Share Your Theory: What happened to Hailey?

[Zoe Bogart]

HD had posted she loved her family. What reason other than to protect her from SA/and thatenviornment would they need to be hiding her for. I will only say that homes do still exist for teenage girls with special temporary circumstances
And that is ALL I will say. It is highly possible. SA may still end up in jail.
But it would mean HD is alive and being cared for and will return ... Even her parents may not kmow
SA is the one with a lawyer. THERE Is no evidence shec
was harmed. But we do have dogs opacing her at a hotel room door. For transportation? And not taking her things... maybe things are not
allowed there. FBI does not have her missing for a very good reason ...

MOO

That would be a wonderful outcome but I'm not so sure. Sadly, I think the answers lie with the two adults with whom she lived and counted on for protection.

My theory is that both SA and BD know what happened. Whether they were both involved initially, I'm not sure, but I do believe they both know and were involved, both especially in the coverup.

Drugs, sex, violence, negligence?

Any or all of the above.

:cow:

 

[BeanE]

Any theory should be based on facts or alledged facts. This is what we know:

1) HD was observed by the neighbor hairdresser on the monday during the day. She was also apparently seen by other people as well, but let us accept the hairdressers claims as the most important sighting for now.
2) A text message was sent to MB from BD's phone at around 2, and presumably the phone was at home. It is not known who sent that message but it obviously could not have been SA or BD.
3) SA's phone places him at or near his mother's residence at around 2.40PM.
4) DD arrived home at around 4PM with a friend, met SA there, and remained there.

If all of that is true then if SA harmed HD, and disposed of the body, it would have had to have all occurred in the time frame from when he arrived back in CC. Assuming 35-45 minutes traveling time, he would have arrived back home at the earliest sometime between 3:15 and 3:25. This in turn would leave him with 35-45 minutes to do all of these things: (a) have some sort of altercation; (b) attack her; (c) dispose of the evidence so well that nothing has been found; (d) clean up so well that there was no trace of anything suspicious in the house.

The chances of all that happening in 35-45 minutes is improbable, which leaves us with the possibility that he is telling the truth, that he arrived home and shortly afterwards she left to go to her fathers house with the claimed intention of setting something up with MB. SA did have an unusual day, but that could be just coincidence and it doesn't negate the other facts.

The question then is what happened to her after that and we simply don't know because there is nothing known. SOMEONE knows.

I'm not entirely sure what an 'alleged fact' is, but I don't think information that LE has stated is uncorroborated, which means they have not been able to find anyone or anything else to support that the information is fact, such as you have in your 1st item, should be presented along with a contention such as you make, as if it is fact, 'alleged fact', or something 'we know'.

The same applies to your 2nd item. It is not obvious that Shawn didn't send the text, and there's no info whatever available that makes it obvious he didn't take the cell with him to Big Spring, or that precludes him having sent that text.

Let's do state fact as fact, and opinion as opinion, when we voice our theories. In my opinion, that is in Hailey's best interests.

 

[Sunflower65]

I agree with Katy's theory completely!!! Hailey obviously did not feel comfortable with SA. Something happened and SA felt he had no choice but to "silence" poor Hailey. Plus, remember when Hailey's brother came home that day she went missing, he stated SA was sitting in the house and had a "deer in the headlights" look on his face. I'd like to know more about that encounter.

 

[mmmagique]

I'm not entirely sure what an 'alleged fact' is, but I don't think information that LE has stated is uncorroborated, which means they have not been able to find anyone or anything else to support that the information is fact, such as you have in your 1st item, should be presented along with a contention such as you make, as if it is fact, 'alleged fact', or something 'we know'.

The same applies to your 2nd item. It is not obvious that Shawn didn't send the text, and there's no info whatever available that makes it obvious he didn't take the cell with him to Big Spring, or that precludes him having sent that text.

Let's do state fact as fact, and opinion as opinion, when we voice our theories. In my opinion, that is in Hailey's best interests.

Agreed. I was going to say this, but you said it first. (and better!)

 

[Ellebelle]

Any theory should be based on facts or alledged facts. This is what we know:

1) HD was observed by the neighbor hairdresser on the monday during the day. She was also apparently seen by other people as well, but let us accept the hairdressers claims as the most important sighting for now.
2) A text message was sent to MB from BD's phone at around 2, and presumably the phone was at home. It is not known who sent that message but it obviously could not have been SA or BD.
3) SA's phone places him at or near his mother's residence at around 2.40PM.
4) DD arrived home at around 4PM with a friend, met SA there, and remained there.

If all of that is true then if SA harmed HD, and disposed of the body, it would have had to have all occurred in the time frame from when he arrived back in CC. Assuming 35-45 minutes traveling time, he would have arrived back home at the earliest sometime between 3:15 and 3:25. This in turn would leave him with 35-45 minutes to do all of these things: (a) have some sort of altercation; (b) attack her; (c) dispose of the evidence so well that nothing has been found; (d) clean up so well that there was no trace of anything suspicious in the house.

The chances of all that happening in 35-45 minutes is improbable, which leaves us with the possibility that he is telling the truth, that he arrived home and shortly afterwards she left to go to her fathers house with the claimed intention of setting something up with MB. SA did have an unusual day, but that could be just coincidence and it doesn't negate the other facts.

The question then is what happened to her after that and we simply don't know because there is nothing known. SOMEONE knows.

1. Not willing to accept the hairdressers claims. LE didn't so why should we?
2. "presumably the phone was at home" No one has said where that phone was that I have seen. It isn't obvious to me that it couldn't have been sent by SA or even BD.

I do think SA did this. With help or alone, I believe he had at least a part in it.

JMO

 

[belimom]

Any theory should be based on facts or alledged facts. This is what we know:

1) HD was observed by the neighbor hairdresser on the monday during the day. She was also apparently seen by other people as well, but let us accept the hairdressers claims as the most important sighting for now.
2) A text message was sent to MB from BD's phone at around 2, and presumably the phone was at home. It is not known who sent that message but it obviously could not have been SA or BD.
3) SA's phone places him at or near his mother's residence at around 2.40PM.
4) DD arrived home at around 4PM with a friend, met SA there, and remained there.
......

bbm

Actually, we don't know that... I'm assuming the "electronic data" indicates more than SA's whereabouts. IMHO, Kampfer is also alluding to the fact that the sightings cannot be corroborated by the electronic data b/c the text indicates HD (or at least BD's phone which she supposedly had) was nowhere near CCity at 2:00pm (all MOO):

Kampfer stated investigators haven’t been able to corroborate any witnesses seeing Hailey on December 27, the day she supposedly disappeared while on the way to spend the night with a friend.

“Taking the electronic data and mixing it in, the time tables don’t match up,” he said.
http://www.ccitynews.net/news/story/2011/01/investigators-tighten-numbers

If the text came from CCity, I don't believe LE would be so tight-lipped about it. If it came from CCity, then why not just say so? I think it's key evidence in this case (bbm):

Colorado City's City Manager Pete Kampfer now confirms there is a text message that is being looked into by authorities. He would not reveal additional information.
.........
No information will be released about any text message, Pete Kampfer, spokesperson for the Colorado City Police Department said. Any information in that respect will be "held close to the investigation," he said.
http://bigcountryhomepage.com/fulltext/?nxd_id=332277

 

[belimom]

1. Not willing to accept the hairdressers claims. LE didn't so why should we?
2. "presumably the phone was at home" No one has said where that phone was that I have seen. It isn't obvious to me that it couldn't have been sent by SA or even BD.

I do think SA did this. With help or alone, I believe he had at least a part in it.

JMO

I wanted to my [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6113974&postcount=22"]post[/ame] over from another thread, as I think it is very relevant to the eyewitness sightings:

I googled "eyewitness testimony" and found many articles/studies. Here's just one. It should be read in its entirety but here are some snippets:

The Problem with Eyewitness Testimony
a talk by
Barbara Tversky, Professor of Psychology
and
George Fisher, Professor of Law
​

bbm

..............
Several studies have been conducted on human memory and on subjects’ propensity to remember erroneously events and details that did not occur. Elizabeth Loftus performed experiments in the mid-seventies demonstrating the effect of a third party’s introducing false facts into memory.4 Subjects were shown a slide of a car at an intersection with either a yield sign or a stop sign. Experimenters asked participants questions, falsely introducing the term "stop sign" into the question instead of referring to the yield sign participants had actually seen. Similarly, experimenters falsely substituted the term "yield sign" in questions directed to participants who had actually seen the stop sign slide. The results indicated that subjects remembered seeing the false image.
.........
The courts’ reliance on witnesses is built into the common-law judicial system, a reliance that is placed in check by the opposing counsel’s right to cross-examination—an important component of the adversarial legal process—and the law’s trust of the jury’s common sense. The fixation on witnesses reflects the weight given to personal testimony. As shown by recent studies, this weight must be balanced by an awareness that it is not necessary for a witness to lie or be coaxed by prosecutorial error to inaccurately state the facts—the mere fault of being human results in distorted memory and inaccurate testimony.

More at: http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue One/fisher&tversky.htm

 

[Tugela]

1. Not willing to accept the hairdressers claims. LE didn't so why should we?
2. "presumably the phone was at home" No one has said where that phone was that I have seen. It isn't obvious to me that it couldn't have been sent by SA or even BD.

I do think SA did this. With help or alone, I believe he had at least a part in it.

JMO

LE didnt say that they didn't accept the hairdressers claims, they said they couldn't corroborate it, meaning that they couldn't find an independent witness who observed HD at the same time.

 

[katydid23]

LE didnt say that they didn't accept the hairdressers claims, they said they couldn't corroborate it, meaning that they couldn't find an independent witness who observed HD at the same time.

It doesn't ONLY mean that they couldn't find another witness. It also may mean that it is not corroborated by other electronic evidence.

For example, the hairdresser claims that the sighting was on Monday and she includes the 'dark' boy. Now if there is evidence that the boy was actually walking with HD on Sunday and they have video evidence of that, but none to show them together on Monday, then the hairdresser's sighting would not be corroborated.

If the parents of the boy say he was walking with HD on Sunday and not Monday and if the Video cameras in town say he was there on Sunday and not Monday, then her sighting is going to be discounted as not being corroborated.

 

[Tugela]

I'm not entirely sure what an 'alleged fact' is, but I don't think information that LE has stated is uncorroborated, which means they have not been able to find anyone or anything else to support that the information is fact, such as you have in your 1st item, should be presented along with a contention such as you make, as if it is fact, 'alleged fact', or something 'we know'.

The same applies to your 2nd item. It is not obvious that Shawn didn't send the text, and there's no info whatever available that makes it obvious he didn't take the cell with him to Big Spring, or that precludes him having sent that text.

Let's do state fact as fact, and opinion as opinion, when we voice our theories. In my opinion, that is in Hailey's best interests.

That may be true, but we are willing to use other "alleged facts" such as DD's, the grandmother's allegations and other anecdotal evidence as facts, so I don't think that it is OK to be selective. The people who have reported these sightings were apparently quite sure about them. I think if it was just one sighting you could think that someone made a mistake or was simply lieing, but there have been a couple.

As for the cell phone, I did say that the assumption is that it was at the house. Since the text would be traceable through logs, LE would know where the phone was, and if it was in Big Spring, then they most likely would have arrested SA by now. Short of arresting him, they certainly would have been executing any number of search warrants there if the phone supposedly in HDs possesion was there, and there don't appear to have been any. So, allthough we don't know for sure that the cell was at the house in CC, I think it is fairly safe to say that it was.

 

[Tugela]

I wanted to my post over from another thread, as I think it is very relevant to the eyewitness sightings:

Except that some of these witnesses are linking the sightings to other specific things that were happening at the time (the hairdresser working with a specific client for example). So unless they are straight out lying, the chances of them being wrong in a general sense are low.

Eyewitness evidence is unreliable when it comes to specific details, such as identifying a strangers face observed in unremarkable circumstances, or what specifically the person was doing.

An example of this would be the grandmothers claims. While it is very likely that HD complained to her about not liking SA, the specific details would have been blurred and distorted by circumstance and time. So some of the stuff she is saying is reliable, other stuff is not.

The same would apply in the case of the hairdresser. She probably did see HD that day, in the company of someone she apparently didnt know. She would be sure about HD, but details about the other person would be much more sketchy and unreliable.

 

[hollyblue]

Didn't the neighbor say she was talking on the cell at the time she saw her? They could check BD's cell to see and corroborate.

Surely a 13 yr old would be on that cell prior to 2 pm. Do we know of any other calls on that cell that day? I don't remember hearing about any, with the exception of BD's call to her ride.

 

[sorrell skye]

My theory: LE is right on target in naming SA the #1 suspect, however, I don't believe he acted alone.

As to the *witnesses* who believe they saw Hailey on December 27 @ this time or that time, I'll take my cues from Trooper Sparky Dean:

Dean said the largest thing hindering finding Hailey is a lack of honesty among locals. He is unsure if the deceitfulness is intentional or if gossip is to blame for witnesses passing along lies.

“We’re not all on the same page,” he said on Saturday. “Some of our star witnesses are less than truthful.”

http://www.reporternews.com/news/2011/jan/10/officials-teenager-likely-a-runaway/

 

[Curious Me]

I've tried to entertain the theory that someone else, either a stranger or some boy, took Hailey. The problem I always have is there's no way to disregard SA. Why did he not stay at work that day? Why is he the only one she told about spending the night at her friend's?

All I have are questions, and they need to be answered before I can consider any one else but SA.

Normally, SA would not have been at the house at that time. Why'd he even say he saw her? Help me out with this. BD would've come home from work with no Hailey there. No note to Mom? Mom not worried? Then, Mom really worried on Tuesday? IMO, whatever happened to Hailey seems to have most to do with SA.

Okay, I think...

SA saying he did see Hailey and she was going to spend the night at her friends bought him time. Whatever happened took place some time between Sunday night and Monday afternoon. He had something very important to finish on Tuesday to cover up. He couldn't afford to have Hailey noticed missing on Monday night. He proceeded to lie on Tuesday about going to work again...he needed BD's car.

 

[concernedmother]

My first theory is Hailey overdosed on some illegal drugs from the home. Whether she took them or they were given to her IDK. Then the cover up begin and SA took care of getting rid of the body.

My second one is he saw Hailey sleeping that morning and couldn't forget about her. He had been thinking about it for some time. He went to work and decided it was time to make his move. He came home molested her and shut her up so no one would find out and disposed of her. jmo and my theory.

 

[katydid23]

That may be true, but we are willing to use other "alleged facts" such as DD's, the grandmother's allegations and other anecdotal evidence as facts, so I don't think that it is OK to be selective. The people who have reported these sightings were apparently quite sure about them. I think if it was just one sighting you could think that someone made a mistake or was simply lieing, but there have been a couple.

As for the cell phone, I did say that the assumption is that it was at the house. Since the text would be traceable through logs, LE would know where the phone was, and if it was in Big Spring, then they most likely would have arrested SA by now. Short of arresting him, they certainly would have been executing any number of search warrants there if the phone supposedly in HDs possesion was there, and there don't appear to have been any. So, allthough we don't know for sure that the cell was at the house in CC, I think it is fairly safe to say that it was.

There have been 3 different sightings on Monday, but they are not the same so they do not corroborate each others.

1. She was supposedly seen outside talking on her cell for about 30 minutes on monday around noonish.

I think that is pretty easy to verify with the cell records. The fact that LE is not verifying it speaks volumes imo.

2. She was supposedly seen twice walking with a little boy past the hairdressers front window on Monday.

I think LE believes everything about that sighting--except the day it happened. There is video evidence which says it is more likely that she walked past that window on Sunday. There are other witnesses, the parents of that boy, who also say that she walked with him on Sunday, but did not take a walk with him on Monday.

I think the video evidence trumps witness's memory.


3. The 3rd witness makes a claim that flies in the face of several others witnesses who have already been interrogated for hours by the FBI and the Texas Rangers. I do not believe for a minute that a 13 yr old girl was able to fool the FBI and lie to them about her whereabouts on Monday night.

Do you really believe that MB could have been out walking around the town with Hailey on Monday night and nobody else would have flipped on her?

I have teens, and I KNOW that they know the truth behind things like this. IF MB HAD been with Hailey and had been out in public there would be way more sightings thatn one lady with a video receipt. IMO

This witness saw these kids at night walking down the street. I don't have a lot of faith in her ability to recognize them in those conditions.

Besides that., MB surely had to make her whereabouts known to the FBI to their satisfaction. She and her family were initial suspects in this missing persons case.

 

[katydid23]

I've tried to entertain the theory that someone else, either a stranger or some boy, took Hailey. The problem I always have is there's no way to disregard SA. Why did he not stay at work that day? Why is he the only one she told about spending the night at her friend's?

Exactly. What bad luck for him that he had that hinky 'job quitting/got fired'
scenario on the day Hailey went missing.

Also, when I try to imagine a scenario where she is abducted, I still cannot get past her walking out of home for a sleepover and not even taking a jacket. It was winter time.

And why would she go to a sleepover at MB's when she never even replied to her text?

So if she did go somewhere, it was not to MB's. So she would have had to have some other thing planned for the entire night. But why would she go somewhere special in a t-shirt and sweats? Doesn't make sense at all to me.

All I have are questions, and they need to be answered before I can consider any one else but SA.

Normally, SA would not have been at the house at that time. Why'd he even say he saw her? Help me out with this. BD would've come home from work with no Hailey there. No note to Mom? Mom not worried? Then, Mom really worried on Tuesday? IMO, whatever happened to Hailey seems to have most to do with SA.

BINGO. He needed more time.

Look at the first story that Billie told us about finding out that Hailey spent the night at MB's. Initially she said that AFTER she came home Shawn told her that. [Now she says that he called her some time between 3;15 and 4, during the doors locked time, and told her.]
But her original story is that he didnt give her that message until the evening when they were home. So that makes me think that she began asking about Hailey, and she probably was going to call Clint's or find DD and ask where she was. So he may have just offered up that 'message' from Hailey as a spur of the moment excuse. HE NEEDED MORE TIME.

 

[samson]

There have been 3 different sightings on Monday, but they are not the same so they do not corroborate each others.

1. She was supposedly seen outside talking on her cell for about 30 minutes on monday around noonish.

I think that is pretty easy to verify with the cell records. The fact that LE is not verifying it speaks volumes imo.

2. She was supposedly seen twice walking with a little boy past the hairdressers front window on Monday.

I think LE believes everything about that sighting--except the day it happened. There is video evidence which says it is more likely that she walked past that window on Sunday. There are other witnesses, the parents of that boy, who also say that she walked with him on Sunday, but did not take a walk with him on Monday.

I think the video evidence trumps witness's memory.


3. The 3rd witness makes a claim that flies in the face of several others witnesses who have already been interrogated for hours by the FBI and the Texas Rangers. I do not believe for a minute that a 13 yr old girl was able to fool the FBI and lie to them about her whereabouts on Monday night.

Do you really believe that MB could have been out walking around the town with Hailey on Monday night and nobody else would have flipped on her?

I have teens, and I KNOW that they know the truth behind things like this. IF MB HAD been with Hailey and had been out in public there would be way more sightings thatn one lady with a video receipt. IMO

This witness saw these kids at night walking down the street. I don't have a lot of faith in her ability to recognize them in those conditions.

Besides that., MB surely had to make her whereabouts known to the FBI to their satisfaction. She and her family were initial suspects in this missing persons case.

If I recall SA did not give MB as the friend she was heading to. When DD was asked to text HDs friend, would he not go back and check the text that HD sent to see what was sent and when?

 

[katydid23]

If I recall SA did not give MB as the friend she was heading to. When DD was asked to text HDs friend, would he not go back and check the text that HD sent to see what was sent and when?

First of all, :Welcome1:



Second, you are correct that in the recent timeline that Billie put out to the press, she did not name MB. She made it sound as if Shawn just said she was staying at a friend's house.

But in her original story, she DID say that he told her she was going to MB's to sleep over.

 

[swedie]

Oh so many theories, sigh. I wish we could just "know" what happened to HD. I'm hoping and praying this poor little girl is still alive.

My theory is that there are two main people who know what happend to HD. One being SA. The other person, I feel had a falling out with H in the house. Something bad happened and SA is helping the other person to cover. Partners in crime.

Why are they are still together?! MOO but I cannot believe that if BD knew SA was responsible for Hs disappearance, why would she continue a bf/gf relationship with him? I just cannot understand that logic if she's innocent. I feel BD does love H, even tho she is not a "model" parent. Sometimes denial and guilt can cause a hardened heart, KWIM (no tears and pleas). S Smith come to mind here, tho fake tears. They come to terms with what has happened.

OR

SA knows where HD is, is guilty for her disappearance and BD is ridiculously dumb, gullible and blinded by love and has no clue what has happened to her beautiful little girl.

I just cannot buying the he did it and she knows, and has accepted that. Especially when SA has not much going for him since Hs disappearance, no job, named a suspect, she claims he's MHMR (hope I got that acronym right). Just my theory, JMHO.

Praying for Hailey and DD, innocent children left to bare the hurt and scars of poor and careless parenting.