recent Hailey items

[Soulmagent]

The kidnapping 'label' does give the FBI jurisdiction to immediately step in on MP cases, offering resources that may not be available to local LE.
Also, all elements of the federal kidnapping statute do not need to be present in order to institute preliminary inquiries into a case (I believe, anyway... perhaps an attorney could weigh in here?)

So that says to me that there most likely is evidence that lead initial investigators to contact the FBI and request services, while not making public what that evidence was- and also that there is some evidence of specific individual(s) who may have committed a crime against Hailey indicative of state and federal kidnapping laws.

I see how it shows there is evidence of a kidnapping that they have but I dont see how it shows they have evidence of a specific person.

Then again there is the conflict on CCity and the FBI about terming it a kidnapping. I dont understand how they cant agree on the issue if what we speculate is true and I dont see us being wrong about there being some evidence that falls in with petes statement and the label. It has to be blood evidence. It is the only thing that seems to fit both sides of the conflict coin.

I think Pete's statements and retractions might tell us alot when this case gets to court.

I am rethinking everything he has ever said now with the idea he jumps the gun with his assumptions and reports like a prosecutor would make a closing statement and then I will attempted to pull his statements 2 feet back ,if that makes since.

 

[believe09]

I suppose you might believe the LE welcomed the sensational aspect of having a personality such as GSJ show up bringing the media with her.

But then again, TES would likely bring the same. so hmm.

I suppose if you were cynical, you might think that there was an element out there who were pretty much convinced GSJ would NOT find anything and felt that was OK too.

I dont know enough about the minutiae of Hailey's case to know if either of those are even accurate.

Please dont mis interpret my frustration as any kind of mocking towards those who brough GSJ to TX. I am sure they believed it would be helpful. I truly understand hope, especially in a case like this. Personally, I wonder if other groups trying to provide resources in cases like this might use this as an example of proceeding cautiously when it comes to people such as Ms St John. jmvho.

 

[Oriah]

I see how it shows there is evidence of a kidnapping that they have but I dont see how it shows they have evidence of a specific person.

Then again there is the conflict on CCity and the FBI about terming it a kidnapping. I dont understand how they cant agree on the issue if what we speculate is true and I dont see us being wrong about there being some evidence that falls in with petes statement and the label. It has to be blood evidence. It is the only thing that seems to fit both sides of the conflict coin.

I think Pete's statements and retractions might tell us alot when this case gets to court.

I am rethinking everything he has ever said now with the idea he jumps the gun with his assumptions and reports like a prosecutor would make a closing statement and then I will attempted to pull his statements 2 feet back ,if that makes since.

Makes perfect sense to me.

The one thing I can't figure is how there would be evidence of a kidnapping of a child Hailey's age, without concurrent evidence that points to a specific individual(s). Thus the runaway status, then kidnapping...and then involvement with possible trafficking etc.
All seems to point toward a future prosecutorial standpoint to me. Which implies a crime has been committed- not an accident. Kwim?

 

[Soulmagent]

Makes perfect sense to me.

The one thing I can't figure is how there would be evidence of a kidnapping of a child Hailey's age, without concurrent evidence that points to a specific individual(s). Thus the runaway status, then kidnapping...and then involvement with possible trafficking etc.
All seems to point toward a future prosecutorial standpoint to me. Which implies a crime has been committed- not an accident. Kwim?

As an example.
In Holly's case there is evidence of a kidnapping but no evidence that leads to a suspect, so I was thinking along those lines.

Nothing points to a specific person ,even the eyewitness. The blood, the route the person took .

 

[Soulmagent]

The motel video footage? I guess it didnt have to be blood.


Pete talking about confusing reports about the dogs ,about the hotel , and about the witnesses ...everything on that line the search of the room ,the scent in the room and the dropping the dogs off at hotels..
Moved onto the landfill searches where the FBI talked all the workers (per post by member here) There was FBI involvement there and the interveiw of the friend was done by the FBI. runaway ,kidnapping ,trafficking.. Did the FBI search the house?
Conflict over case label. Why? Even if SA is the culprit why ? It would still fit the definition.

 

[Tugela]

Makes perfect sense to me.

The one thing I can't figure is how there would be evidence of a kidnapping of a child Hailey's age, without concurrent evidence that points to a specific individual(s). Thus the runaway status, then kidnapping...and then involvement with possible trafficking etc.
All seems to point toward a future prosecutorial standpoint to me. Which implies a crime has been committed- not an accident. Kwim?

The evolution from runaway to kidnapping would imply that they had reason to believe that it might be an assisted runaway. Since she could not legally consent to leave with someone, anyone knowingly helping her do that would be guilty of kidnapping. There doesn't need to be any coercion or act of violence involved, and she may have left willfully, but that doesn't change the charge that other person will face.

 

[Oriah]

The evolution from runaway to kidnapping would imply that they had reason to believe that it might be an assisted runaway. Since she could not legally consent to leave with someone, anyone knowingly helping her do that would be guilty of kidnapping. There doesn't need to be any coercion or act of violence involved, and she may have left willfully, but that doesn't change the charge that other person will face.

I agree. Minors cannot consent. But then 'willfulness' is off the table, because of the victim.
That's where the runaway thought process goes askew to me- not the aided or assisted runaway- but an adult who knowingly keeps another person against their will, transports another person against their will, inflicts harm against another person against their will etc with illegal motive(s) behind their actions.

Changing the status to kidnapping is not only indicative of a perpetrator- it's indicative of the victimology as well. Does that make any sense?

 

[Tugela]

No, the term doesn't carry any meaning beyond the legal one. The comparable situation would be rape. For an adult it would require coercion or violence. That is the common meaning of rape. But, when a minor is involved, they can't consent even if they participate willlingly, so it becomes a statutory rape (not a real rape, but it is treated as such by law).

So, when a minor goes off with an adult it becomes a statutory kidnapping even though it is not a "real" kidnapping, because they do not have the legal right to consent to go off with that adult. It is the same principle.

The charge and punishment will be the same, allthough you are less likely to have the book thrown at you.

 

[sreshowtime]

The kidnapping 'label' does give the FBI jurisdiction to immediately step in on MP cases, offering resources that may not be available to local LE.
.......

What resources might local LE be using...OR should they be using. Are they taking advantage of each and every resource available to them? If not, why not.

 

[Oriah]

No, the term doesn't carry any meaning beyond the legal one. The comparable situation would be rape. For an adult it would require coercion or violence. That is the common meaning of rape. But, when a minor is involved, they can't consent even if they participate willlingly, so it becomes a statutory rape (not a real rape, but it is treated as such by law).

So, when a minor goes off with an adult it becomes a statutory kidnapping even though it is not a "real" kidnapping, because they do not have the legal right to consent to go off with that adult. It is the same principle.

The charge and punishment will be the same, allthough you are less likely to have the book thrown at you.

Respectfully, I disagree.

I do understand your thought process, but don't think it's applicable here.
A kidnapping is a crime that requires LE to investigate and potentially prosecute from a different standpoint than a runaway or a missing person. Whether it is a minor or not has little do to with the federal statutes.

Let's try using a case of a missing infant who is deemed 'Missing' by federal LE, vs. 'Kidnapped'.
Obviously, an infant cannot go missing on their own- so someone or something else is responsible for their disappearance. Perhaps they disappeared during a natural disaster and have not yet been located. Perhaps they were abducted by a relative. Perhaps their guardian gave them to someone else willingly. Perhaps they were used as currency by their parents or guardians, or perhaps they disappeared under concurrent circumstances that indicate a crime.

Federal LE is not going to initially approach a case of a missing infant who is missing from the site of a natural disaster, as being kidnapped. But if other investigative tools provide evidence that not only did the infant disappear during a natural disaster, but there are other precipitating or concurrent events that lead them to believe the infant has been unlawfully taken... well, then we are back to understanding why correlation is not causation.
Causation may result in correlation- which I strongly believe in Hailey's case. But correlation is not causation in any case.

This is why I think the label of 'Kidnapping' changed the course of Hailey's case and investigation.

Hope that makes sense!

 

[Oriah]

What resources might local LE be using...OR should they be using. Are they taking advantage of each and every resource available to them? If not, why not.

I think that we'd have to hear that bit of info from someone other than local LE. I'd love to have it from a watchdog group.

 

[sreshowtime]

that's another thing I wonder...If kidnapping label has been applied , then who is considered lead investigator...or by some fluke or rule, does that designation fall back onto local LE? And if it is back on local, and they aren't taking the proverbial bull by the horns...whose authority can rap them on the knuckles.
I guess I am frustrated, and wish there was something more that could be done, if it isn't already.

 

[sreshowtime]

here we are 8-9 months later and the FBI poster still says kidnapping, although Chief Owens says that is a mistake-
http://www.ccitynews.net/news/story/2011/10/mistake-fbi-hailey-dunn-poster-causes-uproar
why no change back to missing?
Is it merely being left that way in order to be able to file federal charges if warranted?

 

[Soulmagent]

No, the term doesn't carry any meaning beyond the legal one. The comparable situation would be rape. For an adult it would require coercion or violence. That is the common meaning of rape. But, when a minor is involved, they can't consent even if they participate willlingly, so it becomes a statutory rape (not a real rape, but it is treated as such by law).

So, when a minor goes off with an adult it becomes a statutory kidnapping even though it is not a "real" kidnapping, because they do not have the legal right to consent to go off with that adult. It is the same principle.

The charge and punishment will be the same, allthough you are less likely to have the book thrown at you.

My understanding word statutory means that it would not be a crime if the person was of age of consent or allowed by law.

 

[believe09]

There must be something wrong with my line of thought-Isnt kidnapping a fair description of the widely held beliefs regarding her case?

 

[Soulmagent]

There must be something wrong with my line of thought-Isnt kidnapping a fair description of the widely held beliefs regarding her case?

It is.

Except when looking deeper into the Kidnapping criteria there seems to be a need for something more in this case to have it meet the label. So the label is on the case per the FBI has to mean they have evidence of one of the five things listed on this link . I can only guess the evidence suggest kidnapping without a suspect as then I would there would be an arrest. But it is just a guess. It it just odd. Even though it would be a fair description of alot of missing persons cases the kidnapping label is reserved for cases where they meet this specific criteria.

http://wetheadmedia.com/what-is-kidnapping/

 

[Tugela]

My understanding word statutory means that it would not be a crime if the person was of age of consent or allowed by law.

It is any crime where no actual damage is incurred. So you don't have a victim but the law holds that whatever you did was wrong.

 

[Tugela]

Respectfully, I disagree.

I do understand your thought process, but don't think it's applicable here.
A kidnapping is a crime that requires LE to investigate and potentially prosecute from a different standpoint than a runaway or a missing person. Whether it is a minor or not has little do to with the federal statutes.

Let's try using a case of a missing infant who is deemed 'Missing' by federal LE, vs. 'Kidnapped'.
Obviously, an infant cannot go missing on their own- so someone or something else is responsible for their disappearance. Perhaps they disappeared during a natural disaster and have not yet been located. Perhaps they were abducted by a relative. Perhaps their guardian gave them to someone else willingly. Perhaps they were used as currency by their parents or guardians, or perhaps they disappeared under concurrent circumstances that indicate a crime.

Federal LE is not going to initially approach a case of a missing infant who is missing from the site of a natural disaster, as being kidnapped. But if other investigative tools provide evidence that not only did the infant disappear during a natural disaster, but there are other precipitating or concurrent events that lead them to believe the infant has been unlawfully taken... well, then we are back to understanding why correlation is not causation.
Causation may result in correlation- which I strongly believe in Hailey's case. But correlation is not causation in any case.

This is why I think the label of 'Kidnapping' changed the course of Hailey's case and investigation.

Hope that makes sense!

If an adult runs off with a child, as a non custodial parent or as a result of a romantic or other attachment, they will be charged with kidnapping. The fact that the child went willingly, initiated it or anything like that is irrelevant.

 

[Soulmagent]

I recently found an old statement on facebook that claims a person told a blog radio he had given Hailey Dunn and another person a ride on the day she went missing.

Has anyone heard the blog radio show? The show he said ws aired the day before he posted his 8/17/11 post.

 

[Oriah]

It is any crime where no actual damage is incurred. So you don't have a victim but the law holds that whatever you did was wrong.

I'm not sure how the term statutory has anything to do with Hailey's case at this point? 'Statutory' as a conditional implies a statute, I believe. Federal statutes being enacted by Congress, state statutes by individual state legislatures.

I do think that the label of 'Kidnapping' (which was issued by the FBI in Hailey's case-so, federal) implies there may be potential evidence in the case that may point in the direction of future prosecution related to a federal statute.
Hope that makes sense?