so, it is difficult not to admonish the family as well as Law Enforcement for not acting more quickly to alert authorities that Ali was missing.  To wait 8 hours to contact police it is hard to argue that you know your daughter would not runaway, and at the same time not call police immediately once Ali was not found to be at her place of employment. 

The reason Theory 3C cannot be ruled out is that the parent’s statements seem contradictory.  If the argument is there is no way Ali has runaway, yet at the same time Ali is not where she stated she would be and has not communicated to anyone otherwise of a change in plans, and the mother was worried about Ali walking down Treaschwig Road, yet instead of calling The Burger Barn when Ali does not confirm her arrival at the restaurant or dive the 0.7 miles to visually confirm Ali arrived safely, if in fact Ali has never gone missing, or failed to communicate her plans and if those plans change, then it makes it difficult to understand how they behaved in the 8 hours between the time Ali last communicated with her mother and the time the parents contacted police.

In other words, if the mother is reluctant to allow her daughter to walk to work, it shows that the mother is aware of the safety hazards and expresses this concern to her daughter.  However, she also asks her daughter to make her aware that she arrived to work safely.  When Ali’s mother arrives home and has not been contacted by Ali, one could argue panic would set in at that point, and the mother would be prompted to make a call to the restaurant or drive and verify that her daughter did arrive safely. 

Another problematic issue is that Ali’s phone when viewed through AT&T’s Family Map Application shows Ali last known location 24 hours after her last communication with her mother as still being in the subdivision they lived. 

Even so, the mother becomes the most important witness in the disappearance of her daughter, because she is the last person known to speak to her, and her final conversations with her daughter are unverified because only Ali and her mother know the truth of what they discussed.  Therefore, one can either accept Ali’s mother’s version as fact, and if Ali’s mother’s version of events cannot be accepted as fact then Ali’s mother’s version of events needs to be dissected further by Law Enforcement.

Because there is no proof showing that Ali Lowitzer left her neighborhood, no evidence she was abducted,  evidence she had arranged to meet with anyone, no evidence reporting any eyewitnesses noticing Ali on Treaschwig Road, one has to point out that Ali may have never had intentions to walk to work that day and instead went home.  The only evidence pointing to Ali leaving her neighborhood to walk to work comes from one source that cannot be verified by any other source. 

If Ali went home minutes after exiting the bus, but did not runaway, then one has to make an argument that something malicious happened to Ali at home.  Nevertheless it is unknown if Harris County Homicide has ever searched the Lowitzer residence for forensic evidence or if Ali Lowitzer’s mother has ever been interrogated by police the same as Ali’s father and half-brother or if she’s ever taken a polygraph. 

Theory 3C operates under the assumption that Ali Lowitzer’s movements on April 26, 2010 have possibly been fabricated by family members in order to provide cover for someone within the Lowitzer household. Theory 2B also answers more questions than it asks similar to Operational Theory 1AS1, but in one Ali Lowitzer is engaging in deceptive behavior and Theory 2B the family is engaging in deceptive behavior.

Thus, Theory 3B cannot be ruled out and will be labeled as Operational Theory 2BHB.

Summary of Part 1:

Hypotheses A, B, C and D have been ruled out because there is no evidence supporting that Ali Lowitzer left of her own volition on April 26, 2010.  In fact, Ali had reached out to a friend through a text message inviting him to come over to visit with her that day.  This message has been confirmed and unlike the communications with Ali’s mother if they cannot be verified through text and were conversations made through telephone, one has to take Ali’s mother’s version of events at face value, or question their validity altogether.

Theory 1A has also been ruled out because there is little evidence suggesting that Ali Lowitzer was abducted by an opportunistic unknown suspect.  Although it’s possible, when one examines the geographical location as to where Ali Lowitzer lived, the time she disappeared being around 3pm after school, on a heavily traveled road during peak hours and no one witnessed Ali being abducted or witnessed her being on Treaschwig Road, this hypothesis does not merit inclusion to be labeled as an operational theory.

Part 2: Operational Theory 1AS1:

This theory operates under the assumption that before April 26 2010 Ali Lowitzer had met an unknown individual through social media that she was able to vent to about problems she felt unable to talk about with friends or relatives.  Ali and the unknown suspect had a secretive relationship that for Ali was exciting because the suspect possibly posed as someone Ali found not only relatable but lived a unique interesting life that appealed to Ali. 

The suspect is highly manipulative and predatory and exploits Ali’s curiosities and vulnerabilities he learns through their conversations.  Ali may be the first to actually initiate the meeting, although the idea was planted by the suspect, he waits for Ali to actually make the suggestion. 

It’s possible that within 24-48 hours prior to meeting, the suspect has driven the neighborhood Ali lives or has viewed it online through a map application and chooses the location, somewhere near, but relatively secluded to meet.  The suspect chooses Old Pike Road and Ali accepts. 

On the day of April 26th 2010, Ali contacts her mother to ask about the house keys perhaps under the pretense of seeing if her half-brother is home because she wants to ensure the half-brother does not see her getting into the vehicle with a stranger.  She also asks her mother’s permission to walk to work, and when her mother refuses Ali presses the issue further until the mother relents.  This gives Ali an alibi as to where she is going, and if the meeting goes well also gives Ali time to prolong the date with the person she is meeting by suggesting she may pick up a shift and work that day.  Either way if the meeting goes well or doesn’t go well, Ali has created an alibi to her whereabouts for that afternoon that will enable her to stay out longer, or return early. 

After exiting the bus, Ali lingers near Low Ridge Road and the intersection of Knotty Pine Lane, slowly making her way to Old Pike Road as she waits on the suspect.  Impatient, because the suspect is not answering her, because the suspect cannot answer her because the suspect is driving, Ali believes she has been stood up. Aggravated and having look forward to the planned meeting she makes other plans.  Soon after sending this text the suspect arrives on Old Pike Road and Ali enters the vehicle voluntarily. 

The suspect either asks Ali to power off her phone under some false pretense and she does so purposefully or he subdues her soon after Ali enters the suspect’s vehicle and the suspect takes her phone, and removes the battery. 

With Ali subdued the suspect forces Ali down into the floorboard, and continues driving and drives to the interstate.  From there, the suspect drives home, or quite possibly to a remote location somewhere outside of Spring and within 30 to 50 miles from the spot the suspect abducted Ali Lowitzer.

Operational Theory 1AS1 assumes the suspect to be between the ages of 20-35, possibly a white male that has some experience in computer technology enabling him to mask his IP address or lurk online using assumed identities for the sole purpose of meeting young girls online.  The suspect is a misanthrope, not social, and prefers the anonymity of being online, and suppresses his impulses and fantasies, but overtime becomes overwhelmed by these impulses and takes advantage of Ali’s insecurities establishing trust with her and they begin an online relationship that evolves to them making plans to meet.  The suspect may inform her that he is older than her, and as a result they have to maintain secrecy, but this also intrigues Ali that an older man is attracted to her so she keeps this relationship secret. 

This operational theory answers more questions than it asks, and assumes that Ali “knew” the suspect but the suspect had preyed on her insecurities and posed as someone who made Ali feel special and desired. 

This operational theory may answer why Ali pressed for permission to walk work, showing that Ali did not want her mother to worry, but at the same time Ali was not being truthful in order to establish an alibi, but also to reassure her mom she knew what she was doing. 

Using the MSCTEM to Find Ali or the Suspect:

The “box” in this particular operational theory would be in accessing Ali’s social media accounts.  Nevertheless, without access to Ali’s phone, it may be impossible to know what applications she was utilizing. 

Another way to access the “box” in this operational theory is to look for suspects who may have been involved in similar altercations with law enforcement for offenses classified as crimes of moral turpitude.

The suspect may live on the outskirts of Harris County, most likely in a rural area, within 30-50 miles from Spring Texas (See Map).

 A: Dayton

B: Moss Hill

C: Cleveland

D: Conroe

E: Navasota

F: Prairie View

With the “epicenter” represented as G: Spring, Texas.

To locate this individual the best practical approach is to speak with Law Enforcement in these jurisdictions and ask them to create a list of possible suspects who may fit this profile in order to cast a wider net within these geographical perimeters. (Theory 1A which has been ruled out as being a less probable theory, cannot be ruled out but operates under the same search perimeters but suggests the suspect may be between the ages of 30-55.)

Operational Theory 2BHB:

This theory operates under the assumption that on April 26th 2010, Ali Lowitzer exited the school bus and went home.  What is unclear is what happened once Ali made it home. 

In order to move forward with this theory, Ali’s mother’s version of the last conversations she had with her daughter before Ali exited the school bus need to be scrutinized further by Law Enforcement.  It operates under the opposite assumption of Operational Theory 1AS1 where Ali was being duplicitous and surmises that the family is being is being duplicitous in order to cover up a crime most likely committed within the Lowitzer home perpetrated by a family member. 

Harris County Homicide Detectives investigating this case have been unable to rule out Ali’s half-brother as being a person of interest.  It is unknown if the Lowitzer home has ever been forensically examined for evidence, it also unknown if Ali’s mother has been interrogated and administered a polygraph test. 

Furthermore, the version of events made known by Ali’s mother seem to demonstrate duplicitous statements in which on one hand Ali’s mother is reluctant to allow Ali permission to walk to her place of employment, but relents after Ali presses the matter with the caveat that Ali were to contact her once she arrived to work safely. 

However, once Ali’s mother returns home after work and has not received a confirmation from her daughter verifying she was safe, her mother does not contact Ali’s place of employment nor does she drive the 0.7 miles to her daughter’s place of employment to verify her daughter is safe.  In fact, Ali’s mother allows two hours to pass from the time she returns home from work and four hours from the last time she spoke to her daughter before she makes the decision to drive to Ali’s place of employment at 9PM only to find it closed.

Ali’s mother does not contact police or local hospitals to see if her daughter has been involved in an accident, which was one of the mother’s concerns causing her to originally forbid her daughter from walking to work.  She contacts Ali’s father instead who makes the case that Ali may be with a friend, so they contact Ali’s friends and another two hours pass before Ali’s parents make the decision to contact police at 11PM meaning that 8 hours have passed since the last time Ali communicated with her family. 

The reason these statements come across as duplicitous is it is known that Ali on average makes 4000 texts per month and is always with her phone.  Also, the mother has stated that during the last five weeks Ali has been an employee at The Burger Barn she always had a family member available to drive her to work.  However, on April 26th 2010 although Ali’s half-brother is at home at the time Ali exits the school bus, Ali’s mother does not ask him to take Ali to her place of employment, but she does ask him to make sure to keep the door unlocked because Ali forgot her key to the house when she left home that morning. 

This begs the question why Ali’s mother is seemingly playing the part of the go-between with Ali and Ali’s half-brother and why Ali isn’t communicating with her half-brother. 

In addition to this Ali’s parents have been adamant from the outset that Ali did not run away from home of her own volition, and it also begs the question that if they were never convinced Ali would run away, but at the same time feared for her safety when Ali asked to walk to work, when Ali is given permission and does not contact her parents to verify she is safe, why it takes 8 hours to contact police. 

If the parent’s are adamant she didn’t run away, and yet she is not home and is not communicating her whereabouts, then the only other explanation would be something is wrong and Ali may be in danger.  This seems to be a major contradiction with the statements made when measured against the actions taken when Ali does not confirm her whereabouts on the day she went missing. 

As a result, one cannot rule out the theory that there may have been troubles within the Lowitzer household that involved problems between Ali and her half-brother, that led to Ali’s journal entries expressing thoughts of running away from home, and that on April 26, 2010 the troubles between Ali and her half-brother worsened and the subsequent events that followed involved a cover up in which Ali’s last known movements as told by Ali’s mother were crafted in order to misdirect law enforcement away from home and only until after the cover up complete and the story misdirecting law enforcement concocted and rehearsed 8 hours after Ali exits her school bus the Lowitzer family contacts police. 

Using the MSCTEM to Find Ali:

The “Box” in this operational theory is by officially ruling out Ali’s mother and half-brother by scrutinizing Ali’s mother’s version of events through interrogation and forensically examining the home, and vehicles owned at the time of Ali’s disappearance. 

Although Operational Theory 1AS1 is plausible and most likely, in order to move forward it may be necessary to rule out Operational Theory 2BHB. 

All theories listed on this site are of my own and I do not represent Law Enforcement. If you have any information concerning this case please contact Law Enforcement.

Investigating Agency

  • Harris County Sheriff’s Office 713-221-6000

Published by Chad Ard

Author, Editor

Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: