Deceased/Not Found TN - Joseph 'Joe Clyde' Daniels, 5, autistic, Dickson, 3 April 2018 *Arrests*

[December]

Timeline
http://www.wkrn.com/top-news/timeline-in-search-for-joe-clyde-daniels/1105464609

What is says about the witness

"April 4:

Around 1 a.m. a witness driving down the road sees a boy matching the description of Joe Clyde on the side of the road. He didn't call police because he thinks the boy looks older and is standing near homes, so the man assumes the boy is not lose. " --quoting wkrn

 

[December]

his stepson

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

I mentioned him. He is eight. Why would he need to be protected by a false confession.

 

[bdm11480]

Thanks for the timeline. There is just so much extra ideas out there to consider and keep up with. It helps a lot just to narrow it back down so you don't get lost in it all.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Here is that timeline Gussified.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[December]

Uh huh, and if the confession is recanted?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Are you trying to say the "parents" don't know if he is dead or alive?

 

[Gussified]

Go back through December posts. Posted a timeline yesterday. It's in there.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Timeline
http://www.wkrn.com/top-news/timeline-in-search-for-joe-clyde-daniels/1105464609

What is says about the witness

"April 4:

Around 1 a.m. a witness driving down the road sees a boy matching the description of Joe Clyde on the side of the road. He didn't call police because he thinks the boy looks older and is standing near homes, so the man assumes the boy is not lose. " --quoting wkrn

Thanks bdm and December. I missed that one.

 

[bdm11480]

I mentioned him. He is eight. Why would he need to be protected by a false confession.

I don't know? I'm just offering theory as to how he could be coerced into a confession if his mind frame were that of someone believing they are protecting a loved one .

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[bdm11480]

Are you trying to say the "parents" don't know if he is dead or alive?

If they recant their confession and this is a true case of coercion then yes.

Of course I don't know that but without a body these are things that a competent defense lawyer is going to argue in court.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[bdm11480]

If they recant their confession and this is a true case of coercion then yes.

Of course I don't know that but without a body these are things that a competent defense lawyer is going to argue in court.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

I know why people would think it's a confession with a confession it's an open and shut case but the fact is without finding Joe just no real closure.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[Gussified]

Are you trying to say the "parents" don't know if he is dead or alive?

I find that HIGHLY unlikely. After all, if there were any chance BabyJoe were still alive, certainly they would want him found. They would have to know that confessing to a murder would stop the search. I mean, yeah, they’re still searching for BabyJoe’s body, but the massive search has been considerably scaled back. And surely they would have anticipated that.

 

[December]

If they recant their confession and this is a true case of coercion then yes.

Of course I don't know that but without a body these are things that a competent defense lawyer is going to argue in court.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

The confession being hypothetically recanted in some future scenario doesn't affect whether he is dead or alive.

If he was already dead (and his "parents" knew it) when he was reported missing and while the massive search was underway, that alone reflects very poorly on the parents even IF they didn't cause his death. I do not mean in a trial, I mean ethically.

 

[bdm11480]

I find that HIGHLY unlikely. After all, if there were any chance BabyJoe were still alive, certainly they would want him found. They would have to know that confessing to a murder would stop the search. I mean, yeah, they’re still searching for BabyJoe’s body, but the massive search has been considerably scaled back. And surely they would have anticipated that.

Yes, I thought about that but you have to take into account that they are allowed to lie to a suspect if the think it will get someone to give more information. What if they told him they knew Joe was dead?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[Gussified]

Yes, I thought about that but you have to take into account that they are allowed to lie to a suspect if the think it will get someone to give more information. What if they told him they knew Joe was dead?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

What motivation would LE have to coerce a parent into saying a child is dead when he is not? I could maybe see it IF LE knew for a fact that the child was dead, but not if there was any chance the child was still alive.

While I have not ruled out the possibility that Joe Ray confessed to protect Krystal, I believe they both know that Baby Joe is, in fact, dead. And not because LE told them he is. They know what happened to Baby Joe.

 

[bdm11480]

What motivation would LE have to coerce a parent into saying a child is dead when he is not? I could maybe see it IF LE knew for a fact that the child was dead, but not if there was any chance the child was still alive.

While I have not ruled out the possibility that Joe Ray confessed to protect Krystal, I believe they both know that Baby Joe is, in fact, dead. And not because LE told them he is. They know what happened to Baby Joe.

I don't know why, maybe just overzealous, but it does happen and it happens more often than anyone should be comfortable with. Here is an article on the subject of cases where people confessed to horrible crimes they did not commit only to be exonerated often times years later by DNA.

http://www.newsweek.com/why-people-confess-crimes-didnt-commit-470227

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Just a note to add to this. I did look up the states that have laws requiring interrogations be recorded and Tennessee is not one of them.

 

[Gussified]

I don't know why, maybe just overzealous, but it does happen and it happens more often than anyone should be comfortable with. Here is an article on the subject of cases where people confessed to horrible crimes they did not commit only to be exonerated often times years later by DNA.

http://www.newsweek.com/why-people-confess-crimes-didnt-commit-470227

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Oh, I’m familiar with false confessions. But I was responding to the suggestion that the parents don’t know whether Baby Joe is alive or dead. Do you honestly believe there’s any possibility that both LE and the parents just decided it would be a good idea to call off the searches and make up a story in which Baby Joe was killed? I just don’t. I think if there was a chance that Baby Joe was alive, both LE and the parents would want him found alive. It’s illogical to me that they would say he’s dead if they didn’t know he was dead.

 

[AFTM]

Does anyone have any idea why the father would abandon the dogs first like they are saying he did??

And I guess the poor things were scared and very thin. Starved was the word used to describe them by ASPCA

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[bdm11480]

Oh, I’m familiar with false confessions. But I was responding to the suggestion that the parents don’t know whether Baby Joe is alive or dead. Do you honestly believe there’s any possibility that both LE and the parents just decided it would be a good idea to call off the searches and make up a story in which Baby Joe was killed? I just don’t. I think if there was a chance that Baby Joe was alive, both LE and the parents would want him found alive. It’s illogical to me that they would say he’s dead if they didn’t know he was dead.

Well I find a great many of things about this case to be illogical. Starting with an very detailed confession of how the boy was killed but still no body?? You can coerce a lot of stuff out if people but not something they don't know.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[bdm11480]

Does anyone have any idea why the father would abandon the dogs first like they are saying he did??

And I guess the poor things were scared and very thin. Starved was the word used to describe them by ASPCA

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

I'm still wondering how they even figured out the dogs were theirs. Maybe the grandparents confirmed it? If they all live together I wouldn't they to be responsible for the dogs?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[AFTM]

I'm still wondering how they even figured out the dogs were theirs. Maybe the grandparents confirmed it? If they all live together I wouldn't they to be responsible for the dogs?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

I wasn't aware that grandparents lived with them. If that was the case where were they when child was killed?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[December]

I have never heard that the grandparents live in the house with them. The grandparents (Joe's parents) live nearby, I think. (At least in Dickson County, I think.) Eta this is the impression I get anyway. I don't know for sure.

I think the dogs were hungry, but "starved" is an overstatement. There is a video of them (post rescue). By "starved", I was imagining emaciated animals, these are not.

It's known whose dogs they were because they dropped them off in front of a kennel. Someone saw per media accounts.

They were dumped the night of April 1.

Eta, article with video about dogs
https://www.newschannel5.com/news/abused-dogs-belonged-to-daniels-family

 

[bdm11480]

I wasn't aware that grandparents lived with them. If that was the case where were they when child was killed?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

They were out of state. Grandfather is a truck driver and grandmother goes with them.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk