GUILTY FL - Shannon Dedrick, 7 mo., Chipley, 31 Oct 2009 #4

[mistivon]

Maybe LE did make some screwups, or not know some things...but they are a little town there, not used to this.
The end result is they found her alive, no matter who was responsible...they went in that house and got her.
Just seeing that grown man with tears running down his face...I can't say anything bad about LE, sorry.

 

[Texas Mist]

Leaving a baby in a closed box for 12 hours seems like more than mere neglect.

a 2'x3' box at that -- it's really small! how much air is in a box that size!!???

so, so wrong!! :furious:

 

[scout35]

I've been lurking on this case and I just came to check up and I found out that she's safe!! What amazing news!!

 

[Mom who cares]

What a sweet baby girl she is! Good to have a bit of happiness in what has been a very trying few weeks here at WS.

 

[gitana1]

We don't know that Shannon was in a box under the bed for all the days Shannon was missing. We only know that Shannon was in the box from around 8:00 AM until she was found nearly 12 hours later.

LE had a POI at the very beginning once LE ran background checks on all the individuals associated to Shannon. LE did the extensive search all around looking for Shannon as they did interviews to try and pull out what they needed.

IMO, LE had to be really, really careful in this investigation especially since they knew about the background of Susan. I feel they didn't want Susan to take off with Shannon or harm her in any way. Although, they didn't know one way or another whether Shannon was alright at this point or not.

But then, we don't know if someone followed Susan to the store to get diapers, milk, baby food. We just don't know this information yet.

We do know what was posted on Susan's MS page indicating: Sue is at home w/nieces. I have had her all week. And it has been a great week. This to me, was a very good clue of where Shannon just might be.

So much in this investigation had to go by the book otherwise this whole case would go south.

I was writing as you posted. ITA. I think they knew what they were doing - LE that is - and since they were careful a child is alive and charges will not be thrown out on a technicality.

 

[LCoastMom]

Reading the article now, I think that DCF was going to take Shannon and the mom and the bakers knew this and came up with this STUPID plan IMO. :loser:

I thought the dcf report was pretty clear that the family needed assistance but there were no grounds to remove Shannon.

The info put in the email to the GOV was even disproved by dcs...

I believed that this was the reason (lie) that SB gave the young mom, and from there played on her emotions and insecurities, to get Shannon away from her family. But, if Tina allowed sb full access to Shannon, letting her take the baby and keep her as long as she wanted, why get her away and perpetrate this hoax for 5 days???

sb is a twisted and dangerous woman. She ever should have been allowed around any child again after Paul and Nina...

 

[gitana1]

I've been lurking on this case and I just came to check up and I found out that she's safe!! What amazing news!!

It's outstanding news. I was up late on the thread last night but went to sleep before the press conference. Woke up and got on line - BINGO!!! Such a great day. And I must say, we have a team of sleuthers who don't seem to sleep at all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[gitana1]

Can someone re post the last news conference? The one in which the charges were read?

 

[LCoastMom]

:beagle::beagle:

One thing about the interfering with custody charges... in the DCF report SB claimed that T was pregnant already when she got together with her hubby, so the baby does not belong to JD.

As of... "Baker also claimed Dedrick was not the child's father and said he claimed paternity to get welfare benefits."

Assuming that was true...

Does these IWC charges stem from JD not "knowing" of the arrangement, or the biological father not knowing?

They are the "ladies" third degree felonies.

The family put out there last night that Rusty" is Shannon's daddy.

 

[danni]

I was just searching for video of the noon PC and came across this....

http://www.usposttoday.com/paul-leonard-baker-shannon-dedrick/

It isn't much but at least there is information stiring around this cold case!

BTW...Is there a link to the PC I looked here but might have overlooked it :waitasec:

 

[scandi]

Someone on the wmbb chat site said that LE requested that all of Tab's post over on Topix be pulled. Take that fwiw.

Hi Liz, I was really surprised when I read at Topix that someoner from WS invited Tab to join here :waitasec:

 

[pinkpuddytat]

LE said Shannon was in a box under the bed from 8:00 AM (on Wednesday) until they found her at 9:55 PM that night. That's an awfully long time, and torture, on a child. Found in a soiled diaper - no clothes or blanket mentioned. We'll find out soon if Shannon was fed or clothed by way of clothes, food, or bottles found or not found in the home (and trash).

I'm not caught up yet, so maybe this has already been addressed. But Shannon went missing 5 days ago, and the sheriff only indicating knowing where she'd been from about 8:00 AM - 9:55 PM on Wednesday. I couldn't understand whether he was just saying the earliest they can confirm she was there was 8:00 AM Wednesday and they have no idea how much longer she might have been there, or whether they have some reason to believe she was somewhere else prior to that time. 14 hours is certainly a very long time for a baby to be spending in a box under a bed, but if she wasn't there the rest of the 5 days too, where was she?

There were search dogs all over the area starting shortly after she was reported missing. Did they all make a beeline for SB's house? Or did LE, presumably having SB and JB under surveillance, see one or both them moving Shannon to the house at some point, and just sit on the info a while because they were afraid of causing SB/JB to panic and kill Shannon (e.g. to keep her quiet, if LE was approaching the house)? Or had they established with hi-tech visual surveillance (i.e. LE creeping around the house at night with night vision googles, peeking around curtains and blinds) that Shannon was in the house all along, though not being kept under the bed all the time?

SO many questions here . . .

 

[MeoW333]

http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20091105/BREAKINGNEWS/91105002&referrer=FRONTPAGECAROUSEL

"Susan Baker was involved in another missing child case in South Carolina more than two decades ago. She told authorities her stepson, 3-year-old Paul Leonard Baker, disappeared from the family’s Beaufort, S.C., home on March 5, 1987, while she was napping.

A massive manhunt in the swampy area around the home turned up nothing. She and her husband, James Baker, were extradited to South Carolina in 2000 and charged with assault and battery in Paul’s disappearance, according to police reports provided by the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division. But a grand jury never indicted them and the child was never found.

Susan Baker did serve prison time after authorities investigating her stepson’s disappearance discovered a 6-year-old girl in the Baker home had been badly beaten. Susan Baker was sentenced to 10 years in prison but the sentence was suspended after 80 days. Authorities could not say how she was related to the girl."

Sounds like Susan Baker has a history!

 

[MeoW333]

Thank God precious baby Shannon was found alive! Hopefully now she will go to a loving family to raise her up!

 

[miss lisa]

also, in the question/answer segment the sheriff discusses the search warrant.

 

[believe09]

o/t somewhat, but it would be interesting to timeline the sc case and see if it leads to Pauls body....

 

[3dogmom]

Luckily with Florida's Sunshine Law, we could very well see the effect WS and its' members had on this case.

I bet once there is a document dump WS and members will be all over them.

 

[Isabelle]

Good Morning Kimster! Yes, we are all aflutter over the good news awaiting us this morning! One child saved/found. It is so gratifying to know that sometimes, despite all odds and despite the depressing statistics, sometimes, they really do come home

Kudos to EastCoast and Cleo. Proof that we can actually help make a difference.

I'll second that! And add that this is not "computer voodoo" as some have stated in another case. The reward should rightly go to its owners, but I bet the LE wouldn't see it that way.

 

[YellowSubmarine]

Otherwise how in h3ll could they put her there for 12 hours and think she was OK...
:furious: :furious:

Maybe they didn't . . . .

 

[Isabelle]

This question is for the many sleuthers here ,who are in the know...Please tell me first, how did S Baker get only 80 days for beating the little girl, with intent to KILL,(regardless of time served it couldn't have been enough),,,and,,,,,how much time could she get if she and hubby are found guilty of kidnapping????Along with kidnapping, what other charges could be brought on them? Thanks in advance for your replys.

Dunno. Stoopid judge, stoopid laws??