GUILTY Canada - Kienan Hebert, 3, Sparwood BC, 7 Sept 2011 - #2

New Posts

margaret_diane said:
One article I saw today indicates that Paul H. left the home unlocked when they headed to the neighbor's house, and notes he did so quite intentionally. He does not indicate though, whether he did this as a result of advice / request from police or of his own volition.

I'd also like to ask:
-> If Paul left the doors UNLOCKED when he left, then WHY did he need to LET POLICE IN at the time when Kienan was discovered?? Wouldn't they be able to walk in?

-> I suspect that:
-> Police had some form of eyes and ears inside the home, and KNEW Kienan had been returned, and that the perp was now outside the home somewhere. I think they waited for dad as they wanted HIM to be the first person Kienan saw - so as to avoid further scaring the poor little guy!!
-> I also suspect that, the drop was pre-arranged, and police knew to expect Kienan that night, at a given time. Its possible that the parents knew too, and were hopefully and expectantly waiting from the neighbor's home. I do wonder whether the lights were on inside or off. Curious -- everyone would notice if the lights suddenly went on if they'd been off previously. Kienan was on the couch with his blankie... so two other blankies have yet to be recovered (?).

Also:
-> I'd like you to all to be aware that police did not NEED Paul's consent / help to get into the home that night!! I personally believe they had the family's consent to enter as needed for whatever reason... and suspect that even if they didn't, they weren't going to sit around and wait for consent if they needed it given a child's life was at stake! I'm sure they'd know that the parents would give consent, and would act accordingly!!
Click to expand...

I can't help but think a friend or family member of Hopleys facillitated the drop. Because the police won't confirm that Hopley placed the 911 call, and when asked if that meant there was an accomplice, the officer seemed to struggle with that word, and then back away from the question all together. I think Hopley showed up somewhere where he felt safe, and whomever it was brought the child back, into the unlocked home and then phoned 911.

Maybe someone was in contact with Hopley and the RCMP throughout this, and the suggestion was made that if the child was brought to this person, that the Hebert home would be the drop off spot, and the doors were to remain unlocked.

Maybe Mr. Hebert message "drop him off somewhere safe" was intended to make him think of this friend/family member. Everything was worded prior to him making that speech, and very calculated and intentional. Gas Station /Hospital could be the work place of where this friend/family member was employed and was said to "give him an idea" etc... We will never know all the details, and that's ok IMO.
 
Snoopster said:
BBM

From the following video interview with Paul H., after his son's return, he says that he found his son asleep.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4qLfMFLcCo

ETA: I meant to add that I "loved" the video heading "Toddler's dad lashes out at justice system". I didn't hear any lashing out! Am I missing something?
Click to expand...

I dont understand why the story keeps changing.

First it was, police recieved call and headed to home. Mr. Herbert saw the commotion because he wasn't sleeping - went over and went inside and found Keinan sitting on the couch.

Now, He finds him sleeping on the couch.

I've also read that police located Kienan inside the home ( both awake and asleep) and notified the family. And that Mrs. Hebert went in the home and Kienan ran right into her arms.

...

I understand that they cant' give us all the details, but how many different ones are they going to give us? LOL
 
But the different versions might be out there for a REASON!! Think about this for a second (again)... this isn't about our need to KNOW how it happened, why etc... THIS was about a little boy's life -- who was in clear mortal danger!! And now, it has become about apprehending a suspect or suspects as the case may well be... the LE have done such a wonderful job so far -- can we not trust that if there are different versions, there MIGHT be a reason, or consider that media might just be in such a frenzy to get the word out FIRST that things are being mixed up??/
 
margaret_diane said:
But the different versions might be out there for a REASON!! Think about this for a second (again)... this isn't about our need to KNOW how it happened, why etc... THIS was about a little boy's life -- who was in clear mortal danger!! And now, it has become about apprehending a suspect or suspects as the case may well be... the LE have done such a wonderful job so far -- can we not trust that if there are different versions, there MIGHT be a reason, or consider that media might just be in such a frenzy to get the word out FIRST that things are being mixed up??/
Click to expand...

I just cant' see a reason behind saying he was awake/ asleep found by dad/mom/police..

He was found, and everyone hugged and was happy would have been suffice. LOL.

The media, while I understand they may have it mixed up, the words of the officer and the father have contradicted each other in the telling of Kienans discovery ~ I'm not saying it means anything - it doesn't I don't think, I just don't understand it.

ETA: see my next post: Officer and Father did not contradict each other. I just got confused.
 
Well they both could be saying the same thing, differently. EG: Kienan COULD have been found on the couch, sitting up... asleep with his blankie... just saying. :p
 
I'm sure we'll get more/better details once they nab him. The main thing is that Kienan is home. They need to concentrate on finding this guy before he gets near another child.
 
I'm happy about this.. I think A LOT is going to come out soon. After reviewing way too many audio/video clips just now trying to find the contradiction that didn't exist (lol) ~ I think there is a lot more going on than the police are letting us know. They have it covered LOL :)
 
Keep in mind that the RCMP never said why they suspected Hopley. Chances are the reason simply was that he was accused of something similar a few years ago (allthought the charges were dropped due to lack of evidence), he was in the area and they couldn't find him now. They didn't find the boy with him, the kid appeared back at home out of thin air. It sounds like the call telling them he was home didn't come from Hopley. So who called?

You need to consider the possibility that it was someone else who did it. There is just too much wierdness about this case, it is fishy as hell.
 
Tugela said:
Keep in mind that the RCMP never said why they suspected Hopley. Chances are the reason simply was that he was accused of something similar a few years ago (allthought the charges were dropped due to lack of evidence), he was in the area and they couldn't find him now. They didn't find the boy with him, the kid appeared back at home out of thin air. It sounds like the call telling them he was home didn't come from Hopley. So who called?

You need to consider the possibility that it was someone else who did it. There is just too much wierdness about this case, it is fishy as hell.
Click to expand...


The Police were at Hopleys home, shortly after 9am according to his landlord, right after Kienan was reported missing.

.The police came after 9:00 a.m. looking for Hopley, said Sheets.

Just before that Paul Hebert called 911 reporting his son was missing.

http://www.calgarysun.com/2011/09/09/landlord-recalls-suspects-last-known-moves
 
Very interesting interview with the father today. Most notably (imo) was the fathers statement that " we kind of hope that the last few days were just like a sort of road trip for him. Except that it was with STRANGERS. " This leads me to believe that LE suspect that there could have been someone else present during at least some portion of Kienan's time away.

I agree with the poster who offered the theory that a friend, family member, or acquaintance may have facilitated Keenan'e return. Paul Hebert was very clear when he thanked the 'person who returned Kienan', he did not name RH directly. However, Dan Moskaluk did refer to the suspect by name several times.

The facts remain that a) a child was removed from his home under suspicious circumstances, b) the child was not in the care of his parents during his time away, c) his safety and well being were absolutely in jeopardy. The RCMP with support from many different agencies, the community, and US officials accomplished the impossible, this child is back in the care of his family.

If they had to make a deal with the Devil in order to bring this child home .... well ...
 
CrimeBella said:
The Police were at Hopleys home, shortly after 9am according to his landlord, right after Kienan was reported missing.

.The police came after 9:00 a.m. looking for Hopley, said Sheets.

Just before that Paul Hebert called 911 reporting his son was missing.

http://www.calgarysun.com/2011/09/09/landlord-recalls-suspects-last-known-moves
Click to expand...

Good catch. RCMP revealed that an attempted abduction had occurred earlier that morning. There had been a different, attempted abduction earlier that day buy a suspect who matched RH description. They were likely in the area already, knocking on doors and may have happened to be in the area at the same time Paul Hebert called 911.
 
Snoopster said:
http://www.torontosun.com/2011/09/12/missing-child-expert-applauds-cops-on-kienan-case
Click to expand...

Tugela said:
Keep in mind that the RCMP never said why they suspected Hopley. Chances are the reason simply was that he was accused of something similar a few years ago (allthought the charges were dropped due to lack of evidence), he was in the area and they couldn't find him now. They didn't find the boy with him, the kid appeared back at home out of thin air. It sounds like the call telling them he was home didn't come from Hopley. So who called?

You need to consider the possibility that it was someone else who did it. There is just too much wierdness about this case, it is fishy as hell.
Click to expand...

I know what you are saying and many of us here, especially I am sure (W/S oldtimers lol) have done just that. Police never for liability reasons, etc. name a suspect unless they are SURE. JMO I think this case end up being just as police have told us. If you go back to the T. Stafford case, it took awhile to run all the SO's down, but Mom was prime suspect from almost get-go for quite awhile (in her opinion)! They even tried a sting and we know in the end it was a stranger abduction. I never say never, but there is absolutely nothing that I have seen to think otherwise than Hopely is the #1 suspect.
 
When Paul Hebert walked into the house, after police secured it, he found his son asleep on a large upholstered chair.

"When I woke him up, it was unreal," Hebert said.

"He wasn't sure what was really going on. Once he realized what was happening, he knew he was home. He was safe."

Hebert said he held on tight to Kienan for a minute before passing him over to his mother, who held onto the boy until doctors could examine him.
Click to expand...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2011/09/12/abduction-search-suspect.html
 
Wow.. I just caught the tail end of a report on Hopley on CTV.. Did anyone else catch that.

Apparently he planned it for three weeks
He knew police habits
He enjoyed the "rush" or something like that...

This was all a game to him.... WOW...
 
House left unguarded for B.C. abductor
CBC = Last Updated: Sep 12, 2011 7:20 PM PT

"We left the doors unlocked hoping that he would bring him," Paul Hebert told media on Monday.
Click to expand...
Police tactics secret
"Everything we say, and everything we do right now will have a direct effect and consequence as to the next outcomes we have in Sparwood, British Columbia, so we are being very, very cautious as to what we can say right now, what we are doing, why we are doing it. We all have to work together," he said.
Click to expand...

Full long article, VIDEO, and Pics at link : http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2011/09/12/abduction-search-suspect.html
 
CrimeBella said:
Wow.. I just caught the tail end of a report on Hopley on CTV.. Did anyone else catch that.

Apparently he planned it for three weeks
He knew police habits
He enjoyed the "rush" or something like that...

This was all a game to him.... WOW...
Click to expand...

He planned on taking a kid for 3 weeks? WTH? He just got out jail didn't he?
 
matou said:
He planned on taking a kid for 3 weeks? WTH? He just got out jail didn't he?
Click to expand...


I only caught the tail end of it, but that's sure what it sounded like. Trying to find a video of it now. It was on CTV newsnet I think..
 
This is on twitter.. one of the reporters tweeted this..

ctvrob Rob Brown
Hopley has a history of studying police response and behaviour. Had likely planned abd Exclusive details @6.
9 Sep Favorite Retweet Reply
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 206 more.
Total: 4,401 (members: 207, guests: 4,194)

Online statistics

Members online
207
Guests online
4,194
Total visitors
4,401
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,470
Messages
17,969,398
Members
228,777
Latest member
Jojo53
Back
Top