Hailey Dunn: General Discussion thread #3

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
A moment for the victims and families at Fort Hood In Texas. Our hearts and thoughts are with you all
 
Soulmagent said:
Then there is also this.

http://markobbie.com/wordpress1/tag/lake-waco-murders/
Click to expand...

Thank you! I started reading and it's just what I am interested in.

"Hall’s story, destined to join the upper ranks of wrongful-conviction storytelling, documents the usual causes: tunnel-vision policing, dubious scientific and informant evidence, coercive techniques of interrogation and deal-making that backfire on the truth. In this case, they point toward a prospect even more appalling than a life wasted behind bars: yet another Texas execution of a plausibly innocent man.

"By the end of the first installment, Hall makes it clear that he and Stowers have very different views of the lead investigator whose work led to the convictions of four men. Where Stowers made Waco sheriff’s deputy Truman Simons the protagonist of his book, Hall clearly believes Simons sent the investigation off the rails in ways that will come into focus as the narrative unspools."

http://markobbie.com/wordpress1/tag/lake-waco-murders/
 
charminglane said:
I don't do FB.
Just wondering if SA is still posting.
Click to expand...

Hi charminglane. Who knows, no one talks about him anymore. It's like he slinked back to his hole and disappeared.
 
Tugela said:
The demographic that follows stories like this is overwhelmingly female and over 40. If you want to know an approximate breakdown, there is a poll in the parking lot that shows the composition of WS. Approximately 92.5% is female, and 61.5% is female over 40. Females 25 or less comprise about 2.5% of the demographic. Most of the people posting on those sites are female, so they fit the demographic. So yes, middle aged to elderly female. Maybe you don't like it, but there it is.

Another set of eyes won't help in HD's case, the physical evidence is gone or contaminated. The only other thing that could come up are witness accounts, and after 3 or 4 years those are not accurate. So, a re-examination is not going to substantially change anything. Even if they did decide to focus somewhere else after looking at everything, how will it help them? They are not going to find irrefutable physical evidence after all this time.

You are welcome to sit on a jury with me. One thing I can assure you of though, is that emotion will not sway me in the slightest one way or another, the charges will have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt and for that proper and irrefutable evidence will be required. If there is an alternative explanation for a particular piece of evidence, it has to be considered, and if it is a reasonable alternative, it has to be accepted. It is up to the prosecutor to prove that there is only one explanation, and prove they MUST.

Every other week we hear of this or that person who has had their conviction overturned because it has been proven that the prosecutor/LE engaged in malpractice, or DNA evidence proves that a circumstantial case was just that - circumstantial. Would you want to be one of those jurors and have that on your conscience, ruining someone's life for 10-20 years, just because you didn't like the look of the defendant, or because the prosecutor made you cry, or because someone needed to be punished and the guy in the dock would suffice? I would not. I would insist that the prosecutor PROVE that the guilty was guilty if they wanted me to make that kind of decision. IT IS A BIG DEAL. While the prosecutor might not have a conscience (and I was watching one on CNN the other night who clearly did not), I most certainly do.

As for these cold cases, other than when DNA crops up to solve a cold case, they are almost entirely circumstantial and rely on decades old memories to get convictions. Those sorts of circumstantial cases are very unreliable. If you look at cases where exonerations are made years later, in almost all of those trials the conviction was made on circumstantial evidence, because a jury accepted a prosecutors argument without question or without giving the defendant the benefit of the doubt. And those exonerations are just a tiny tip of the iceberg, trust me there are many, many, more who rot in prison for the bulk of their lives on a false conviction. It is the worst thing that anyone can do to another human being.

If you want to send someone to prison, you need to be certain, without any doubt, that they did it, and you need to be prepared to question and scrutinize every detail that is presented in evidence. If you can be swayed by an emotional argument and consider that adequate to convict someone, I guarantee that you will make a bad juror.
Click to expand...

BBM

With all due respect, you know this for a fact how? I have been following this case for years like many here and I don't recall ever hearing that from a reliable source. The fact is, we the public do not know what evidence is there or why her remains are being held. I see the same logic (no evidence) on every case I follow where an arrest is not made immediately and low and behold those posters very often end up wiping egg off their faces.

It is true that they may not have all the evidence back from the labs and/or the DA may want more evidence to seal the deal, so to speak, but the armchair sleuths in this or any other forum are not and will not ever be privy to what evidence LE holds until it is time for trial (and then we may not hear everything due to exclusion, etc.).

What you state often makes sense, but when you make a statement like that bolded above it kind of reduces your credibility. IMO.
 
HauntsForHope said:
It's been a while.... can someone please remind me what the fathers alibi was? I've been so focused on SA, being the freak that he is, but I get an uneasy feeling about the father and something about a single earring found at his house. tia :)

"...one of Hailey`s red hoop earrings found on her father`s living room floor, matching the earring Hailey wearing when she goes missing. But he and his girlfriend say he was never there that day." http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1101/19/ng.01.html
Click to expand...


<Respectfully snipped for space and other>


My recollection was that the father, Clint Dunn, was either home with his girlfriend, Naomi, with a "bad back," or out playing video games with a friend.

His girlfriend's alibi was either that she was home with Clint laying around, or, if you believe Clint's mom, Connie Jones, she was taking Clint's girlfriend shopping for groceries. To my knowledge these multiple discrepancies have never been cleared up because of the gross incompetence of C-City LE, and the rest of the multiple agencies supposedly involved, who never bothered to clear up basic inconsistencies like these. Nor did certain family members who surely could have explained this shell game of "confusion."

As for the earrings, I don't know one person following this case whether close or not, who really knows what the truth is, or even knows how many were eventually found.

Just when you read both earrings were somehow accounted for, someone says, "No, only one. The one David found, or the one on the shelf, or the one under the couch, or the one Naomi put up." For example. HTH
 
Leader6518 said:
BBM

With all due respect, you know this for a fact how? I have been following this case for years like many here and I don't recall ever hearing that from a reliable source. The fact is, we the public do not know what evidence is there or why her remains are being held. I see the same logic (no evidence) on every case I follow where an arrest is not made immediately and low and behold those posters very often end up wiping egg off their faces.

It is true that they may not have all the evidence back from the labs and/or the DA may want more evidence to seal the deal, so to speak, but the armchair sleuths in this or any other forum are not and will not ever be privy to what evidence LE holds until it is time for trial (and then we may not hear everything due to exclusion, etc.).

What you state often makes sense, but when you make a statement like that bolded above it kind of reduces your credibility. IMO.
Click to expand...

Any physical evidence that was not collected initially is gone or contaminated after four years. You don't need an MSM report to know that.

As for what was collected initially, let me remind you that almost no search warrants were executed in the case. There were only three, the one conducted on BD's vehicle, and we know exactly what was collected in that because they said so in the warrant return. There was one to examine the items collected during the consensual search of BDs house. Those were all electronic or digital items, and the information they would be looking at would be digital records. And the other warrant was for BD's phone records. We don't know what exactly they got from that, but we do know that the phone was used at least once during the day HD disappeared, and we also know that the "only POI" was nowhere near CC at the time. We also know from cell phone records as well as witness statements that their POI essentially had effectively about half an hour in which to do anything, and it is not reasonable that would be enough time to do a crime and get rid of a body, as well as hide all evidence of anything.

If they obtained any sort of incriminating evidence from those initial searches they absolutely would have carried out additional warrants, but there were none. If there was any real evidence incriminating SA then they would have executed a warrant at his mothers house, they would have executed a warrant on BDs house, they probably would have executed a warrant on the GMs house, and likely other places as well, but again, there was none. Even after HD's body was found. Nothing has happened at all, and what that tells me is that essentially they have no clue what happened to her.

I am pretty sure that they know HD was alive when SA got home from BS, but what happened to her after she left from there is the big black box. I think that Toombs got fixated on SA, but other agencies don't buy that and are looking at what happened to her that evening, not that day, and they basically know nothing because the people who might know are not talking. That is my opinion of what is going on here.

The actions (and/or lack thereof) of LE speak volumes about how much evidence they really have.
 
Tugela said:
know[/B] HD was alive when SA got home from BS, but what happened to her after she left from there is the big black box. I think that Toombs got fixated on SA, but other agencies don't buy that and are looking at what happened to her that evening, not that day, and they basically know nothing because the people who might know are not talking. That is my opinion of what is going on here.

The actions (and/or lack thereof) of LE speak volumes about how much evidence they really have.
Click to expand...

I am not sure that they know that at all. There is nothing really to suggest that Hailey was ever alive at that point. IMO she wasn't.
 
For The Kids said:
I am not sure that they know that at all. There is nothing really to suggest that Hailey was ever alive at that point. IMO she wasn't.
Click to expand...

LE has not changed the timeline to indicate they believe she was deceased the evening prior. JMO.
 
Reminder, the only POI that is sleuthable in this case is Shawn Adkins.

We are not allowed to link up to any sites that print out with "******"

:tyou:
 
Kimster,

1. Are personal conversations with Shawn Adkins 'ok'?

2. Are personal conversations with Billie Jean Dunn not 'ok'?

3. Are personal conversations with LE 'ok'?

4. Are personal conversations with LE not 'ok'?

Clarifying ... asking.
Specifics, please.
 
"Reminder, the only POI that is sleuthable in this case is Shawn Adkins."
-Kimster

Question?
Why/what limited conversation/discussion to Shawn Adkins, to and not others?

Asking ... Maybe I might have missed a deleted comment (not mine)?

I missed something???

Shawn Adkins is the ONLY sleuthable person in Hailey's death?
Links, please ... MSM links.

-behaving
 
intrepid said:
Kimster,

1. Are personal conversations with Shawn Adkins 'ok'?

2. Are personal conversations with Billie Jean Dunn not 'ok'?

3. Are personal conversations with LE 'ok'?

4. Are personal conversations with LE not 'ok'?

Clarifying ... asking.
Specifics, please.
Click to expand...

Only verified insiders are given the freedom to discuss personal conversations.

Shawn Adkins is the only POI that is named in this case, per management. I can't make it any clearer.
 
POI = Person of Interest
= Person of Suspicion

Question?
Why is it permitted to talk about a POI, and not a ?

Kimster, I am confused ...

Politely asking ...

For any person reading ... I am waiting to be verified as a verified insider, not local, insider.

Until then, case closed, mine, not Hailey's case ... not 'cold' ...

^^ Sounds a bit redundant?
[modsnip]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 98 more.
Total: 298 (members: 99, guests: 199)

Online statistics

Members online
99
Guests online
199
Total visitors
298
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,560
Messages
18,241,258
Members
234,401
Latest member
CRIM1959
Back
Top