POI - Dale Golder - #2

[SadlyMistaken]

I may be COMPLETELY off here but after reading the SW. I thought that the detective was trying to say that after DG started getting questioned about Lindsey's disappearance.. he started hanging out with the neighbor every night.. that had the problems with memory that was due to drug and alcohol abuse.. in an attempt to create an alibi for June 26th. That the neighbor with the memory problems, when questioned did say that DG was at the BBQ that night and that he was with a girl. Then when they talked to the girl. She said that she was there but that DG wasn't there... and she agreed to be interviewed. I guess I will have to read it again. I just don't get why they would add the info about the person with the memory problem and the girl's answer and that she agreed to be interviewed if they weren't trying to establish that he had told several difference stories about where he was that night, that were all untrue. That he even tried to manipulate someone with mental problems to lie for him.

OK.. now that I read it again.. it says "investigators believed she had been......." . I am thinking "at home".. maybe?.. which if this was Stephani.. would have been in eastern WA. Guess that makes more sense. The guy with the mental problems said they were there together.. but she couldn't have been there because she wasn't even in town and her and DG had just begun talking that day. LOL I don't know.. that whole part is confusing to me.

 

[SadlyMistaken]

Very interesting!! I will have to read it again too. I first thought someone had told LE DG was there with SC, but then SC said she wasn't and that it was actually someone else he was there with. Hmmmm

I think you are right. I had remembered it wrong or just didn't know what to put in the blank spaces so added my info.. LOL.. sorry! I think the guy said she was there with DG that night. That makes more sense.

 

[Jules71]

From the sw:

Investigators interviewed ___(1)_____. He stated he had a BBQ on 06-26-09. He said that [Golder] and a woman named ___(2)____ had attended. Investigators believed she had been at __(3)____ on 06-26-09 when [Golder] was present. She agreed to meet with investigators in person for an interview.

Anyone know what blanks 1, 2, and 3 are?

Are we thinking (1) is the person who has mental problems and can be "manipulated into believing things that did not occur"?

Who had been a Hardy's residence talking to him almost every evening? DG? Is (1) Hardy? If so, then Ralke described [Hardy] as having some mental issues, etc.?

It is looking like DG was NOT at the BBQ and that he convinced the person with mental issues to say he and a famale (SC?) were there? Did DG believe SC would confirm his alibi?

 

[Jules71]

OK.. now that I read it again.. it says "investigators believed she had been......." . I am thinking "at home".. maybe?.. which if this was Stephani.. would have been in eastern WA. Guess that makes more sense. The guy with the mental problems said they were there together.. but she couldn't have been there because she wasn't even in town and her and DG had just begun talking that day. LOL I don't know.. that whole part is confusing to me.

Yes! I believe you are correct. "investigators believed she was at [home]. I can see the "at". I kept trying to put Ellensburg in there and it didn't work with "at". But yes, AT HOME works!

 

[SadlyMistaken]

From the sw:

Investigators interviewed ___(1)_____. He stated he had a BBQ on 06-26-09. He said that [Golder] and a woman named ___(2)____ had attended. Investigators believed she had been at __(3)____ on 06-26-09 when [Golder] was present. She agreed to meet with investigators in person for an interview.

Anyone know what blanks 1, 2, and 3 are?

Are we thinking (1) is the person who has mental problems and can be "manipulated into believing things that did not occur"?

Who had been a Hardy's residence talking to him almost every evening? DG? Is (1) Hardy? If so, then Ralke described [Hardy] as having some mental issues, etc.?

It is looking like DG was NOT at the BBQ and that he convinced the person with mental issues to say he and a famale (SC?) were there? Did DG believe SC would confirm his alibi?

I think that that investigators don't believe that he was there. That he manipulated the man into believing that he was there as his alibi. Maybe he didn't know that the neighbor would get mixed up and add that the girl was there too. Probably because they had been together since then and he had seen him and the girl together. That would be the only way it would make sense.. if that is their theory. Since they put it all in there.. it looks like that is what they believe happened.

If it is some other girl.. then dang.. I don't know! LOL

 

[Jules71]

I think that that investigators don't believe that he was there. That he manipulated the man into believing that he was there as his alibi. Maybe he didn't know that the neighbor would get mixed up and add that the girl was there too. Probably because they had been together since then and he had seen him and the girl together. That would be the only way it would make sense.. if that is their theory. Since they put it all in there.. it looks like that is what they believe happened.

If it is some other girl.. then dang.. I don't know! LOL

I think you are right on!!:woohoo:

 

[Jules71]

He has to be the one! Otherwise WHY all the lies? It just doesn't make sense. And too conincidental he was seen where Lindsey disappeared around the same time and the texting stopped.

 

[eyes4crime]

I think that that investigators don't believe that he was there. That he manipulated the man into believing that he was there as his alibi. Maybe he didn't know that the neighbor would get mixed up and add that the girl was there too. Probably because they had been together since then and he had seen him and the girl together. That would be the only way it would make sense.. if that is their theory. Since they put it all in there.. it looks like that is what they believe happened.

If it is some other girl.. then dang.. I don't know! LOL

I think you could be right on target with that scenario! DG is sure a manipulative opportunist isn't he?

Let's say he wasn't at the BBQ nor with a girl - what does that do for the time-line? Where was he until he met up with Lindsey at 9:15 or so? What was he doing that made him want a 10yo? (assuming he is the perp).

 

[SadlyMistaken]

He has to be the one! Otherwise WHY all the lies? It just doesn't make sense. And too conincidental he was seen where Lindsey disappeared around the same time and the texting stopped.

There are some definate holes in this guys story and you have to wonder why that is. The truth is simple. Lies are what complicates things. The truth doesn't change. And.. it certainly wasn't one "wrong answer" to detectives on the phone. He lied to the gf about even having work that night. He lied to investigators. The texting stopping at 9:26 because he had to "work" at 10.. really disturbs me.. especially since she says that on other nights, they texted and had long phone conversations, even while he was at work. I am curious when he told her he had to work.. did he suddenly around 9:30 send her a message saying he had gotten a call that he had to work that night and needed to get ready and go, so didn't have time to continue (which would mean IF it is him.. he saw Lindsey and some sickening impulse took over) or Did he tell her all day long that he had to work that night.. (that he planned on doing something to someone that night)

 

[eyes4crime]

He has to be the one! Otherwise WHY all the lies? It just doesn't make sense. And too conincidental he was seen where Lindsey disappeared around the same time and the texting stopped.

Hi Jules71 - he sure does seem like the one LE suspects, and as you point out, why not? My guess is that LE has all kinds of circumstantial evidence but nothing linking DG directly to Lindsey that evening; they need forensic evidence. The DA has to prove to a jury, beyond all reasonable doubt, that he is the one. I think LE are waiting for forensics to come back. :banghead: mho

 

[SadlyMistaken]

I think you could be right on target with that scenario! DG is sure a manipulative opportunist isn't he?

Let's say he wasn't at the BBQ nor with a girl - what does that do for the time-line? Where was he until he met up with Lindsey at 9:15 or so? What was he doing that made him want a 10yo? (assuming he is the perp).

He does seem to be a manipulating opportunist.. if all that is true. What a scary kind of person.

Still.. there is a part of me that has to ask.. how did he cover his tracks so well. There doesn't seem to be one shred of evidence to link Lindsey with him except circumstantially and I believe some definate consciousness of guilt on his part with following MB and the car not being around town (while LE and FBI were swirling).

How was no evidence left behind? Could he have had some help?

 

[eyes4crime]

Lies I can think of:

I was at a BBQ and was with a girl - I have witnesses.

After the BBQ I went home and slept

I was working at the youth camp

I was working at the Bee Hive

There was another car cruising around wanting to steal my car parts (he was following mom Baum)

any more?

 

[cyberswept]

He has to be the one! Otherwise WHY all the lies? It just doesn't make sense. And too conincidental he was seen where Lindsey disappeared around the same time and the texting stopped.

Jules, I'll admit with the circumstantial evidence that he looks guilty, but he may be covering up for someone else or he may even be innocent. We just don't know yet. Saying he has to be the one reminds me of the cattle rustling days when a posse sat as judge, jury and executioner. The guy that looked guilty swung from a rope whether he was guilty or not.

I just think that conclusions in this case are still a bit early. LE still has some work to do if indeed he is going to be accused. In our system of checks and balances, he is innocent until proven guilty.

Please know that I am not jumping on you about this. I am just trying to make a point, having sat in on two juries before and having to weigh the evidence.

 

[Jules71]

He does seem to be a manipulating opportunist.. if all that is true. What a scary kind of person.

Still.. there is a part of me that has to ask.. how did he cover his tracks so well. There doesn't seem to be one shred of evidence to link Lindsey with him except circumstantially and I believe some definate consciousness of guilt on his part with following MB and the car not being around town (while LE and FBI were swirling).

How was no evidence left behind? Could he have had some help?

Somehow he got her in his car and took her somewhere else. I don't know he would have taken her to that property that was searched. If no one saw Lindsey in the car with him, and no evidence of her was found in his car -then nothing really for him to cover up. We may just have to wait for her recovery, and I hope to God that happens soon! Wonder if he went to a car wash to clean/vacuum his car out when he went to Ellensburg.

 

[Jules71]

Jules, I'll admit with the circumstantial evidence that he looks guilty, but he may be covering up for someone else or he may even be innocent. We just don't know yet. Saying he has to be the one reminds me of the cattle rustling days when a posse sat as judge, jury and executioner. The guy that looked guilty swung from a rope whether he was guilty or not.

I just think that conclusions in this case are still a bit early. LE still has some work to do if indeed he is going to be accused. In our system of checks and balances, he is innocent until proven guilty.

Please know that I am not jumping on you about this. I am just trying to make a point, having sat in on two juries before and having to weigh the evidence.

I completely understand!

 

[cyberswept]

He does seem to be a manipulating opportunist.. if all that is true. What a scary kind of person.

Still.. there is a part of me that has to ask.. how did he cover his tracks so well. There doesn't seem to be one shred of evidence to link Lindsey with him except circumstantially and I believe some definate consciousness of guilt on his part with following MB and the car not being around town (while LE and FBI were swirling).

How was no evidence left behind? Could he have had some help?

I am still waiting to see the results from the search before we can say there is no shred of evidence. I really hope the LE that served the SW was very thorough in what they took and the investigation of that evidence.

 

[nosylla]

SC blog Posted yesterday Ugh..

I never know what I can say. Sorry. MS blog.

 

[momtective]

I may be COMPLETELY off here but after reading the SW. I thought that the detective was trying to say that after DG started getting questioned about Lindsey's disappearance.. he started hanging out with the neighbor every night.. that had the problems with memory that was due to drug and alcohol abuse.. in an attempt to create an alibi for June 26th. That the neighbor with the memory problems, when questioned did say that DG was at the BBQ that night and that he was with a girl. Then when they talked to the girl. She said that she was there but that DG wasn't there... and she agreed to be interviewed. I guess I will have to read it again. I just don't get why they would add the info about the person with the memory problem and the girl's answer and that she agreed to be interviewed if they weren't trying to establish that he had told several difference stories about where he was that night, that were all untrue. That he even tried to manipulate someone with mental problems to lie for him.

My BOLD

Or he could have been asking the neighbor about another individual. Maybe Dale witnessed something, maybe he has a very good idea of who took Lindsey and he was on a fact finding mission. Maybe Dale is the one that gave LE the lead that resulted in the SW. I mean it's not out of the question, maybe the same person who took Lindsey also committed sexual crimes against Dale and his younger brother all time they were growing up and maybe, just maybe Dale got tired of keeping the secret. Even knowing that his own past would come out, maybe Dale made the ultimate sacrifice in outing himself and the other individual.
He's no Saint but he's also not proven guilty...just yet anyway.
I look to the astros thread and Dale just does not seem to fit the profile the astros have of Lindsey's abductor.
I could be totally wrong but then again...I could be right. I think LE said it best "nothing is black and white."

 

[SadlyMistaken]

Somehow he got her in his car and took her somewhere else. I don't know he would have taken her to that property that was searched. If no one saw Lindsey in the car with him, and no evidence of her was found in his car -then nothing really for him to cover up. We may just have to wait for her recovery, and I hope to God that happens soon! Wonder if he went to a car wash to clean/vacuum his car out when he went to Ellensburg.

Well.. we know that he was in town a few times a day before Lindsey went missing.. then he wasn't seen in town for a few weeks after. LE and FBI were swarming through that town during the time. If it is him then OF COURSE he wouldn't want to be in town during that time. The paranoia would have been overwhelming, I am sure. And.. maybe during that time there would have been evidence found in his car and he knew it. Maybe he took the car to eastern WA and stopped somewhere between here and there and had the entire car detailed. People around there would know he had done it. But.. nobody outside the area would question it.

I know this is also a horrible thought but I have wondered.. when he tried to rape the 12 year old girl when he was 14. She said that he took off her clothes and his clothes. If Lindsey was kidnapped by him for something sexual, and we can assume his tactics probably haven't changed.. then her clothes or some of her clothing could have been somewhere in his car or around his home. He could have dumped those between there and Ellensburg too.

Witnesses said that he was obsessed with her disappearance right after it happened. Later on in July it had died down. After he left to go to Ellensburg and knew the evidence was gone?

 

[eyes4crime]

He does seem to be a manipulating opportunist.. if all that is true. What a scary kind of person.

Still.. there is a part of me that has to ask.. how did he cover his tracks so well. There doesn't seem to be one shred of evidence to link Lindsey with him except circumstantially and I believe some definate consciousness of guilt on his part with following MB and the car not being around town (while LE and FBI were swirling).

How was no evidence left behind? Could he have had some help?

I have the same questions! How could someone 23yo get away with a crime such as this? Seems to me he left no obvious evidence, no crime scene, and walked quietly for 3 months. Just look at what he got away with at age 14!! :furious: Then I heard about his babysitting ordeal, using *advertiser censored* to groom young children, barricading the bedroom door, and his 2 hours of terrorizing a younger girl. He had most of the ingredients, at age 14, to become involved in a crime such as this. He used his role as a babysitter as a one up situation (power and control); he was into *advertiser censored* (used it to groom); he knew how to groom children, including his little brother; he know how to isolate and trap his victim; and he knew how to get out of being charged and I have no doubt all that simply escalated... who knows how he has increased those skills in the last 9 years. just my opinion.