Friends Lindsey was with prior to disappearance

Jules71

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2009
Messages
4,697
Reaction score
126
I think there was more going on in Mccleary that night that Lindsey disappeared. We have the retirement party, Nelson's get together, Think I saw it mention in dream section, that someone believed there was a dance going on that night think it was at the vfw if I remember correctly. Haven't heard much about this dance and those that where at it so not really sure. If there was a dance that night wouldn't that bring more people in from the outer communites into mccleary that possibility Lindsey might of known maybe through friends or friends of friends. For that matter there is also the ORV park that could of brought someone familure to her. The more one thinks of the possibilities the wider the scope. Wondered if the person who took Lindsey was aware of all that was goings on in Mccleary that night is familure with the area. Maybe you are right chuck/maureen maybe he was stalking her or could there have been others that have also felt a feeling of stalking or felt very uneasy about a person. There was one news video when lindsey first disappeared, where a woman was being interviewed and stated she usually walks her dog, but the night of disappearance she did not cause she felt uneasy. I keep on wondering why was she was feeling so uneasy. What made her feel so uncomfortable that she choose not to walk the dog at the usual time. Was there someone or something that made her uncomfortable. I had wondered if maybe she heard something or might of seen something. Sorry for rambling just some thoughts running through my mind.

BBM. I would be interested in finding out more about this. Does anyone have a link to the video? Surely LE talked with her about what made her uncomfortable, right?
 

ChuckMaureen

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2005
Messages
3,837
Reaction score
12,953
BBM. I would be interested in finding out more about this. Does anyone have a link to the video? Surely LE talked with her about what made her uncomfortable, right?

The following article was published June 28, 2009.

Read the bolded text, below. Today, it is assumed / accepted fact that LB left MK's house and began her walk home, alone. Whom was this "another friend"?

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/49383897.html

The friend's father, Scott Williams, said he asked Lindsey to go home before it got too dark.

"She was here 10, 15 minutes, and then, you know, we said, 'You should probably get going before it gets dark,' and that was the last we heard of her," he said.
Witnesses say Lindsey seemed normal as she headed out around 9:15. Another friend even walked her part of the way, but Lindsey never showed up at her home.

The following article was published July 8, 2009.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1925146/lindsey_baum_is_still_missing_a_tale.html?cat=8
They brought in dogs and the dogs lost Lindsey's trail. They canvassed neighbors and talked to anyone who might have driven the path that Lindsey took home that night between 9:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m., and a witness said they had seen her about halfway along her way. But just up the street was a service station that Lindsey Baum would have to walk by, but it's surveillance cameras never picked up her image. Another witness said they saw her. A friend had walked a ways with her. And, still, she vanished.

Whom was it that first provided the bolded information to LE or news folk? Did it come from SW or KK, perhaps to deflect embarrassment for letting a 10 year old girl walk home alone after 9:00 pm?

I do not accept that theory and I do not accept the 'confused stories' angle. There were multiple persons in the K house and at least 2 witnesses on the street.

Read both news blurbs again. Both first reference witnesses and then include "a friend" walking with LB, so is it logical to assume the information was provided by one of the witnesses?

... and the bigger question, what did the witness 'see' and who 'corrected' that information .. and why?

Another issue:

Why the discrepancy in the time of the last sighting? Was it 9:15pm or 9:30pm?

http://newsflavor.com/world/usa-canada/vanished-lindsey-baum-disappears-just-minutes-from-her-home/
Baum was last seen at about 9:15 PM by a woman on her way to work; she was about half-way home.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=7966924&page=2
Scott said witnesses were able to put Lindsey within a couple of blocks of her house just after 9:30 p.m. The last person reported to have seen her, he said, was a neighbor on her way to work

For how long was LB at the K house that evening? When did she begin walking toward home and why did a witness offer that LB was walking with someone?

Perhaps the witness(es) confused directions and it was actually MK that was seen walking with LB and it was toward MK's house and not toward LB's house? If that is true then the reported timeline must be questioned.

Another issue:

The following article was written by alias, "MomWhoWrites" (KK, MK's mother), and published on June 29, 2009. She references a bank account set up in LB's name .. a bank account set up the 3rd day (2 previous days were weekend days) after the evening LB went missing?

That seemed odd to me when I read about it then, and it seems odd to me now. Who's idea was that and why so soon? Is it typical, within short days, to set up a bank account for a missing child? What is the intent? More than 1 year after the fact is the account still active? Who 'manages' the account?

http://www.associatedcontent.com/ar..._baum_10_missing_from_mccleary_pg2.html?cat=9
An account for Lindsey Baum has been set up at Timberland Bank so if anyone would like to make a donation for Lindsey they can drop it off at any Timberland Bank location and tell them that it is for Lindsey Baum.All checks can be made out to Lindsey Baum.

If you'd like to mail in a donation or letters of support please mail those to the following address:

Lindsey Baum
P.O. Box 1124
Elma, WA 98541

The following article also was written by alias, "MomWhoWrites" (KK, MK's mother), and published July 4, 2009.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1910902/no_news_is_not_good_news_10_year_old_pg3.html?cat=9
An account for Lindsey Baum has been set up at Timberland Bank so if anyone would like to make a donation for Lindsey they can drop it off at any Timberland Bank location and tell them that it is for Lindsey Baum. All checks can be made out to Lindsey Baum.

If you'd like to mail in a donation or letters of support please mail those to the following address:

Lindsey Baum
P.O. Box 1124
Elma, WA 98541

I'm not implying wrong-doing by those involved. I simply find it as odd that 'money' was considered an issue 3 days (and 2 of those days were weekend days) after the event. Was the account set up on Saturday, 1 day after LB went missing or on Monday, the 3rd day and the same day the first article was published?

Why was SW tested via polygraph, but not KK? Both adults were in the house with LB.

I know I'm rehashing old topics, but I'm underdstand many cases have been solved by retracing from the beginning.

I am not willing to ignore seemingly innocuous misinformation and time line discrepancies.
 

Jules71

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2009
Messages
4,697
Reaction score
126
ChuckMaureen,
I always thought it odd that it was mentioned Lindsey was walked part of the way home by someone. We could never confirm this and I think it might have been just what you said above (to deflect embarrassment for letting a 10 year old girl walk home alone after 9:00 pm?). Seems like the story changed from someone walking her part way, to MK "watching" her walk until she was out of her view.

I too wondered why SW volunteer to take a poly, but KK didn't. That seemed very odd to me.

The timeline has never been clear to me either.

There were even some discrepancies iirc (between what SW said and KK said) about how long she stayed at the K home.

I also agree with you about the bank account. I don't think I would have even thought about something like that that early on, but maybe. Who's idea was it or who suggested it be opened? Someone who knew she wasn't coming back soon?
 

JenniferO

Fear has a large shadow, but she herself is small.
Joined
Jul 1, 2009
Messages
1,874
Reaction score
11
Both SW and KK volunteered for the polygraphs. LE is the one that told KK it wasn't necessary.

KK does not drive. LE knows this and I'm assuming felt that if KK had done anything she would have required SWs help. SW passed the LDT so again, I'm assuming, LE didn't feel it necessary to spend additional funds to have KK tested also.

The fund was set up by MM NOT KK or Melissa.. why it was set up when it was is because MM knew that Melissa was going to need some help.

And I've said this before.. please take what you read in the media with a grain of salt. They have had the timeline incorrect since the beginning.. whether it was LE who released it or if media screwed it up when reporting it.. I don't know. But I've talked to Melissa, KK and the police.. and those three are consistent with each other and are not the same as what each media outlet had reported.
 

kageykaren

Lindsey Love, Universal Child your are the star &
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
2,155
Reaction score
4
Thank you for letting us know what you have been told as it helps in rehashing what we know to be as true. My only concern is that LE working a child missing case are quick to rule out (if possible) friends, family & relatives as possibly being involved in the child having gone missing. This seems to be done for the citizens surrounding the case and the public as well so that the investigation can move forward. What is going on in Lindsey's case as the Sheriff and FBI have said no one is ruled out and we know certain homes have been searched numerous times along with multiple interviews. You would think IMHO someone would be taken off the radar. So frustrating! If they have nothing pointing in a direction of suspects then "Please release me" is what LE should do! LE Dangling carrotts is just cruel to those who love her in her immediate enviroment. Makes sense now as to the reason LE has been asking everyone to remain calm during this process.
 

ChuckMaureen

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2005
Messages
3,837
Reaction score
12,953
Both SW and KK volunteered for the polygraphs. LE is the one that told KK it wasn't necessary.

KK does not drive. LE knows this and I'm assuming felt that if KK had done anything she would have required SWs help. SW passed the LDT so again, I'm assuming, LE didn't feel it necessary to spend additional funds to have KK tested also.

The fund was set up by MM NOT KK or Melissa.. why it was set up when it was is because MM knew that Melissa was going to need some help.

And I've said this before.. please take what you read in the media with a grain of salt. They have had the timeline incorrect since the beginning.. whether it was LE who released it or if media screwed it up when reporting it.. I don't know. But I've talked to Melissa, KK and the police.. and those three are consistent with each other and are not the same as what each media outlet had reported.

Thx, Jen.

If the published timelines are not accurate then it's worthless information. What if somoene was in McCleary that evening and was attempting to overlay their whereabouts against the timeline?

If times are off by single-digit minutes I'd assume the difference is not critical but 15 / 30 min differences could be significant.

When a missing child is in the balance, all bets are off and many scenarios, no matter how seemingly implausible, must be considered and addressed, especially regarding those within the inner circle.

For arguments sake, who's to say KK couldn't have been 'working' with someone other than SW? I'm sure KK knows other people who own and drive a car. In effect, incomplete if not sloppy police work.

I suppose we might assume subjective demeanor analysis during interviews supported a no-LDT decision regarding KK.

MM also was responsible for LB's cell phone, or was that ML?
 

Kat

Kind words do not cost much
Joined
Dec 20, 2008
Messages
17,191
Reaction score
742
Just throwing this piece of info out there and if someone can correct me please do so!

To my knowledge, KK has not been named a POI nor has she been cleared.

Thanks in advance because I saw an article in which there were posted questions and she responded to those questions by stating that she and her family had been "semi-cleared".

Has she been cleared by LE? TIA!
 

Salem

Former Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
29,154
Reaction score
142
Please use this thread to discuss those surrounding Lindsey in the last hour or so before she disappeared.

Thanks,

Salem
 

Jules71

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2009
Messages
4,697
Reaction score
126
Thx, Jen.

If the published timelines are not accurate then it's worthless information. What if somoene was in McCleary that evening and was attempting to overlay their whereabouts against the timeline?

If times are off by single-digit minutes I'd assume the difference is not critical but 15 / 30 min differences could be significant.

When a missing child is in the balance, all bets are off and many scenarios, no matter how seemingly implausible, must be considered and addressed, especially regarding those within the inner circle.

For arguments sake, who's to say KK couldn't have been 'working' with someone other than SW? I'm sure KK knows other people who own and drive a car. In effect, incomplete if not sloppy police work.

I suppose we might assume subjective demeanor analysis during interviews supported a no-LDT decision regarding KK.

MM also was responsible for LB's cell phone, or was that ML?

bbm. I agree and was thinking this also. Unless there were other reasons for not giving KK a poly, IMO it should have been done.

It is also frustrating that the time-line reported by the media is incorrect. What exactly is the correct time-line then? How long exactly did she stay at KK's. What time exactly did she leave? What time exactly did the 2 witnesses see Lindsey on her walk back home? Did someone walk her part way or not? Has anyone confirmed or denied Lindsey showing up at the Nelson's on her walk back home? Where did the other girls (who were seen in the video store) go after they left the video store? Was Lindsey wearing the same clothes at KK's as she was seen wearing in the video store surveillance? Too many questions. Very frustrating.
 

LaLaw2000

Louisiana
Joined
Jul 7, 2008
Messages
12,490
Reaction score
1,476
bbm. I agree and was thinking this also. Unless there were other reasons for not giving KK a poly, IMO it should have been done.

It is also frustrating that the time-line reported by the media is incorrect. What exactly is the correct time-line then? How long exactly did she stay at KK's. What time exactly did she leave? What time exactly did the 2 witnesses see Lindsey on her walk back home? Did someone walk her part way or not? Has anyone confirmed or denied Lindsey showing up at the Nelson's on her walk back home? Where did the other girls (who were seen in the video store) go after they left the video store? Was Lindsey wearing the same clothes at KK's as she was seen wearing in the video store surveillance? Too many questions. Very frustrating.

I totally agree with your thoughts on this, Jules71. Everyone who even saw Lindsey the evening she disappeared should have been polygraphed. I thought this in the beginning and still think this.

I have followed this case from the beginning and had started to just read and not post, but have kept up. I think it is time to go back to the very beginning and polygraph everyone; no exceptions.

Just JMO.
 

LaLaw2000

Louisiana
Joined
Jul 7, 2008
Messages
12,490
Reaction score
1,476
The following article was published June 28, 2009.

Read the bolded text, below. Today, it is assumed / accepted fact that LB left MK's house and began her walk home, alone. Whom was this "another friend"?



The following article was published July 8, 2009.



Whom was it that first provided the bolded information to LE or news folk? Did it come from SW or KK, perhaps to deflect embarrassment for letting a 10 year old girl walk home alone after 9:00 pm?

I do not accept that theory and I do not accept the 'confused stories' angle. There were multiple persons in the K house and at least 2 witnesses on the street.

Read both news blurbs again. Both first reference witnesses and then include "a friend" walking with LB, so is it logical to assume the information was provided by one of the witnesses?

... and the bigger question, what did the witness 'see' and who 'corrected' that information .. and why?

Another issue:

Why the discrepancy in the time of the last sighting? Was it 9:15pm or 9:30pm?





For how long was LB at the K house that evening? When did she begin walking toward home and why did a witness offer that LB was walking with someone?

Perhaps the witness(es) confused directions and it was actually MK that was seen walking with LB and it was toward MK's house and not toward LB's house? If that is true then the reported timeline must be questioned.

Another issue:

The following article was written by alias, "MomWhoWrites" (KK, MK's mother), and published on June 29, 2009. She references a bank account set up in LB's name .. a bank account set up the 3rd day (2 previous days were weekend days) after the evening LB went missing?

That seemed odd to me when I read about it then, and it seems odd to me now. Who's idea was that and why so soon? Is it typical, within short days, to set up a bank account for a missing child? What is the intent? More than 1 year after the fact is the account still active? Who 'manages' the account?



The following article also was written by alias, "MomWhoWrites" (KK, MK's mother), and published July 4, 2009.



I'm not implying wrong-doing by those involved. I simply find it as odd that 'money' was considered an issue 3 days (and 2 of those days were weekend days) after the event. Was the account set up on Saturday, 1 day after LB went missing or on Monday, the 3rd day and the same day the first article was published?

Why was SW tested via polygraph, but not KK? Both adults were in the house with LB.

I know I'm rehashing old topics, but I'm underdstand many cases have been solved by retracing from the beginning.

I am not willing to ignore seemingly innocuous misinformation and time line discrepancies.

BBM:

Agreed. I wish I could see this happening. I am sure the case files are voluminious, but something could have been missed.

JMO
 

ChuckMaureen

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2005
Messages
3,837
Reaction score
12,953
bbm. I agree and was thinking this also. Unless there were other reasons for not giving KK a poly, IMO it should have been done.

It is also frustrating that the time-line reported by the media is incorrect. What exactly is the correct time-line then? How long exactly did she stay at KK's. What time exactly did she leave? What time exactly did the 2 witnesses see Lindsey on her walk back home? Did someone walk her part way or not? Has anyone confirmed or denied Lindsey showing up at the Nelson's on her walk back home? Where did the other girls (who were seen in the video store) go after they left the video store? Was Lindsey wearing the same clothes at KK's as she was seen wearing in the video store surveillance? Too many questions. Very frustrating.

I believe this is accurate, although I do not recall times:

  • The 'video store' group left the video store and walked to LB's house.
  • Most of that group left from LB's house while LB was showering.
  • MK waited for LB.
  • LB, MK and JB left the B house and walked toward MK's house. They may have pushed the 'broken bike' up to the Shell station.
  • They left the bike at that Shell station since it became more of a burden than being 'fun'. An argument over the bike begins at this point.
  • Continued walking toward MK's house and the argument escalates.
  • Possible neighbor intervention results in JB leaving LB and MK. He walks home. Unknown where this occurs in relation to MK's house.
  • LB and MK continue on to MK's house.
  • LB, MK, KK, SW, and perhaps other MK siblings are in the K house.
Can we work these points and overlay a timeline?
 

razzberry

New Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2009
Messages
56
Reaction score
0
The following article was published June 28, 2009.

Read the bolded text, below. Today, it is assumed / accepted fact that LB left MK's house and began her walk home, alone. Whom was this "another friend"?



The following article was published July 8, 2009.



Whom was it that first provided the bolded information to LE or news folk? Did it come from SW or KK, perhaps to deflect embarrassment for letting a 10 year old girl walk home alone after 9:00 pm?

I do not accept that theory and I do not accept the 'confused stories' angle. There were multiple persons in the K house and at least 2 witnesses on the street.

Read both news blurbs again. Both first reference witnesses and then include "a friend" walking with LB, so is it logical to assume the information was provided by one of the witnesses?

... and the bigger question, what did the witness 'see' and who 'corrected' that information .. and why?

Another issue:

Why the discrepancy in the time of the last sighting? Was it 9:15pm or 9:30pm?





For how long was LB at the K house that evening? When did she begin walking toward home and why did a witness offer that LB was walking with someone?

Perhaps the witness(es) confused directions and it was actually MK that was seen walking with LB and it was toward MK's house and not toward LB's house? If that is true then the reported timeline must be questioned.

Another issue:

The following article was written by alias, "MomWhoWrites" (KK, MK's mother), and published on June 29, 2009. She references a bank account set up in LB's name .. a bank account set up the 3rd day (2 previous days were weekend days) after the evening LB went missing?

That seemed odd to me when I read about it then, and it seems odd to me now. Who's idea was that and why so soon? Is it typical, within short days, to set up a bank account for a missing child? What is the intent? More than 1 year after the fact is the account still active? Who 'manages' the account?



The following article also was written by alias, "MomWhoWrites" (KK, MK's mother), and published July 4, 2009.



I'm not implying wrong-doing by those involved. I simply find it as odd that 'money' was considered an issue 3 days (and 2 of those days were weekend days) after the event. Was the account set up on Saturday, 1 day after LB went missing or on Monday, the 3rd day and the same day the first article was published?

Why was SW tested via polygraph, but not KK? Both adults were in the house with LB.

I know I'm rehashing old topics, but I'm underdstand many cases have been solved by retracing from the beginning.

I am not willing to ignore seemingly innocuous misinformation and time line discrepancies.

Also in the first couple of days LE were treating her as a runaway, another reason to question why a bank account was set up???
 

ChuckMaureen

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2005
Messages
3,837
Reaction score
12,953
Flyers and posters cost money, so the immediate need of money is quite understandable.

Another thought .. were the witnesses given polygraphs?

You might argue, "why would someone say they saw her if they wouldn't want to attract attention"? In case *they* were seen by others in the area and it might appear suspicious if you claimed to having not seen her but others who saw you in the area might dispute that as a possibility?

Since we're grasping for straws, why not as well LDT the witnesses? After all, at least one of the witnesses already was in a vehicle.

Another thought .. where is the *least* frequented area around McCleary? Has that been searched? We know the water tower area, around the door plant, the park, the 'creek', surrounding wooded areas, but have the least-frequented areas been identified and have they been dogged?
 

kageykaren

Lindsey Love, Universal Child your are the star &
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
2,155
Reaction score
4
LaLaw I'm so glad you are taking time out for this case! I was hoping you were lurking around here. :)

CM, I feel similar to you. This morning I was given this site concerning witness rights and now I guess I'm supposed to share.

Link works! (;

Home http://www.wccva.org Basically it is to sign the petition against voting into law that all witnesses interviews are electronically recorded. Not a good idea because this form of info will hit the internet in no time putting someones witness statements out to the universe allowing for harm to come to the person who was only doing their civil duty.
 

TakeNote

Mother to little post it my boy wonder & Founding
Joined
Sep 24, 2008
Messages
6,187
Reaction score
13
I still want to know about any driving boy *friends* that Lindsey had
 

ChuckMaureen

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2005
Messages
3,837
Reaction score
12,953
I still want to know about any driving boy *friends* that Lindsey had

As far as we know there has been no indication of that from those closest to LB, nor any indication on her MS pages.

Given how MB and others describe LB, I doubt she was involved in or tolerant of such shenanigans.
 

ChuckMaureen

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2005
Messages
3,837
Reaction score
12,953
http://www.examiner.com/x-34328-Sea...earch-but-no-new-suspect-in-Lindsey-Baum-case

Excerpts bbm:

July 19, 2010 - Lindsey Baum disappeared while walking home from a friend’s house in McCleary, Washington, over a year ago. Police have recently re-questioned a 47-year-old man when information he provided conflicted with information they obtained independently.

Why is it that LE did not discover a conflict until one year after the fact?

During a telephone conversation with Grays Harbor Undersheriff Rick Scott, he told Examiner.com, “Yes, we are reinvestigating. Information gathered from the man resulted in the need for lab analysis to confirm what he’s told us.”

Lab analysis?

What did LE ask and what did the subject reply during original interviews conducted within days or only a few weeks of LB having gone missing, and what was recently determined that caused LE to re-investigate one year later and eventually determine the subject's replies were in conflict with assumed fact? Read on to discover why I use the word: "assumed".

The questions / answers might have included topics such as bedding, blankets, clothing, utensils, glassware, toys, salvaged discards, frequented areas, habits, etc.

“We will need the results from the forensics investigation before we know if the information he has given us is factual,” Undersheriff Scott said. “We won’t have anything new to report about this issue until the lab results come back.”

The underlined, bolded statement, above, is in conflict with LE's claimed reason for reinvestigating this man. Defense lawyers would have a field day.

The way LE presents it, they've already assumed a conflict based on their "own determination" but yet, they must wait for forensic investigation to be completed before they can verify as facts?

"We found that what we were being told and what we now believe to be true were two different things," Scott said. "Those inconsistencies gave birth to some concerns that we needed to explore further."

Ok. So what does LE "now believe to be true" that is in conflict with what the subject provided one year ago?



LE's recent beliefs might be fueled by other's statements or observations regarding the subject, such as:
  • Did he drive his car the evening of or within days of June 26, 2010?
  • Did he visit the storage unit the evening of or within days of June 26, 2010?
  • Did anyone other than himself ever sleep on a particular mattress?
  • Did he launder his clothes / bedding using equipment in the house or did he visit a laundromat, out of norm circa June 26, 2010?
  • Can he explain why his DNA might have been retrieved from a particular area or item?
Or perhaps, LE has concluded the perp must be someone who was out of the ordinary in McCleary, but low key and close enough to the situation, i.e.: observed LB while she was at the pool or otherwise while she was dressed only in a bathing suit?

My hope is LE is very close to solving this case, returning LB to her family and making an arrest ... but to date, it seems LE is grasping based on assumptions because it appears as if evidentiary facts are far and few between in this case.

I hope I am wrong.
 

TakeNote

Mother to little post it my boy wonder & Founding
Joined
Sep 24, 2008
Messages
6,187
Reaction score
13
As far as we know there has been no indication of that from those closest to LB, nor any indication on her MS pages.

Given how MB and others describe LB, I doubt she was involved in or tolerant of such shenanigans.

has anyone ask MB?
 
Top