Hailey Dunn: General Discussion thread #3

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tugela said:
If there was such a rumor, it was complete nonsense. HD's disappearance was initially investigated by Mitchel county, but the computer contents were under the jurisdiction of Mitchell county. Different sheriffs, they are not going to protect relatives of the other (or their subordinates). Also, the two local sheriffs did not find the child *advertiser censored*, it was found by the FBI during later analysis. The FBI have no motive to protect either of the two sheriffs departments if someone associated with them was involved in serious wrongdoing. The Texas Rangers were involved in the investigation as well, and it would be within their mandate to step in if it became apparent that local LE were covering stuff up. After HD's remains were found, the Scurry sheriff got jurisdiction. So at least five different LE agencies would have looked at what was on the computer. There is no way that there would have been some sort of cover up.

And in any case the alleged child *advertiser censored* on the computer was "apparent", meaning that it probably depicted individuals who looked young but could have been adults. There is lots of such material on the internet. We know that no charges came from what was found, which means that it was not particularly extreme. And in any case, whoever downloaded the *advertiser censored* would have been someone living at the house, and that wasn't SA. IIRC SA had a teenage (at the time) brother who lived there, along with his mother and her partner (perhaps others too). The mother owned the computer but IMO the person most likely to have downloaded the *advertiser censored* would have been the teenager, and that would have had nothing to do with HD at all.

The whole *advertiser censored* thing was just a salacious side show, with the added twist that it was subverted to provide a reason to carry out searches in the hope of accidently getting lucky on the HD case (which they otherwise would not have grounds to do).

It is entirely possible that someone in local LE was pointing the investigation in the wrong direction to divert attention from what really happened, but if that were so it would have to be someone in Mitchell county and it couldn't have had anything to do with the *advertiser censored* found in Howard county.

I think the truth about what happened to HD is much more mundane and happens to kids that age all the time. My personal opinion of this case is that HD took off that evening to party with a few other local kids and they headed out to the lake where they could do their thing without fear of being disturbed by adults. And in the course of that something happened to HD. Perhaps experimentation with drugs and she accidently ODed, or she wandered off into the bush drunk, something like that, and died. In that sort of situation the other kids would have kept very quite about it since there would have been extremely serious repercussions for them (felony murder, for example). If there was any sort of local cover up going on, it would have been in the context of something like that.

I think that she may have been at her fathers house sometime that day, perhaps even after she left the house when SA arrived home unexpectedly. Given his legal history I imagine that CD would have been very reticent about being the last person to have seen her since it would have made him prime suspect and he would have known that. After that she likely left and he didn't know what happened to her beyond that. My guess is that she went to her friends house, then to the vicinity of the local hotel to meet up with boys, and after that who knows. IMO that might explain the really odd behavior by a lot of people subsequent to her disappearance. The big problem in this case I think is that people know that they were not responsible for what happened to her, but they were concerned that other people would not believe them, so they went with the flow when the local sheriff started pointing fingers at SA and have not been super forthcoming with everything they know for fear of being accused of something.
Click to expand...

You bring up good points although one thing to consider is the "Blue Wall of Silence".

Early in this case it stayed predominantly with local sheriffs departments from what I recall. I don't think larger LE agencies got involved for a very long time.

The motel theory of other individuals was a possibility as there was some mystery individuals that never really got identified.

The behavior of the main POIs was very bizzare. Too bizarre IMO.
 
If HD had gone out that night with local kids, IMO, we would have eventually learned about it. KIds are notorious for spilling secrets. Kids talk. Secrets get out. People would have seen her if she had been out and about that night. I don't believe for a second that the local kids could have fooled the FBI about not being with or seeing her that night. JMO
 
katydid23 said:
If HD had gone out that night with local kids, IMO, we would have eventually learned about it. KIds are notorious for spilling secrets. Kids talk. Secrets get out. People would have seen her if she had been out and about that night. I don't believe for a second that the local kids could have fooled the FBI about not being with or seeing her that night. JMO
Click to expand...

Agree.

I cant get passed the behavior of the main POI.

And one of the things about "Coveralls". Way too coincidental to me. Almost like a Michael Myers horror story since Halloween is coming up again I thought about those coveralls.

Crud, and the "masks". Uggg.
 
Does anyone know if there were any structures in the area where Hailey's body was found? By structure(s) I am looking for something that is shaped like like an obelisk; four sides that angle in, made of wood beams, about 30-40 feet tall that would often have electrical power lines attached. Almost looks like a forest ranger's lookout. Just curious.
 
Hatfield said:
You bring up good points although one thing to consider is the "Blue Wall of Silence".

Early in this case it stayed predominantly with local sheriffs departments from what I recall. I don't think larger LE agencies got involved for a very long time.

The motel theory of other individuals was a possibility as there was some mystery individuals that never really got identified.

The behavior of the main POIs was very bizzare. Too bizarre IMO.
Click to expand...
The FBI was there pretty early ,I know they conducted the interviews of the trash man and of MaryBeth.
 
katydid23 said:
If HD had gone out that night with local kids, IMO, we would have eventually learned about it. KIds are notorious for spilling secrets. Kids talk. Secrets get out. People would have seen her if she had been out and about that night. I don't believe for a second that the local kids could have fooled the FBI about not being with or seeing her that night. JMO
Click to expand...

I disagree with that. If it was something that would get them in serious trouble they would keep silent. If there were lots of kids involved I might agree with you, but the scenario I am proposing would only have a couple, three or four at most. In that sort of situation secrets stay secrets.

And they would not need to fool the FBI because the FBI would not know about them since the sheriff was distracted by his hypothesis about SA. Initially they would have taken statements by kids at face value. For example, MB's mother was saying that her daughter never communicated with HD that day, but later on when the phones were analyzed it turned out that there was a text message. The mother was pretty negative about the level of parental supervision at the Dun residence, and said nothing about the text, and that is kind of important IMO. If MB's mother was being truthful in her statements to the media, it implies that she was not aware of the text, and that in turn implies that it was deleted from MB's phone by someone before anyone started asking questions. Enquiring minds might wonder why that would happen. I would guess that she knows more, but for whatever reason doesn't want to get involved. That is understandable I think, given the circumstances. IIRC, BD claimed in one of her later interviews that she had never been allowed to talk to MB. That is sort of odd, so I think there is something going on that we don't know about.

The biggest coincidence in my mind was HD suddenly leaving the house soon after SA arrived unexpectedly back home. He was supposed to be working but showed up when he wasn't supposed to be there. Then HD immediately left. IMO she was expecting someone else that afternoon, someone her mother would not approve of, and when SA arrived home she had to get out in a hurry and intercept this person before they arrived. So she didn't take things she might normally carry on her person. And that secrecy is a big part of why we don't know much about what HD was up to that day. We have the story about the tracking dogs going first to the fathers house, then MBs, then supposedly around one of the local hotels. One of the witnesses who claimed to have seen HD that day saw her in the company of (MB?) and another unidentified teenage boy IIRC.

So I think there are quite a few lines of evidence to suggest that HD had met up with a couple of local kids that evening.
 
Tugela said:
I disagree with that. If it was something that would get them in serious trouble they would keep silent. If there were lots of kids involved I might agree with you, but the scenario I am proposing would only have a couple, three or four at most. In that sort of situation secrets stay secrets.

And they would not need to fool the FBI because the FBI would not know about them since the sheriff was distracted by his hypothesis about SA. Initially they would have taken statements by kids at face value. For example, MB's mother was saying that her daughter never communicated with HD that day, but later on when the phones were analyzed it turned out that there was a text message. The mother was pretty negative about the level of parental supervision at the Dun residence, and said nothing about the text, and that is kind of important IMO. If MB's mother was being truthful in her statements to the media, it implies that she was not aware of the text, and that in turn implies that it was deleted from MB's phone by someone before anyone started asking questions. Enquiring minds might wonder why that would happen. I would guess that she knows more, but for whatever reason doesn't want to get involved. That is understandable I think, given the circumstances. IIRC, BD claimed in one of her later interviews that she had never been allowed to talk to MB. That is sort of odd, so I think there is something going on that we don't know about.

The biggest coincidence in my mind was HD suddenly leaving the house soon after SA arrived unexpectedly back home. He was supposed to be working but showed up when he wasn't supposed to be there. Then HD immediately left. IMO she was expecting someone else that afternoon, someone her mother would not approve of, and when SA arrived home she had to get out in a hurry and intercept this person before they arrived. So she didn't take things she might normally carry on her person. And that secrecy is a big part of why we don't know much about what HD was up to that day. We have the story about the tracking dogs going first to the fathers house, then MBs, then supposedly around one of the local hotels. One of the witnesses who claimed to have seen HD that day saw her in the company of (MB?) and another unidentified teenage boy IIRC.

So I think there are quite a few lines of evidence to suggest that HD had met up with a couple of local kids that evening.
Click to expand...

I disagree. This is a small town. Everyone knows everyone else's business. Kids know what other kids are doing. If HD was planning to meet up with MB and a boy, OTHER KIDS would know about it too. There was no reason to keep it a secret that afternoon.

And the witness supposedly saw HD out walking in town with MB and another person. In a small town like that, other people would have seen her too, IMO.

How do we know HD left as soon as SA returned home? We have only been told that by SA and no one else. Can't say that I believe him.

As far as the phone calls and texts, the one text to MB---that is one of the reasons that I know HD did not meet up with her friends. Kids text each other a zillion times when they are making plans. Not ONE time.

SA probably texted pretending to be HD.

And YES, the FBI did interview MB and her mom. More than once. I am not sure why you say the FBI did not know about them. SA said right from the start that HD was heading to MB's house. How can you say the FBI did not know about them?
 
katydid23 said:
I disagree. This is a small town. Everyone knows everyone else's business. Kids know what other kids are doing. If HD was planning to meet up with MB and a boy, OTHER KIDS would know about it too. There was no reason to keep it a secret that afternoon.

And the witness supposedly saw HD out walking in town with MB and another person. In a small town like that, other people would have seen her too, IMO.

How do we know HD left as soon as SA returned home? We have only been told that by SA and no one else. Can't say that I believe him.

As far as the phone calls and texts, the one text to MB---that is one of the reasons that I know HD did not meet up with her friends. Kids text each other a zillion times when they are making plans. Not ONE time.

SA probably texted pretending to be HD.

And YES, the FBI did interview MB and her mom. More than once. I am not sure why you say the FBI did not know about them. SA said right from the start that HD was heading to MB's house. How can you say the FBI did not know about them?
Click to expand...

Depends on what they were planning to do. When I was a kid (and yes, I lived in small towns too) and planned to do something with other kids, no one would know about it except ourselves. On occasion we got up to mischief too, and trust me, to this day no one other than ourselves knows about it. There is some stuff you don't spread around. And we are not talking about a big party here, getting together with 2-3 other kids would not be common knowledge.

Other people would have seen HD, MB and the boy, but that doesn't mean that they would have noticed them. Unless the kids were doing something to attract attention, most people would have forgotten in a few minutes, if even that long. While CC might be a small town, it is not so small that everyone knows each other well. Most people would have passed by a couple of kids and not given it even a first thought. Realistically the only sorts of people who might recall would be those who knew them personally. For example, if I'm driving along and I pass my boss's kids, or the neighbor's kids, walking along side the road I might notice them because I knew them on a name basis, but if it was someone else's kids I would not.

We know HD left soon after SA got back home because SA had a earliest departure time from Big Spring (from his phone records), and HD had a known latest departure time (based on DD and friends testimony regarding when they arrived at the house). The time window HD had available to leave was about half an hour. In other words she left very soon after SA got back to the house in CC.

There was one text to MB on the phone. There could well have been others that were deleted. There was no mention of texts on MB's phone, which must have existed. Texts are recorded on both phones, not just one.

SA could not have texted pretending to be HD because that would have placed the phone in Big Spring, something that without question would have been mentioned in affidavits. So the text must have been sent in CC, while SA was in Big Spring. Therefore he could not have sent it. Also, there was an eyewitness account of HD being seen in her backyard using the phone at approximately the time the text was sent. There is no question in my mind that the text was sent by HD.

The FBI may have interviewed MB, but if they would not have interviewed anyone else. To interview anyone else they first have to know who they are. If MB kept her mouth shut and denied knowing anything, they would have had to accept that and no further leads to other kids would have resulted. She was a minor at the time (but an adult now), so access would have been limited.
 
Tugela said:
Depends on what they were planning to do. When I was a kid (and yes, I lived in small towns too) and planned to do something with other kids, no one would know about it except ourselves. On occasion we got up to mischief too, and trust me, to this day no one other than ourselves knows about it. There is some stuff you don't spread around. And we are not talking about a big party here, getting together with 2-3 other kids would not be common knowledge.

Other people would have seen HD, MB and the boy, but that doesn't mean that they would have noticed them. Unless the kids were doing something to attract attention, most people would have forgotten in a few minutes, if even that long. While CC might be a small town, it is not so small that everyone knows each other well. Most people would have passed by a couple of kids and not given it even a first thought. Realistically the only sorts of people who might recall would be those who knew them personally. For example, if I'm driving along and I pass my boss's kids, or the neighbor's kids, walking along side the road I might notice them because I knew them on a name basis, but if it was someone else's kids I would not.

We know HD left soon after SA got back home because SA had a earliest departure time from Big Spring (from his phone records), and HD had a known latest departure time (based on DD and friends testimony regarding when they arrived at the house). The time window HD had available to leave was about half an hour. In other words she left very soon after SA got back to the house in CC.

There was one text to MB on the phone. There could well have been others that were deleted. There was no mention of texts on MB's phone, which must have existed. Texts are recorded on both phones, not just one.

SA could not have texted pretending to be HD because that would have placed the phone in Big Spring, something that without question would have been mentioned in affidavits. So the text must have been sent in CC, while SA was in Big Spring. Therefore he could not have sent it. Also, there was an eyewitness account of HD being seen in her backyard using the phone at approximately the time the text was sent. There is no question in my mind that the text was sent by HD.

The FBI may have interviewed MB, but if they would not have interviewed anyone else. To interview anyone else they first have to know who they are. If MB kept her mouth shut and denied knowing anything, they would have had to accept that and no further leads to other kids would have resulted. She was a minor at the time (but an adult now), so access would have been limited.
Click to expand...

BBM This scenario is only if you believe everything SA says. I personally do not believe anything that comes from him or BD myself. And the FBI can interview anyone. I don't believe any parent would deny access to their child if it meant finding Hailey. I personally will never believe anyone other than SA and possibly one other are responsible for HD's death. JMO

Also, IIRC SA's phone was shut off for several hours so who is to say it was in Big Spring vs. Colorado City?
 
nannymo said:
BBM This scenario is only if you believe everything SA says. I personally do not believe anything that comes from him or BD myself. And the FBI can interview anyone. I don't believe any parent would deny access to their child if it meant finding Hailey. I personally will never believe anyone other than SA and possibly one other are responsible for HD's death. JMO

Also, IIRC SA's phone was shut off for several hours so who is to say it was in Big Spring vs. Colorado City?
Click to expand...
I am in total agreement with you. If SA's lips were moving, he was lying, imo. [emoji230] [emoji230] [emoji230]
 
nannymo said:
BBM This scenario is only if you believe everything SA says. I personally do not believe anything that comes from him or BD myself. And the FBI can interview anyone. I don't believe any parent would deny access to their child if it meant finding Hailey. I personally will never believe anyone other than SA and possibly one other are responsible for HD's death. JMO

Also, IIRC SA's phone was shut off for several hours so who is to say it was in Big Spring vs. Colorado City?
Click to expand...

The phone wasn't shut off, people here just assumed it was. Verizon only retained tower information at the time from phone calls, not from pings. The time periods reported in the affidavits are for phone calls made. It does not mean he turned his phone off. The justice department prepared a summary of the sorts of information retained by various cellular providers in 2010, so that would still have been the case when HD disappeared. You can read the document in this link. I think the problem is that people here got confused about the term "ping" used in the affidavit. They assumed it meant the routine pinging that phones do constantly, but if you read the affidavit it seems pretty clear to me that they are talking about phone calls. Verison retains tower data for phone calls (which technically is a ping as well, since you have to ping to make the connection in the first place), but not for the routine pings.

Cell phone companies don't retain data for routine pings because it is a truly massive amount of data. If you think about it, your phone is pinging the tower a couple of times a minute. There are 1440 minutes in a day, and assuming each ping would require about 10 bytes to store the information, that would be ~14kB per phone day (assuming one ping per minute....it is more frequent than that however). Multiple that by the about 300 million or more devices in the country and you would need about 4500 tera bytes of storage a day. That is around 2000 hard drives worth (in 2010 standard hard drives would have been around 2TB) of storage. That is per day. In a year you would need at least ~800,000 hard drives just to store the annual ping data, and probably considerably more. The cost of doing all that would be on the order of half a billion dollars. Routine ping data is completely worthless to phone companies, so there is no way they are going to spend that sort of money to retain it for anything longer than 24 hours, if that even. It is just too expensive. The data they do keep is necessary for billing purposes, that is why they keep some data but not others. The exact type of data kept, and for how long it is kept, varies from one provider to the next, as detailed in the link I provided.

As far as HD's departure time is concerned, there are multiple lines of evidence indicating that she was alive and well at home in CC that day. There are at least two eyewitness reports placing her at or around the house during the day, and there was the text message sent. At the time the affidavits were published they were still serving a warrant to get the information for the home cell phone. We don't know what is in those records, but I suspect that there is a whole lot more than a single text message. There is also the question of the earring which she was apparently wearing at her home the night before, but which was later found in her fathers house. It didn't get there by magic and it could only have gotten there the day she disappeared. SA was in BS until at least 2:40PM as shown by his phone records (and almost certainly by the testimony of other people at the house at BS). HD was not at home when DD got home at 4PM. SA says she was there when he got there. Allowing for the drive from BS to CC, that means the window for HD to have left was roughly 3:30PM to 4PM. She told SA she was going to MB's house. Tracker dogs later tracked her to MB's house, via her fathers house. Witnesses later observed her that night in MBs company.

It is pretty obvious IMO, how much more do we need?

Are we supposed to just ignore all of that simply because we don't like SA and want him to be guilty? Even though there is nothing linking him to what happened to her and plenty to suggest that something quite different probably happened?
 
I am pretty sure that witness that saw HD at home was a drug addict that was a questionable source.

I am not convinced that she was home that day. I am not convinced that anyone ever saw her in town.

I think there was some question whether the dogs actually tracked a scent to MB's. Others have said the handlers walked there looking for a scent because they knew that is where she was supposed to be headed.

I do not believe that MB ever met up with HD that night. There was not enough texting or calling between them. And it did not matter who deleted what. LE would have the actual phone records and it would show if they had communicated or not.

Very hard for me to believe that she went that entire day without texting or calling any friends. I have always wondered if she was drugged the night before or early that morning.
 
The five year anniversary of Hailey's disappearance is coming up. Her remains were found and identified more than two years ago. One would think the case was close to being wrapped up.

It frustrates Clint to think that his daughter's disappearace and death may not be any closer to being solved today than before.

"The case has gone from law enforcement to law enforcement. Each time, they start all back over on the case and end up no where. Every time."

A lot has changed in Colorado City in the last five years. The teddy bears and memorials that once stood, in hope of finding Hailey, have been taken down and are now stored inside a shed in the back yard of Hailey's house.

The home itself is abandoned, declared unsafe and in danger of being torn down by the city.

However, one thing hasn't changed. There is still an urgent cry and an insatiable thirst to find justice for hailey.

"I'm just going to say it like this: we all know who did this," Clint said. "It's not fair that this type of person gets to go free after doing such a horrible thing to such an innocent person."

http://www.newswest9.com/story/30387826/special-report-justice-for-hailey
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 147 more.
Total: 3,484 (members: 148, guests: 3,336)

Online statistics

Members online
148
Guests online
3,336
Total visitors
3,484
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,296
Messages
17,966,867
Members
228,735
Latest member
dil2288
Back
Top