I agree and what I see happening in other cases, is the evidence being gathered and then the perp cutting a deal. But if accused isn't willing to cut a deal, of if LE doesn't want to go down that road, then I guess proving a case would become a whole lot harder. The accused could, (& probably will), say that some minors had access to the computers. MOO.BTW getting these types of charges to stick is extremely challenging. It is very difficult to pinpoint definitively WHO downloaded, viewed, etc. the CP on a particular machine. Even with different user accounts on a computer (IF they had Windows user accounts enabled) it is hard to PROVE that another party in the home didn't have the password to that account, etc....
Yes, I do believe there will be CP arrests and BD may be one of them as well. I think LE is going through a big task of trying to figure out who downloaded at certain times, if it was sold or trafficked, who paid for the material, possible links to other individuals, etc. They are probably going through each image with a fine tooth comb to verify the subject was underage and they are also completing forensics on the electronics seized from GMA's house.
Sadly, I think there will be arrests on CP long before they find Hailey.
There is no way they could charge BD with that considering that they apparently didn't find any CP in her house.
As far as any other electronics from the GMs house are concerned, they would still have the problem of proving which of the people who had access to those devices did the deed, if there is indeed any CP there.
They wouldn't need to be worried about who paid or those images or who they were sold to, simply because it is highly unlikely that any of that happened. They were simply downloaded off public areas of the web, of which there are many. There is nothing remotely indicating any sort of CP ring in the affidavits.
They mentioned in the SW affidavit that there were unidentified devices that had been attached to the computer at some point. Keep in mind that SA is not the only person in Texas to have devices capable of being plugged into a computer, in all probability every one who had access to the house likely also has such devices. The search warrants would not have found all of those since they might not all have been on the property. The fact that the devices were not found doesn't mean that SA hid them, it is more likely that those devices simply belonged to someone else.
Unless they find CP on some device which is indisputably SAs and is only used by him, then they are not going to be able to charge him with anything, even though they might like to and in spite of the fact that it is more probable that this stuff came from someone else in the house. Think about it. Who is more likely to use a computer in a house - the person who lives there, or another person who lives in another city? If SA made extensive use of both computers, he probably would have been using both of them for the same purpose, so, IF SA downloaded huge amounts of *advertiser censored* on the mothers computer, then he would also have done so on the GMs computer (the one he was "allways" using). If the GMs computer DIDN"T have a huge *advertiser censored* collection on it, then that is pretty compelling evidence that the *advertiser censored* collection on the mother's computer belonged to someone with access primarily to that computer alone. Logic dictates that person wouldn't be SA, and that they need to focus on someone resident in that house.
You guys also need to remember that they don't care about the CP, what they are really after is to arrest and convict SA of anything they can possibly pin on him. These search warrants are really just fishing expeditions IMO. I think they will leave the CP case "open" so that they can carry on snooping using that as a cover.
I don't know how to bold, but what I want to say is about the computers at Shawn's mothers and the one at his grandmothers.
The child *advertiser censored* was found in the slack space in his mother's computer, it was taken into evidence, long ago.
The grandmother's computer, only had a portion of it looked at, sometime around Feb. 7th. in the home, it was not taken into evidence.
We still don't know if any CP was found in the slack space of the Grandmothers computer, since it has been taken into evidence.
There is no way they could charge BD with that considering that they apparently didn't find any CP in her house.
As far as any other electronics from the GMs house are concerned, they would still have the problem of proving which of the people who had access to those devices did the deed, if there is indeed any CP there.
They wouldn't need to be worried about who paid or those images or who they were sold to, simply because it is highly unlikely that any of that happened. They were simply downloaded off public areas of the web, of which there are many. There is nothing remotely indicating any sort of CP ring in the affidavits.
They mentioned in the SW affidavit that there were unidentified devices that had been attached to the computer at some point. Keep in mind that SA is not the only person in Texas to have devices capable of being plugged into a computer, in all probability every one who had access to the house likely also has such devices. The search warrants would not have found all of those since they might not all have been on the property. The fact that the devices were not found doesn't mean that SA hid them, it is more likely that those devices simply belonged to someone else.
Unless they find CP on some device which is indisputably SAs and is only used by him, then they are not going to be able to charge him with anything, even though they might like to and in spite of the fact that it is more probable that this stuff came from someone else in the house. Think about it. Who is more likely to use a computer in a house - the person who lives there, or another person who lives in another city? If SA made extensive use of both computers, he probably would have been using both of them for the same purpose, so, IF SA downloaded huge amounts of *advertiser censored* on the mothers computer, then he would also have done so on the GMs computer (the one he was "allways" using). If the GMs computer DIDN"T have a huge *advertiser censored* collection on it, then that is pretty compelling evidence that the *advertiser censored* collection on the mother's computer belonged to someone with access primarily to that computer alone. Logic dictates that person wouldn't be SA, and that they need to focus on someone resident in that house.
You guys also need to remember that they don't care about the CP, what they are really after is to arrest and convict SA of anything they can possibly pin on him. These search warrants are really just fishing expeditions IMO. I think they will leave the CP case "open" so that they can carry on snooping using that as a cover.
Yes, I do believe there will be CP arrests and BD may be one of them as well. I think LE is going through a big task of trying to figure out who downloaded at certain times, if it was sold or trafficked, who paid for the material, possible links to other individuals, etc. They are probably going through each image with a fine tooth comb to verify the subject was underage and they are also completing forensics on the electronics seized from GMA's house.
Sadly, I think there will be arrests on CP long before they find Hailey.
BBM
I do believe they found CP in BD's home on the memory sticks...I think Sheriff Toombs cleared that up, I will look for a link. However. Of course they CARE ABOUT THE CHILD *advertiser censored*! Goodness to say that don't just blows me away! I cannot imagine anyone - from LE to Joe citizen that would have a "oh well" it's just a little bit of child *advertiser censored*, who really cares...attitude. You can bet your life on the fact they very much "CARE" about the child *advertiser censored*!