Discussion in 'Missing Persons Discussion' started by Mysti88c, May 12, 2020.
We’re good. Issue resolved.
Thanks, @Seattle1. I missed that one. I will add it for the next update.
Stopping in to say, I'm looking forward to seeing the remainder of the States evidence to be presented. I usually dread Mondays
It would be quite a twist, a la KK in the Frazee case. If such a scenario were true, I would hope she cooperated with LE and was being protected as a witness, rather than in fearful hiding. Her phone data is in evidence, so I’m sure we will learn more.
Things I never say on the weekend .. Is it Monday yet?
All that seems to be on his mind is $ money $ money $ money......
I see what you did there. The weasel is going on the ark. Can't remember who maintains the zoo?
Thanks for posting that info, @Seattle1 . I think some folks are confused about Tailwinds. This job/location is different from the the job site on CR105 on the river in Salida that the FBI searched.
On Friday, 5/8 BM asked SM to go to Tailwinds. At first she said no, but later met him there.
MG alleged that BM worked at the riverfront site on Friday evening.
That'd be me
Is it around this property? Not THIS property, but in the area?
0.17 acres, Salida, CO, Property ID: 10829295 | Land and Farm
Thank you for the clarification. I was one of the confused people. How many properties was BM working on? Maybe that’s why his wall jobs turn out crooked? For ex: CR105 beach retaining wall and Bloomfield wall.
IMO, though, the private and public IP addressing for both the cellular and wi-fi networks does not exist in a vacuum. It won’t be hard for LE to tie it all together.
LE has a search warrant for PP. So they def have the logs from the wi-fi router. Those will connect the MAC address of each device to the private IP that was assigned. LE also has data from the SW for the cellular provider. So they know what the MAC address and SIM card ID of each device is even if that device has not been located. (They’ll even have a list of unknown devices that appear in the logs — the neighbor’s phone, MaM’s BFF, house guests, BM’s sketchy “meth-head” coworker, a burner, etc.
And of course they have all the cloud data that each device is associated with — web histories, search histories, what social, email, and bank accounts, etc., each device was accessing, etc.
Not to mention known behavioral patterns from before and after the time SM went missing. They can even pull connection data from other unique locations — SM’s doctor’s office, the fire station, the high school, etc., to cross-validate all the other info.
And I’m 99% certain that cell phones do a date/time stamp of when the phone locks and unlocks and how it was done — passcode, fingerprint or facial recognition — and that would include failed attempts as well, IMO. (I’m not sure that details of these actions would be stored with the carrier, though. Security practices may dictate that data remains on the local device only. In which case destroying the phone = destroying the data. But I’m in over my head now on this particular topic.)
That said, if there’s incriminating evidence to be had in the electronic device data you can be sure LE has it and will use it to their benefit. And to BM’s detriment.
Yes, they are about .03 mile apart.
I’m not sure about the total number of jobs he was working on at the time. I know from the prelim notes he was at both locations on Saturday morning. He also was said to have gone to look at another job on Saturday, Kim’s Gym, which is in Salida. They opened on 12/5/19.
At the beginning of the thread, under the list of verified insiders, it has NatureLover listed. Does that help?
I presume the Sunday wedding went ahead? And was SO distraught then about her missing friend? Or didn't she know yet?
It did go ahead. We don’t know SO’s reaction to all of that, but I have a feeling we’ll hear about it in a couple days.
The prosecution hasn’t yet explained why the focus turned to Barry so quickly, but I think the answer lies with Sheila’s response.
GD as Witness?
@girlhasnoname bbm If in my earlier reply I did not understand your question, I hope this hits closer to the mark.
If GD's stmts to LE (whether made casually Sun night or in later formal interviews) were relevant to furthering the case against BM, then imo likely the State would call GD at trial, which basically entails asking him to repeat his earlier stmts.
If at time of disappearance, GD would have characterized his relationship w BM as bff/bosom buddies, and since then as more distant, would that relationship change impact the State's decision to call/not call GD? Just speaking gen’ly here, I doubt that it would. My2ct.
Like you, I'm also curious about whether GD's relationship w BM has changed --- fading, flourishing, or now non-existent. After giving LE a stmt tending to exculpate a friend, who is later arrested, nobody likes learning the (ex?) friend bamboozled them. And bamboozled about a homicide.
There are additions for your timeline in @NoSI 's notes - page 3 of first document shared here
May 11, 2020
1:06 AM: BM interviewed and he was free to leave thereafter. BM reportedly stated that “I want to help out any way I can”. He shared they had dinner the evening of May 9th and that they had a “great day together”. ...(more)
Evening BM and SM had dinner together per BM's interview 5/11/21 at 1:06am
1:06 am BM was interviewed