Hailey Dunn General Discussion #1

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
ExpectingUnicorns said:
I keep remembering that the cell phone messages and photos that were captured from the Caylee Anthony Case were only the ones that had not yet been deleted before LE confiscated the cell phones. LE was delighted that one of her friends (?), Amy Huizenga, had saved months worth of messages; IIRC, Cindy's had been deleted and were irretrievable.

I found this link that explains cell phone data retrieval is not like computers and not to expect that you can find anything once it's deleted on a cell phone unless it was saved to your SD card. ". . . Unfortunately, if the picture was saved to your handset and deleted by accident you will not be able to recover it. However, if you saved the photo to your SD card, you will be able to recover the deleted files.

Read more: Can Deleted Pictures Taken on a Cell Phone Be Retrieved? | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/about_6465142_can-taken-cell-phone-retrieved_.html#ixzz2Pp55sVKr

Can you provide a link that supports your statement that it can be retrieved from a cell phone? Computers are different!
Click to expand...

That is not correct. A phone has 3 types of memory storage areas. (A) The SIM card, which has a very small amount of storage space. You would not normally get stuff stored here. (B) an internal storage card. This is like a SD card, but is inside the phone and can't be accessed without taking the phone apart. (C) An external storage card, usually an SD card you stick in the phone.

The external SD card can be removed and put into you computer, which allows you to potentially recover deleted images.

The internal card is basically the same thing, only you can't remove it and read it on your computer (which you would need to do to recover the images). BUT, LE and others with appropriate equipment most certainly CAN recover images from the card if they take the phone apart.

The phone has it's own operating system, which is usually different from the OS used on your computer, however they all deal with files in essentially the same way (using pointers to link to the sectors where the actual data is stored). When a file is deleted, all the OS does is remove the pointer. The file data will remain in the appropriate sectors until such time as the OS puts another file in them (overwriting).

In any case, the information SA was alleged to have deleted were call records. Since LE had the phone records for his phone at the time the submitted the affidavit, they would have known (with 100% certainty) what those records were. However, in the affidavit, although they claim that what SA was telling them did not agree with what they say they saw on the call record, THEY DID NOT corroborate this with the actual records on hand. Why the hell not???

This is kind of weird. What it means is that essentially they thought he deleted stuff, but apparently he did not (otherwise they would have referenced the phone records and the alleged contradiction he was telling them).

This is what I think happened. The affidavit was prepared by Det. Alexander, BUT, she was not the one who interviewed SA, that was done by Investigator Sides, together with Gill and Bivins. It isn't clear if all of them were present at the time, or just Sides, but he is the one cited. I think Alexander prepared this affidavit from watching/listening to the recording of the interview. Sides is not the person swearing that this actually happened. It is possible that he may have told SA during the interview that the call list had suddenly gone missing as a way of putting pressure on SA. LE do this, they are not required to tell the truth when interviewing a suspect, it is done to "rattle their cage" as it were, to see how they react.

Then when Alexander reported it, she would have been reporting what was in the recording, when it might not have actually been true.

In any event the full phone records were obtained from the phone company prior to the affidavit being prepared, so why no mention of what the discrepancy was?
 
For The Kids said:
According to LE there is not one single credible eyewitness that she was alive on the Monday. As for the earrings that's been done to death and Clint and Naomi have been cleared of being involved. As for the text message there is no proof whatsoever Hailey sent that so collectively I personally can not conclude she was alive that day. From all that I have seen and heard the last twenty eight months there is far more likelihood what happened Sunday night IMO
Click to expand...

According to LE they could not corroborate the sightings. That does not make the sightings not credible.

Most of the other "evidence" cited in this case is not corroborated either, yet they regard that as "credible".

You can't have it both ways, depending on whether or not a particular piece of evidence supports your theory.

The earring story has not been adequately resolved, and believe me, if any trial were to proceed based on what we know today, the earrings would be front and center of the defence. It is that important.

You might argue that "well, BD got the description of the shoes wrong initially", so why not CD's GF. That is not a comparable situation however, since BD would have been making the assumption anything she could not account for was with HD. So, when the shoes were later found, and a different pair discovered missing, that is a reasonable error since BD did not know the shoes were in the house. CD's GF cannot use that excuse however, since she DID know the earrings were in the house, and therefore should have been able to exclude them immediately as items potentially on HD's person. The failure to do this is going to be something that is going to be raised in any trial as grounds for reasonable doubt. Unless there is a good reason for that, such as LE being incompetent and not bothering to check if any of the items were at CD's house.

Btw, if these allegations that X-box images of HD the night before show her wearing the earrings are true, then you can forget about any charges being made against SA. The focus will then shift to what HD was doing after SA last saw her, which may have already happened for all we know.

The earring story does not imply that CD had something to do with HD's disappearance, but it does carry the implication that she visited his house that day and for whatever reason it is being covered up.

As for CD being cleared, I believe the quote made by Toombs (regarding the poly) was this:

""They confirmed what we had suspected all along, was that we did not believe that he had involvement in the disappearance of Hailey,""

In other words he was "cleared" simply on the basis of a polygraph taken long after the event (why wasn't one given at the time?) and a belief. It was not something based on conclusive corroborated evidence (See - we are back to corroboration again, but this time in the other direction - do you see what a double edged sword that is?).

Why is this important? Well, going back to reasonable doubt. Toombs will be grilled in court as to how he reached this conclusion, and if the poly is essentially all they have, the lawyers are going to have a field day with him
 
Truthwillsetufree said:
Thanks for all the technical information but I think that the point was SA deleted something (be it temporary or something the FBI can retrieve) sitting right there in the middle of an interview with LE, the subject of the interview is his lover's missing 13 year old girl. Now who does that????????
Click to expand...

But did he do it?
 
I don't understand "Did he do it?" Isnt it a fact that SA did this right in front of LE?
 
Tugela said:
According to LE they could not corroborate the sightings. That does not make the sightings not credible.

Most of the other "evidence" cited in this case is not corroborated either, yet they regard that as "credible".

You can't have it both ways, depending on whether or not a particular piece of evidence supports your theory.

The earring story has not been adequately resolved, and believe me, if any trial were to proceed based on what we know today, the earrings would be front and center of the defence. It is that important.

You might argue that "well, BD got the description of the shoes wrong initially", so why not CD's GF. That is not a comparable situation however, since BD would have been making the assumption anything she could not account for was with HD. So, when the shoes were later found, and a different pair discovered missing, that is a reasonable error since BD did not know the shoes were in the house. CD's GF cannot use that excuse however, since she DID know the earrings were in the house, and therefore should have been able to exclude them immediately as items potentially on HD's person. The failure to do this is going to be something that is going to be raised in any trial as grounds for reasonable doubt. Unless there is a good reason for that, such as LE being incompetent and not bothering to check if any of the items were at CD's house.

Btw, if these allegations that X-box images of HD the night before show her wearing the earrings are true, then you can forget about any charges being made against SA. The focus will then shift to what HD was doing after SA last saw her, which may have already happened for all we know.

The earring story does not imply that CD had something to do with HD's disappearance, but it does carry the implication that she visited his house that day and for whatever reason it is being covered up.

As for CD being cleared, I believe the quote made by Toombs (regarding the poly) was this:

""They confirmed what we had suspected all along, was that we did not believe that he had involvement in the disappearance of Hailey,""

In other words he was "cleared" simply on the basis of a polygraph taken long after the event (why wasn't one given at the time?) and a belief. It was not something based on conclusive corroborated evidence (See - we are back to corroboration again, but this time in the other direction - do you see what a double edged sword that is?).

Why is this important? Well, going back to reasonable doubt. Toombs will be grilled in court as to how he reached this conclusion, and if the poly is essentially all they have, the lawyers are going to have a field day with him
Click to expand...

To me the earring is a dead issue. Note I did say to me. Actually it is to most people now and I have only really seen one person hung up on this in the past two years. You said LE could not corroborate the sightings so this doesn't make the sightings not credible for starters one of the girls supposedly seen with Hailey that day wasn't even in the area. This girl does have witnesses to that. Secondly the girls were meant to be coming from the burger joint. Hello it wasn't even open that day. Seriously you have NO idea how many hours some people have checked into all this and I don't simply mean online. Yes some of these people have worked with LE.

As for why LE never gave Clint a poly at the beginning based on evidence they possibly have they most likely didn't feel the need to. This is the big issue WE don't know what evidence they have but I have no doubts they have far more than you know.
 
Tugela said:
That is not correct. A phone has 3 types of memory storage areas. (A) The SIM card, which has a very small amount of storage space. You would not normally get stuff stored here. (B) an internal storage card. This is like a SD card, but is inside the phone and can't be accessed without taking the phone apart. (C) An external storage card, usually an SD card you stick in the phone.

The external SD card can be removed and put into you computer, which allows you to potentially recover deleted images.

The internal card is basically the same thing, only you can't remove it and read it on your computer (which you would need to do to recover the images). BUT, LE and others with appropriate equipment most certainly CAN recover images from the card if they take the phone apart.

The phone has it's own operating system, which is usually different from the OS used on your computer, however they all deal with files in essentially the same way (using pointers to link to the sectors where the actual data is stored). When a file is deleted, all the OS does is remove the pointer. The file data will remain in the appropriate sectors until such time as the OS puts another file in them (overwriting).

In any case, the information SA was alleged to have deleted were call records. Since LE had the phone records for his phone at the time the submitted the affidavit, they would have known (with 100% certainty) what those records were. However, in the affidavit, although they claim that what SA was telling them did not agree with what they say they saw on the call record, THEY DID NOT corroborate this with the actual records on hand. Why the hell not???

This is kind of weird. What it means is that essentially they thought he deleted stuff, but apparently he did not (otherwise they would have referenced the phone records and the alleged contradiction he was telling them).

This is what I think happened. The affidavit was prepared by Det. Alexander, BUT, she was not the one who interviewed SA, that was done by Investigator Sides, together with Gill and Bivins. It isn't clear if all of them were present at the time, or just Sides, but he is the one cited. I think Alexander prepared this affidavit from watching/listening to the recording of the interview. Sides is not the person swearing that this actually happened. It is possible that he may have told SA during the interview that the call list had suddenly gone missing as a way of putting pressure on SA. LE do this, they are not required to tell the truth when interviewing a suspect, it is done to "rattle their cage" as it were, to see how they react.

Then when Alexander reported it, she would have been reporting what was in the recording, when it might not have actually been true.

In any event the full phone records were obtained from the phone company prior to the affidavit being prepared, so why no mention of what the discrepancy was?
Click to expand...

OMGosh, Tugela, thank you so much for your detailed explanation.

In spite of your valiant efforts I still am not a believer (nor could I understand all of the styling you described to explain your concept of the reporting on the affidavit) ~ So I ask, once again, can you please provide me with a link that confirms your belief that all data/information can be recovered from a cell phone once it is deleted by the user? Because all my searching keeps coming up that it is largely impossible unless it has been saved by the user.

Of course time and contact info can be traced (I never contested that fact) but not content ~ and I believe you were claiming content could be claimed. So, once again, link please? TIA.
 
ExpectingUnicorns said:
OMGosh, Tugela, thank you so much for your detailed explanation.

In spite of your valiant efforts I still am not a believer (nor could I understand all of the styling you described to explain your concept of the reporting on the affidavit) ~ So I ask, once again, can you please provide me with a link that confirms your belief that all data/information can be recovered from a cell phone once it is deleted by the user? Because all my searching keeps coming up that it is largely impossible unless it has been saved by the user.

Of course time and contact info can be traced (I never contested that fact) but not content ~ and I believe you were claiming content could be claimed. So, once again, link please? TIA.
Click to expand...

Sigh.........

There is no specific link, but here is a tear-down of an iPhone 4. Go to step 17, the flash memory is shown there. It is the big black square on the rightish side of the logic board. Everything stored on that particular phone is stored in there. It can be accessed, but you (as an ordinary person) can't do it yourself because it isn't the type of card you can stick in your computer. LE would have no problem doing it.

All phones with storage capabilities have similar setups.

You can read a bit more about flash memory [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_memory"]Flash memory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame].

Here is a tear-down for a Samsung Galaxy S. The bit that stores stuff on the phone is the 8GB NAND chip. The Samsung phone has a slot for a micro-SD card as well as it's internal flash memory (I think, at least my version does).

You can find lots more on the web.
 
Tugela said:
Sigh.........

There is no specific link, but here is a tear-down of an iPhone 4. Go to step 17, the flash memory is shown there. It is the big black square on the rightish side of the logic board. Everything stored on that particular phone is stored in there. It can be accessed, but you (as an ordinary person) can't do it yourself because it isn't the type of card you can stick in your computer. LE would have no problem doing it.

All phones with storage capabilities have similar setups.

You can read a bit more about flash memory Flash memory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Here is a tear-down for a Samsung Galaxy S. The bit that stores stuff on the phone is the 8GB NAND chip. The Samsung phone has a slot for a micro-SD card as well as it's internal flash memory (I think, at least my version does).

You can find lots more on the web.
Click to expand...

Did SA have an iPhone4 or Samsung Galaxy S ??? Do you have a link stating as much?? Please share.
 
I appreciate your theory Tugela on how the affidavit gets written. I have always found the "scurry county" info as particularly galling ... did SA simply acknowledge Scurry County as a potential place Hailey could be found, as anyone would given where she lived, or did he suggest it of his own volition, or did he have a biological reaction to Scurry County that he didn't to other areas? You'd assume it was the latter because it was included in the official document, but given the wording on the info for the child *advertiser censored* search warrant (one image that appears to be cp which is similar to pictures on another device is far from piles of obvious cp) and the subsequent lack of prosecution or even news ... I think it was something borderline used as leverage. The lack of content of the Scurry County response makes me wonder about that also. Which is fine and all but still makes me lose some faith in the evidence as presented.

For me, what persuades me of their guilt is there own words about their actions. I hope the more damning evidence from LE has been kept under wraps and was deliberately not in public documents.
 
Tugela said:
According to LE they could not corroborate the sightings. That does not make the sightings not credible.

Most of the other "evidence" cited in this case is not corroborated either, yet they regard that as "credible".

You can't have it both ways, depending on whether or not a particular piece of evidence supports your theory.

Ummmm, yes you can. That is why lawyers present both evidence and witness testimony and lets one judge for themselves if the witness testimony is credible or not.

The earring story has not been adequately resolved, and believe me, if any trial were to proceed based on what we know today, the earrings would be front and center of the defence. It is that important.

You might argue that "well, BD got the description of the shoes wrong initially", so why not CD's GF. That is not a comparable situation however, since BD would have been making the assumption anything she could not account for was with HD. So, when the shoes were later found, and a different pair discovered missing, that is a reasonable error since BD did not know the shoes were in the house.

This may be inconsequential to your theory but to me this particular event raises huge red flags. BD was giving information to LE to find her missing child. A detailed description was of the utmost importance. Initially BD said Hailey was wearing tennis shoes, because that makes sense, it was December after all but then the tennis shoes are found at the house. Then the description is changed to Hailey was wearing flip flops. Okay, what kind of flip flops? Red, yellow, green? Platform, flat? IMO, the flip flop story was too generic. Again, JMO, I don't believe Hailey left that house with any shoes on her feet.

CD's GF cannot use that excuse however, since she DID know the earrings were in the house, and therefore should have been able to exclude them immediately as items potentially on HD's person. The failure to do this is going to be something that is going to be raised in any trial as grounds for reasonable doubt. Unless there is a good reason for that, such as LE being incompetent and not bothering to check if any of the items were at CD's house.

LE may not have consulted with CD or CD's GF on what Hailey was wearing, as they were not the last people to see her alive nor did Hailey live with them, her personal belongings were at her Mother's and BD would have more knowledge as to what was missing or not missing. I don't think it's incompetence on the part of LE.

Btw, if these allegations that X-box images of HD the night before show her wearing the earrings are true, then you can forget about any charges being made against SA. The focus will then shift to what HD was doing after SA last saw her, which may have already happened for all we know.

The earring story does not imply that CD had something to do with HD's disappearance, but it does carry the implication that she visited his house that day and for whatever reason it is being covered up.

As for CD being cleared, I believe the quote made by Toombs (regarding the poly) was this:

""They confirmed what we had suspected all along, was that we did not believe that he had involvement in the disappearance of Hailey,""

In other words he was "cleared" simply on the basis of a polygraph taken long after the event (why wasn't one given at the time?) and a belief. It was not something based on conclusive corroborated evidence (See - we are back to corroboration again, but this time in the other direction - do you see what a double edged sword that is?).

Why is this important? Well, going back to reasonable doubt. Toombs will be grilled in court as to how he reached this conclusion, and if the poly is essentially all they have, the lawyers are going to have a field day with him
Click to expand...

Red by me.
Well, if a "passed" poly is all they have to clear CD and you theorize this could cause reasonable doubt, then what does SA's and BD's "Failed" poly's cause?
 
Is BD wearing Hailey's Aeropostale hoodie in this recent interview at the video link? This was pointed out to me by a good friend. I guess this would mean that Hailey wasn't wearing the hoodie when she went missing.

VIDEO LINK HERE: http://www.ktxs.com/news/Mother-of-...nd/-/14769632/19404100/-/5cq4xkz/-/index.html

320x240.jpg


http://bigcountryhomepage.com/fulltext/?nxd_id=332286
 
How do I check dockets for arrests? LOL. I'm thinking for Mitchell County and/or Scurry County. TIA
 
matou said:
Is BD wearing Hailey's Aeropostale hoodie in this recent interview at the video link? This was pointed out to me by a good friend. I guess this would mean that Hailey wasn't wearing the hoodie when she went missing.

VIDEO LINK HERE: http://www.ktxs.com/news/Mother-of-...nd/-/14769632/19404100/-/5cq4xkz/-/index.html

320x240.jpg


http://bigcountryhomepage.com/fulltext/?nxd_id=332286
Click to expand...

BD is clearly wearing what appears to be Hailey's Aeropostale hoodie in the above linked video. I'll include the video link in my post, as well:

http://www.ktxs.com/news/Mother-of-...nd/-/14769632/19404100/-/5cq4xkz/-/index.html

Now, whether or not she went out & purchased an identical hoodie, or whether or nor she's wearing Hailey's hoodie, IDK. But it seems that she made it a point to wear the exact same hoodie during that interview.

My question is: why?

Is she wearing it as a memorial to her missing daughter? I seriously doubt it.

Is she wearing it in an attempt to be a teenager (Aeropostale brand markets to teens), in an attempt to rival her missing teenaged daughter, in an attempt to be (in her twisted mind) a sexy teenaged girl? Yes - I think so.

How old is BD? One has only to look at her to see that she's trying to be younger than she is - especially with the recent facial piercings evident in the linked video. I know a LOT of young people (teenagers & early 20's) who pierce their faces. I don't know any mother in her 30s who gets her face pierced.

I think it speaks to BD's emotional/psychological make-up that she would wear her missing teen daughter's clothing (or clothing identical to her missing teen daughter's clothing) and that she would pierce her face in a style that is popular amongst those much younger than herself.

IMO, BD is one messed up chick.

God bless Hailey.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 73 more.
Total: 270 (members: 74, guests: 196)

Online statistics

Members online
74
Guests online
196
Total visitors
270
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
609,259
Messages
18,251,433
Members
234,585
Latest member
Mocha55
Back
Top