How does the *advertiser censored* play into Hailey being missing?

[Knox]

Mitchell County Sheriff Patrick Toombs said Tuesday that J. Bruce Flournoy, a deputy with the Garza County Sheriff's Office, is still analyzing the data, including images of child *advertiser censored* and bestiality, on the seized devices.

Toombs said that during the most recent meeting of the investigation task force, Flournoy did not indicate how much longer his analysis would take.
Toombs said officials also are waiting for results from several devices being analyzed by the FBI in Dallas.

"They'll let us know when they're done," Toombs said.

Because of the statute of limitations on child *advertiser censored* offenses, state prosecutors have up to three years from the date of the alleged incident to file charges. That limit goes up to five years for federal prosecutors.

http://www.reporternews.com/news/20...ensored*-in-dunn-case-not-seen-by-grand-jury/

 

[sreshowtime]

apparently ASAP isn't part of the equation

 

[cluciano63]

I can't believe how slowly this *advertiser censored* business is moving...there is in all probability a child murder associated with the fact that these images were found...good grief...

 

[Soulmagent]

Garza sheriffs office is an hour and 30 minutes from Ccity (accordding to a quick map check) I am not sure why Garza would be looking at this verses a state office. Garza (in my quick 10 minute look up) appears to be a small place inside of post texas.

So ,I wish Toombs would have explained why it is there or some thing to make things appear to be making sence.

Maybe we should look for child *advertiser censored* issues in Garza. Also who is the city manager there ,and where was it the other city manager killed himself in texas not so long ago?

I just dont get why JBB is the one in officer charge of that. And why his name is not listed on this web site.
http://www.garzacounty.net/id25.html

Maybe I just havent look hard enough for the answers but shouldnt some information just be easy?

 

[katydid23]

I just find it incredibly difficult to even click on any of the Hailey Dunn threads because I get so darn depressed and deflated by the whole case. Is it just me, or are these investigators in way over their heads?

 

[Knox]

Soul I will go back and look for a link later, but Garza County was asked to help because they have a experienced officer who specializes in IT and Computers. We discussed this somewhere at length. I stink at searching threads, maybe someone else can pull it up.

IIRC, the Feds have to agree to take the case from Local or State LE to prosecute, it's not an automatic thing. I don't know what their criteria is, anyone else?

 

[Soulmagent]

Soul I will go back and look for a link later, but Garza County was asked to help because they have a experienced officer who specializes in IT and Computers. We discussed this somewhere at length. I stink at searching threads, maybe someone else can pull it up.

IIRC, the Feds have to agree to take the case from Local or State LE to prosecute, it's not an automatic thing. I don't know what their criteria is, anyone else?

Ok thanks knox.

I will think I need to read that thread and really dont know how I missed that.

Does the thread also say why he isnt listed on the employee list?

Is he an uncercover guy? Also I am sure this has been said ,but a small dept and one guy for one of the largest stashes of *advertiser censored* I have ever heard about. JMO.

 

[Knox]

Soul, we started discussing here- http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=131069&highlight=Bruce+Flournoy+Garza+County

“While I was in the house at 30 County Road 4132 in Dunn, Texas, I saw two other computers in the house, six cameras including two Kodak Easy Share cameras, an SD memory card and a memory stick,” stated J. Bruce Flournoy with the Garza County sheriff’s office and also is a forensic computer examiner. Flournoy — who is among the officers working with the multi-agency task force searching for the teen — turned in the document to Armstrong, which were signed on March 16. http://bigcountryhomepage.com/fulltext/?nxd_id=353726

I did find this story on a drug bust in Garza County ...

"We've always been very proactive in our enforcement of the ongoing battle against illicit narcotics in our county, but starting the first of this year, we've implemented a new program where we're utilizing modern technology so that if you come through our county, we're going to catch you." says Bruce Flournoy who is a Garza Co. Sheriff's Deputy.

http://www.kcbd.com/story/14016779/...harges?t=2011-02-12T17:57:43Z&redirected=true

The above is off-topic, but interesting. What-the-heck kind of modern technology are they using to catch drug traffickers who are only passing through town?
Too bad the same thing couldn't be used on mask wearing, *advertiser censored* possessing, low-life scum buckets who disappear little girls.

 

[Chili Fries]

I can't believe how slowly this *advertiser censored* business is moving...there is in all probability a child murder associated with the fact that these images were found...good grief...

I know, it's very frustrating, but...to develop a child *advertiser censored* case investigators have to be able to prove who downloaded it and that the person or people in the *advertiser censored* are underage. In order to prove that the person is underage, LE has to track down the source of of the *advertiser censored* and verify that the person just doesn't look too young but actually is too young. I imagine that can be very difficult, maybe even impossible, for some random picture taken from the internet. That's different from a case where the perp took the child *advertiser censored* pictures or video himself and they can be traced to a child he was personally in contact with (like seems to have happened with Jarred Harrell in the Somer Thompson case).

I've posted a link before to a defense attorney's advice for people who are charged with child *advertiser censored*, and one thing mentioned is that prosecutors have a tough time with a conviction if the child *advertiser censored* was downloaded and deleted quickly. In that case it can be argued that the acquisition of the *advertiser censored* was inadvertent and quickly rectified.

Also the large volume of *advertiser censored* has to be factored in along with the fact that some of it was found in the slack space (so those files were deleted) and I believe this means the deleted files found there may not exist in full, just as traces. It's a lot to sift through.

So this can be a very difficult and time consuming job for investigators.

 

[Tugela]

I disagree. Either evidence is there or it isn't there. If it is there, and is clearly there then they would have had a case ages ago. So why no charges yet? If on the other hand they are having to sift through the hard drive with fine tooth comb to maybe make a case then the evidence that is there is probably very weak or non-existant to start with.

The only reason to spend so much time in such a situation is to contrive a charge because they want to charge SA with something, anything, and IMO that is a perversion of the justice system.

 

[Soulmagent]

I know, it's very frustrating, but...to develop a child *advertiser censored* case investigators have to be able to prove who downloaded it and that the person or people in the *advertiser censored* are underage. In order to prove that the person is underage, LE has to track down the source of of the *advertiser censored* and verify that the person just doesn't look too young but actually is too young. I imagine that can be very difficult, maybe even impossible, for some random picture taken from the internet. That's different from a case where the perp took the child *advertiser censored* pictures or video himself and they can be traced to a child he was personally in contact with (like seems to have happened with Jarred Harrell in the Somer Thompson case).

I've posted a link before to a defense attorney's advice for people who are charged with child *advertiser censored*, and one thing mentioned is that prosecutors have a tough time with a conviction if the child *advertiser censored* was downloaded and deleted quickly. In that case it can be argued that the acquisition of the *advertiser censored* was inadvertent and quickly rectified.

Also the large volume of *advertiser censored* has to be factored in along with the fact that some of it was found in the slack space (so those files were deleted) and I believe this means the deleted files found there may not exist in full, just as traces. It's a lot to sift through.

So this can be a very difficult and time consuming job for investigators.

You mean the investigator, the one guy in Garza who is reveiwing the images. Also known images of child *advertiser censored* do not take long to track down. National missing and exploited children keeps a data base (I think the data base is theirs) that LE uses to help identify childen in photos using face recognition programs. It is available for county LE to use.

If the child isnt a known victim of child *advertiser censored* it would take longer ,if the photo were new undiscovered *advertiser censored* ,I am guessing the federal investigator would take over the case from that one guy. That however is me speculating but the unknown images would then be an undiscovered case of sexual abuse
and trafficing wouldnt it?

 

[Velouria]

I disagree. Either evidence is there or it isn't there. If it is there, and is clearly there then they would have had a case ages ago. So why no charges yet? If on the other hand they are having to sift through the hard drive with fine tooth comb to maybe make a case then the evidence that is there is probably very weak or non-existant to start with.

The only reason to spend so much time in such a situation is to contrive a charge because they want to charge SA with something, anything, and IMO that is a perversion of the justice system.

That's a complete over-simplification.

ChiliFries is correct. There were reportedly upwards of 100,000 images on those devices, and LE has try and determine who downloaded them, who had access to which computer, etc, when the images were accessed, etc. It isn't as though one can just wave a magic wand and OOF:, airtight child-*advertiser censored* case!

Bear in mind that multiple agencies are working together. The Dallas FBI office is still processing images on the devices collected. And Hailey's is not the only case they're working on.

Just because it's not happening as fast as we'd like doesn't mean they aren't building a legitimate case.

 

[Evan's Mom]

I disagree. Either evidence is there or it isn't there. If it is there, and is clearly there then they would have had a case ages ago. So why no charges yet? If on the other hand they are having to sift through the hard drive with fine tooth comb to maybe make a case then the evidence that is there is probably very weak or non-existant to start with.

The only reason to spend so much time in such a situation is to contrive a charge because they want to charge SA with something, anything, and IMO that is a perversion of the justice system.

I'm pretty confident when all is said and done that we will find out that there was never any child *advertiser censored*. I'm sure there were some questionable images, but in all likelihood, those will end up being "barely legal".

 

[Tugela]

That's a complete over-simplification.

ChiliFries is correct. There were reportedly upwards of 100,000 images on those devices, and LE has try and determine who downloaded them, who had access to which computer, etc, when the images were accessed, etc. It isn't as though one can just wave a magic wand and OOF:, airtight child-*advertiser censored* case!

Bear in mind that multiple agencies are working together. The Dallas FBI office is still processing images on the devices collected. And Hailey's is not the only case they're working on.

Just because it's not happening as fast as we'd like doesn't mean they aren't building a legitimate case.

That is misleading. If you read the affidavit (the most accurate information we have) the 109k images were files found by the local LE investigator. There was no CP among those, just *advertiser censored*, some of which was considered "deviant". The CP was found later when the FBI looked at the slack space of the computer and found deleted files. That has allready been done, months ago, BEFORE the GMs house got searched. What more is there to do, look at it again?

 

[Chili Fries]

That is misleading. If you read the affidavit (the most accurate information we have) the 109k images were files found by the local LE investigator. There was no CP among those, just *advertiser censored*, some of which was considered "deviant". The CP was found later when the FBI looked at the slack space of the computer and found deleted files. That has allready been done, months ago, BEFORE the GMs house got searched. What more is there to do, look at it again?

I'm confused Tugela, I don't really understand what you are saying. The most recent info we have is the statements Sheriff Toombs made a couple of days ago. He said the possible child *advertiser censored* computer data is still being analyzed by Garza County SO and the FBI. The stuff I posted above about the problems with child *advertiser censored* comes from defense attorney websites so that's obviously burden of proof issues that prosecutors have to overcome. Sheriff Toombs' comments make it seem that investigators still don't know if there is prosecutable child *advertiser censored* on any device so I surely don't know. There may be or there may not be.

I have learned that it's a complicated process. I also know there are different tools that can be used to recover and analyze computer data so this is probably not a process where just one thing is done and that's it.

Interesting post by Soulmagent about known child exploitation sources but maybe that's not so easy if it comes from foreign countries. In the past I worked with a prosecutor trying to stop the flow of performance enhancing drugs from China and I know an overseas source like that is not something US prosecutors have a firm handle on at all, far from it.

 

[Tugela]

It will allways be "still being analysed". That is an investigative tactic used by many LEOs.

LE does that so they don't close the book on a particular line of evidence in case they need to cite it in the future as possible grounds for some other search warrant. They might not believe that there is anything there, but until they actually say that, they can continue to cite it.

Likewise SA will allways be a "POI" even if LE isn't looking at him anymore, until they find reason to implicate someone else.

An example of this sort of behaviour from LE is the Jaycee Dugard case, where they stopped investigating the step father after a few months, but never told him or anyone else that he was not considered a POI anymore, until Jaycee was found. So he had to live under a cloud for 18 years.

Until they know for sure what happened they don't want to "burn their bridges" or be made to look stupid in the future after they have pointed a finger, so they just let people stay in limbo.

 

[Tugela]

I have learned that it's a complicated process. I also know there are different tools that can be used to recover and analyze computer data so this is probably not a process where just one thing is done and that's it.

It can be a complicated process, especially if you are trying to make a case that is weak or simply not there.

The only time prosecution proceeds is if the evidence is either clear or the material/circumstances are so outrageous that they warrant the effort (such as being an integral part of a broader situation). Neither of those appear to be the case here. In both situations they would have arrested him for sure by now, and that hasn't happened. The length of time taken suggests that either they are trying to cobble together bits circumstantial things to pin something on SA rather than let the evidence speak for itself, or they are simply stalling. If it doesn't speak for itself (and it would have by now), then essentially there is no case and certainly not one that would normally be prosecuted.

 

[TxLady2]

It can be a complicated process, especially if you are trying to make a case that is weak or simply not there.

The only time prosecution proceeds is if the evidence is either clear or the material/circumstances are so outrageous that they warrant the effort (such as being an integral part of a broader situation). Neither of those appear to be the case here. In both situations they would have arrested him for sure by now, and that hasn't happened. The length of time taken suggests that either they are trying to cobble together bits circumstantial things to pin something on SA rather than let the evidence speak for itself, or they are simply stalling. If it doesn't speak for itself (and it would have by now), then essentially there is no case and certainly not one that would normally be prosecuted.

Agree. And if any of this *advertiser censored* was connected to Hailey in any way, if they found her image on any of it, he would already be in jail and charged. My guess is there is nothing whatsoever to link this child *advertiser censored* to Hailey's disappearance, it's a totally separate case. LE might stall when it comes to investigating *advertiser censored* cases, but not when there is a missing child involved. There is just no connection to the two cases, IMO.

 

[Knox]

In keeping with the title of this thread - How does the *advertiser censored* play into Hailey being missing?

When the news stories about *advertiser censored*, bestiality and possible child *advertiser censored* came out, I immediately wondered if Hailey was going to be found in any of those pictures. All these months later, I think it's safe to assume she is not, we would have seen an arrest. While it might take months even years to analyze and catalog images, it would only take hours to view them.
What I find important about the above is how it relates to what could have happened to Hailey at the hands of Shawn Adkins and possible motivation.

 

[Soulmagent]

Knox,

I read where the Garza officer asked for the search warrent ,even if he was helping CCITY I dont understand how he himself had jurisdiction to request that , I admit I dont have a clear idea of how the interchangable officers work. Wouldnt the investigating dept have to request and not the officer reveiwing the seized items? That kinda equates to the forensic labs asking the juge for a search warrent doesnt it? When actualy should a forensic lab be the one reveiwing the *advertiser censored* images in the first place and not an officer?

LE doesnt do their own DNA test they send it to their state labs, so is the a forensic lab in Garza that is actualy doing the reveiwing of the images or is it really one officer?