Do you think SA harmed Hailey? ***POLL***

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

Is Shawn involved in Hailey's disappearance?

  • Yes, or LE wouldn't have named him a suspect

    Votes: 84 26.8%

  • Yes, because of all the evidence I've seen so far

    Votes: 173 55.1%

  • No, I don't think LE should have named him a suspect

    Votes: 1 0.3%

  • No, there isn't enough evidence to prove he harmed her

    Votes: 16 5.1%

  • I'm sitting on the fence

    Votes: 40 12.7%
  • Total voters
    314

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
1. Last known person to see Hailey alive.
2. "deer in headlights" look at 4pm last day Hailey was seen (at 3pm) door's locked, usually not locked per BD 911 call.
3. Walks out of 2 of 3 poly's, fails last one. indicates Hailey is in Scurry county. Walks out before it it finished.
4. Is "just a friend" err, "mom's boyfriend".
5. Shakes head "no" when he talks about wanting Hailey home. Both video's he did weird actions and in one appears to be smirking imo.
6. "Loves her with all his heart and she loves him with all her heart"
7. Lied about job. First fired, then quit, then just left. First fight with super then no comment's to anyone, just left.
8. Lied about where he was that day. First at work, then got fired/quit, then it changed to First at work to quit ,then to mom's. Then it changed again to work, grandma's then mom's.
9. Got a lawyer right after failed poly and since clammed up.
10. Not working with or telling truth to law enforcement or family members.
11. Didn't help search, put out fliers, or thank searchers (no he sneered at them instead)
12. Threatened to KILL Hailey, CD and BD in feb. and commented that BD had no other choice to stay with him.
13. Weird behavior for the past few years toward Hailey, standing outside door.
14. Masks, video's, quotes from FB and MS, print-outs found in BR, obsession with MM, ect.
15. SA's comment to uncle about "just like killing a deer" kills deer often with a chain saw.
16. Turning off or no calls/text for almost 3 hours on day Hailey disappeared. Flurry of calls after that.
17. Cell phone pings contradict his statements of where he was that day.
18. LE naming him a suspect.
19. Deletes cell phone history right in front of LE when they asked for it.
20. Told everyone she was going to dad's then MB's, never showed up at dad's or MB and didn't even talk with MB that day to ask to stay the night. No confirmed sightings for Hailey on this day.
21. SA's family trying to come get computer the same day it was taken and his alibi for that day is family and doesn't match up with cell phone pings.
22. Hailey leaving without coat, money, new music player, or sleep over items. He seen her leave for a "sleep over" and never asked why she didn't put on a coat or take anything with her.
23. Lied that he was working to BD for a few days. Unknown where he was on Dec. 28th.
24. Unknown evidence LE holds. Possibly from shed, car or phones.
25. No volunteer searches of land from SA's family (that we know of).

Not sure if i remembered everything, please add to it :)

This is why i voted..... Yes, because of all the evidence I've seen so far
 
Miziree said:
1. Last known person to see Hailey alive.
2. "deer in headlights" look at 4pm last day Hailey was seen (at 3pm) door's locked, usually not locked per BD 911 call.
3. Walks out of 2 of 3 poly's, fails last one. indicates Hailey is in Scurry county. Walks out before it it finished.
4. Is "just a friend" err, "mom's boyfriend".
5. Shakes head "no" when he talks about wanting Hailey home. Both video's he did weird actions and in one appears to be smirking imo.
6. "Loves her with all his heart and she loves him with all her heart"
7. Lied about job. First fired, then quit, then just left. First fight with super then no comment's to anyone, just left.
8. Lied about where he was that day. First at work, then got fired/quit, then it changed to First at work to quit ,then to mom's. Then it changed again to work, grandma's then mom's.
9. Got a lawyer right after failed poly and since clammed up.
10. Not working with or telling truth to law enforcement or family members.
11. Didn't help search, put out fliers, or thank searchers (no he sneered at them instead)
12. Threatened to KILL Hailey, CD and BD in feb. and commented that BD had no other choice to stay with him.
13. Weird behavior for the past few years toward Hailey, standing outside door.
14. Masks, video's, quotes from FB and MS, print-outs found in BR, obsession with MM, ect.
15. SA's comment to uncle about "just like killing a deer" kills deer often with a chain saw.
16. Turning off or no calls/text for almost 3 hours on day Hailey disappeared. Flurry of calls after that.
17. Cell phone pings contradict his statements of where he was that day.
18. LE naming him a suspect.
19. Deletes cell phone history right in front of LE when they asked for it.
20. Told everyone she was going to dad's then MB's, never showed up at dad's or MB and didn't even talk with MB that day to ask to stay the night. No confirmed sightings for Hailey on this day.
21. SA's family trying to come get computer the same day it was taken and his alibi for that day is family and doesn't match up with cell phone pings.
22. Hailey leaving without coat, money, new music player, or sleep over items. He seen her leave for a "sleep over" and never asked why she didn't put on a coat or take anything with her.
23. Lied that he was working to BD for a few days. Unknown where he was on Dec. 28th.
24. Unknown evidence LE holds. Possibly from shed, car or phones.
25. No volunteer searches of land from SA's family (that we know of).

Not sure if i remembered everything, please add to it :)

This is why i voted..... Yes, because of all the evidence I've seen so far
Click to expand...

Respectfully bolded by me. This is exactly why I believe he has hurt that beautiful little girl. I'm a big believer in statement analysis and body language. I believe that people tell us a LOT more nonverbally than they do verbally. That video you are referring to where he has that almost smirk on his face gave me goose bumps the first time I saw it. In that instant I felt deeply that he had hurt her. Poor sweet girl. Just a child. Where is the justice?
 
Jenny60123 said:
Respectfully bolded by me. This is exactly why I believe he has hurt that beautiful little girl. I'm a big believer in statement analysis and body language. I believe that people tell us a LOT more nonverbally than they do verbally. That video you are referring to where he has that almost smirk on his face gave me goose bumps the first time I saw it. In that instant I felt deeply that he had hurt her. Poor sweet girl. Just a child. Where is the justice?
Click to expand...

Yes, besides all the others listed....this was a BIG shaking of head "no" when talking of wanting Hailey back home and to find her.
 
Evan's Mom said:
I'm still on the fence.
It doesn't look good for Shawn, but then why hasn't he been arrested?
I am thinking someone Hailey trusted might have lured her away.
Click to expand...

bolded by me..

I hope the reason they are holding out arresting him is that they want a very solid case since they have no body. It would serve Hailey no justice if they were to try him before they could convict him and keep him in jail on solid evidence. It don't mean they don't have evidence. They need to keep some evidence close to the chest so that when/if they find a body the killer will only know about these things. MOO

I do think she was lured also, but i think SA is the one who lured her. Possibly told her that her mother got into a car accident and was in a ambulance on the way to the hospital. She would run out with no coat, and grab the quickest shoes (flip flops). She wouldn't think about the phone because she wouldn't be able to call her anyways and possibly would have left it for her brother. MOO
 
I voted yes, based on the evidence so far, SA harmed Hailey. But I think he had help. The way he went to work for 10 minutes, got a soda, then left and/or quit is just too coincidental for me to overlook. I honestly hope I am proven wrong, but it doesn't look very promising at this time.

MOO, JMO & all that stuff....
 
I voted yes for 2 reasons. 1] Hailey told her g-ma that she didn't like sa around, he creeped her out. 2] bd wasn't vigilant enough about WHY sa creeped Hailey out.
 
I am on the fence.. Town has too many creepers and other potential - anything can look "bad" and it DOES, don't get me wrong.
 
I voted on there not being enough evidence.Not because I think SA doesnt look involved but because all the 'Rumor sightings" in the news has me questioning those claims.

I hate to think I am a victim of deflection but the media has reported on them and there was more than one by different people.
There are more probable cause indications pointing to an abduction by persons unknown (to us) if you include the dog hit on the hotel and the 830 possible sighting. I might lean towards SA with clarification from LE on why all the sightings are not corroborated.

The use of the word Uncorroborated has me thrown. They could be using it as a cover all, as it neither confirms or denies the reports of the witnesses it just makes it sound as they dont have information to confirm what the witnesses said is true. IMO.

I was leaning more toward SA before they tossed out that word.Witnesses are people and it seems they will only believe they witnesses if they have other evidence to back up what the other people say. 1 witness okay . But 3?
 
I believe that SA harmed HD, but I also believe that BD has been to obsessed with making excuses for him. We don't really know that SA told BD that HD was going to spend the night with M. BD may have helped concoct that sleepover excuse to explain HD's absence if anyone else, such as DD or even CD, asked where HD was. SA may look the part of the "boogieman" but maybe he was only the "disposer". That leaves BD in a role that many might find too shocking. Many mothers have killed their own children, for many selfish reasons. It is possible that BD was the manipulator and instigator of the "Hailey is not in her house" story. So, yes, I believe SA is involved, but I am not sure it was all handled by him and BD is clueless.
 
Soulmagent said:
I voted on there not being enough evidence.Not because I think SA doesnt look involved but because all the 'Rumor sightings" in the news has me questioning those claims.

I hate to think I am a victim of deflection but the media has reported on them and there was more than one by different people.
There are more probable cause indications pointing to an abduction by persons unknown (to us) if you include the dog hit on the hotel and the 830 possible sighting. I might lean towards SA with clarification from LE on why all the sightings are not corroborated.

The use of the word Uncorroborated has me thrown. They could be using it as a cover all, as it neither confirms or denies the reports of the witnesses it just makes it sound as they dont have information to confirm what the witnesses said is true. IMO.

I was leaning more toward SA before they tossed out that word.Witnesses are people and it seems they will only believe they witnesses if they have other evidence to back up what the other people say. 1 witness okay . But 3?
Click to expand...


Below is some info on the dog hits:
http://www.ccitynews.net/news/story/2011/01/search-dunn-intensifies-helicopter-search

January 6, 2011 - 5:28pm
Kampfer also clarified the reports about dogs tracking Hailey to the Western Suites motel.

“The dogs did not trail Hailey’s scent to the motels,” He said. “They took the dogs to different places trying to pick up the scent.* Motels are good places to start. The dogs did get a hit.”

Kampfer went on to explain that* investigators cannot determine when a trail has been made. 
Hailey could have been there a couple of days before and the dogs would still have picked up her scent or someone else wearing an article of Hailey’s clothing would have the same results.============================

So that means that the dogs did NOT follow a scent trail from Hailey's home TO the motel.
BD tried to sell that to the public. She said the dogs followed her scent from the house, to Clints, then to MB's, and then the motel. NOT TRUE. And that choice untruth has swayed a lot of people.
This dog hit means that at some time, not necessarily Monday, Hailey may have been standing NEAR the motel. But they did not hit in the motel. It was described as NEAR it.

The witness sightings;
If there were 3 separate witnesses who saw the SAME thing then it would be corroborated.

The only sighting that would let SA off the hook is the least credible one.
The 'redbox receipt' woman who says she saw Hailey walking on the street @ 8:30pm. The reason it is not corroborated is that it is in conflict with other things they know.

The FBI interrogated MB and had her submit a timeline and a list of people she was with that night. So I can only assume that this woman's sighting of MB does NOT correlate with facts already in evidence,of where she was and when. One lady with an internet receipt is not going to disrupt evidence compiled from cell phone records, surveillance cameras, and witness interrogations. IMO

And IF MB had really been walking around in public on Monday night,with Hailey and a teenaged boy, don't you think some other kids would have seen them? I don't believe that this one woman would be the only one.

And, there were witness sightings of Caylee , credible ones, dozens of them, long after she was dead.
 
katydid23 said:
Below is some info on the dog hits:
http://www.ccitynews.net/news/story/2011/01/search-dunn-intensifies-helicopter-search

January 6, 2011 - 5:28pm
Kampfer also clarified the reports about dogs tracking Hailey to the Western Suites motel.

“The dogs did not trail Hailey’s scent to the motels,” He said. “They took the dogs to different places trying to pick up the scent.* Motels are good places to start. The dogs did get a hit.”

Kampfer went on to explain that* investigators cannot determine when a trail has been made. 
Hailey could have been there a couple of days before and the dogs would still have picked up her scent or someone else wearing an article of Hailey’s clothing would have the same results.============================

So that means that the dogs did NOT follow a scent trail from Hailey's home TO the motel.
BD tried to sell that to the public. She said the dogs followed her scent from the house, to Clints, then to MB's, and then the motel. NOT TRUE. And that choice untruth has swayed a lot of people.
This dog hit means that at some time, not necessarily Monday, Hailey may have been standing NEAR the motel. But they did not hit in the motel. It was described as NEAR it.

The witness sightings;
If there were 3 separate witnesses who saw the SAME thing then it would be corroborated.

The only sighting that would let SA off the hook is the least credible one.
The 'redbox receipt' woman who says she saw Hailey walking on the street @ 8:30pm. The reason it is not corroborated is that it is in conflict with other things they know.

The FBI interrogated MB and had her submit a timeline and a list of people she was with that night. So I can only assume that this woman's sighting of MB does NOT correlate with facts already in evidence,of where she was and when. One lady with an internet receipt is not going to disrupt evidence compiled from cell phone records, surveillance cameras, and witness interrogations. IMO

And IF MB had really been walking around in public on Monday night,with Hailey and a teenaged boy, don't you think some other kids would have seen them? I don't believe that this one woman would be the only one.

And, there were witness sightings of Caylee , credible ones, dozens of them, long after she was dead.
Click to expand...


I voted on the poll and stated why I voted as I did.
I am not debating my opinion on this thread. This is a poll thread. The dogs hitting at the Hotel has its own thread as the do the witnesses. I posted on both of those threads.

I am happy to debate on those threads with you. :crazy: Maybe even agree. Who knows.
 
Saying that Haleigh is boy crazy at age 13, then the media turning it into promiscuous, but her own Dad says that she is definitely not really interested in boys yet. Thinks he knows her and trying to paint her as a runaway. Why wasn't he hollering and insisting abduction while walking to her friend's house instead of manipulating the situation. Also, saying that she went to a friend's house that Haylie had never spent the night with shows just how little he was interested in everyday kids lives and did not know her at all, he just scared her and made her uncomfortable in her own home.
 
txsvicki said:
Saying that Haleigh is boy crazy at age 13, then the media turning it into promiscuous, but her own Dad says that she is definitely not really interested in boys yet. Thinks he knows her and trying to paint her as a runaway. Why wasn't he hollering and insisting abduction while walking to her friend's house instead of manipulating the situation. Also, saying that she went to a friend's house that Haylie had never spent the night with shows just how little he was interested in everyday kids lives and did not know her at all, he just scared her and made her uncomfortable in her own home.
Click to expand...

SA was the one who called Hailey "promiscuous" not the media. Didn't LE say that SA used "promiscuous" not "boy crazy" to describe her? They might mean the same thing, technically, but we know that there's usually a difference being implied. I don't think the media has made Hailey out to be "promiscuous" at all since NG defended Hailey when that came up.
 
I voted yes, yet at the same time, I keep going back and forth. My feeling he is involved....but was he the one who actually harmed her or was he the coverup guy? I posted a bit of my theory in the other thread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 186 more.
Total: 959 (members: 187, guests: 772)

Online statistics

Members online
187
Guests online
772
Total visitors
959
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
609,794
Messages
18,258,114
Members
234,765
Latest member
Miaa02
Back
Top