Hailey Dunn: General Discussion thread #3

[Tugela]

No. Laid to rest means buried or entombed. I'm also curious about that. Don't know if they can make that type of stipulation.

Well in situations like that, if possible you would want to keep the remains intact just in case they might be needed later for some additional forensic work with newer techniques, unless you were sure that no additional information could be obtained from them. If you wanted to ensure that no further forensic work would be possible, then you would opt for cremation. That would end any further study permanently. I expect that they asked BD to bury rather than cremate for that reason. But of course she could do whatever she wanted once she had the remains.

 

[Tugela]

Not lying, perhaps obscuring. You must agree at a minimum they do not state HOW she was enroute?

You should also note the use of "indicate" versus confirmed.

Lots of ambiguity there.

Well, she had to have gotten to work somehow.

"indicate" would just mean that the records and witnesses matched up with what she told them she did. In an investigation the first thing you would do is ask the person what they did, then you would try to corroborate that through interviews with witnesses or records of some sort. Once you have done that, you have verified what the person told you is probably true (or at least there is no reason to think otherwise). If the corroboration does not match their account then you know the person is lieing, and you promptly charge them with obstruction to provide them with motivation to stop lieing.

And remember, these people making the claims of an alternative reality where SA took BD to work forget that SA's travels are corroborated as well, and he could not have been home when BD went to work. So, SOMEONE must have given her a lift (since that is what she herself told them), so the interview with witnesses would have been an interview with that someone. What confused the people with the alternate reality theory is that there are two days HD disappeared, the day she actually disappeared, and the next day when her disappearance was reported. These are two separate days, which, depending on your point of view, is the "abduction day". The first day BD got a lift from someone, the second day SA took her to work (since at that point he would have told her that he had been "fired" and consequently would have been available). The alternate reality people are conflating the first day with the second, and that is the source of their confusion. They are talking about what happened on the second day as if it happened on the first day and are going "A Ha! Gotcha!", but actually all it is is that they have not followed the timeline logically and consequently got the wrong day.

But there is only one reality regarding how BD got to work on the first day, and that is the reality set out in the affidavit.

It is not just corroboration through records and witnesses that disprove the alternate reality, it is also the indirect implicit corroboration that comes from the tracking of SA's movements, which have also been reasonably well defined and corroborated. To claim that SA took BD to work on the first day is also to claim that SA's boss did not see him pop in that morning (and lied about it), and that the cell phone tracking of SA's movements was not of SA at all. In short, it is to claim that everything that LE claim to have done in the affidavit regarding movements is made up.

 

[yllek]

Well, my argument was made on a literal interpretation of the statement. They said "they were still considering Adkins a suspect in 2015, though they are investigating other leads", which means that they are looking at other people unrelated to SA. SA is referred to in past tense when it comes to investigations ("still" refers to his status as a suspect, not the investigation, which is dealt with in the bit after the comma) . Present tense investigations is someone else. He is still considered a suspect, presumably because they have not proven that he is not a suspect. Until such time as they can prove he is not a suspect, he will remain a suspect (does that make sense? Not sure if I have explained it well enough). Also, it is now 2017, that statement was made in 2015. My guess is at the anniversary of HD's abduction, so 2 years ago. The date implies that that part of the news article was actually taken from an interview done quite some time ago, and was just inserted into the report as filler information. We have no idea what investigators are doing right now, if anything. That is one of the problems with reports such as these in small news outlets, they are usually a mishmash of older reports cobbled together around some new development, often with rephrasing going on that might change the original meaning and context.

Do you interpret that as something different? And what would your argument be?

That's right, "you interpreted", though your interpretation was not literal. And, you went on to state assumptions and opinions that you derived from your interpretation as if they're confirmed facts. Your assumptions and opinions are not confirmed facts, not then and not now.

Look at the statement from LE again, without bias towards your view of this case, and perhaps you'll be able to see it more objectively. If you're not able, that's not a problem for me.

As I've now said twice, your interpretations, assumptions, and opinions may turn out to be correct. Or, they may turn out to be off-the-mark. I don't insist that I know things to be fact when I couldn't possibly know; that's what you do, Tugela.

Anyway, no one here is lacking a basic grasp of English grammar and language comprehension, as far as I can tell. We can all dissect sentences, but that's not why I'm here in Hailey's thread and that's not something I wish to engage in. Nothing personal.

 

[lonetraveler]

Looks like it's time to take a break.

 

[sloane7777]

No, no break heated Discussions breed ideas. :twocents:

 

[lonetraveler]

No, no break heated Discussions breed ideas. :twocents:

:seeya: LOL, I was actually talking about me. Had to do housework.

 

[ozazure]

Well, she had to have gotten to work somehow.

"indicate" would just mean that the records and witnesses matched up with what she told them she did. In an investigation the first thing you would do is ask the person what they did, then you would try to corroborate that through interviews with witnesses or records of some sort. Once you have done that, you have verified what the person told you is probably true (or at least there is no reason to think otherwise). If the corroboration does not match their account then you know the person is lieing, and you promptly charge them with obstruction to provide them with motivation to stop lieing.

And remember, these people making the claims of an alternative reality where SA took BD to work forget that SA's travels are corroborated as well, and he could not have been home when BD went to work. So, SOMEONE must have given her a lift (since that is what she herself told them), so the interview with witnesses would have been an interview with that someone. What confused the people with the alternate reality theory is that there are two days HD disappeared, the day she actually disappeared, and the next day when her disappearance was reported. These are two separate days, which, depending on your point of view, is the "abduction day". The first day BD got a lift from someone, the second day SA took her to work (since at that point he would have told her that he had been "fired" and consequently would have been available). The alternate reality people are conflating the first day with the second, and that is the source of their confusion. They are talking about what happened on the second day as if it happened on the first day and are going "A Ha! Gotcha!", but actually all it is is that they have not followed the timeline logically and consequently got the wrong day.

But there is only one reality regarding how BD got to work on the first day, and that is the reality set out in the affidavit.

It is not just corroboration through records and witnesses that disprove the alternate reality, it is also the indirect implicit corroboration that comes from the tracking of SA's movements, which have also been reasonably well defined and corroborated. To claim that SA took BD to work on the first day is also to claim that SA's boss did not see him pop in that morning (and lied about it), and that the cell phone tracking of SA's movements was not of SA at all. In short, it is to claim that everything that LE claim to have done in the affidavit regarding movements is made up.

I am not confusing a thing. You are confusing what you think you've read with what you have actually read.

I agree with you that the police are putting forth a series of events where Billie leaves the house at 6:20 on the day that Shawn said Hailey went off on the sleepover. I am saying that the way it is worded leaves some ambiguity there, maybe because they are satisfied with that timeline and haven't needed to confirm it, or maybe because it suits their narrative of Shawn Adkins leaving Snyder to return to a defenceless yet still safe Hailey.

I am not saying the boss didn't see him. The report is that Billie waited in the car while he went in. In this alternate timeline they both leave the house to get to Snyder at 6am, then Billie is dropped at work and Shawn returns to Colorado City.

Anyway, anyone want to talk about the couch?

 

[kai]

Don't get me started on the couch...

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[Knox]

You mean this one? What about the "redecorating" that went along with the couch?

 

[Knox]

While we're at it ...
[video=youtube;Xgd0gEfecZw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xgd0gEfecZw[/video]

 

[leighmarker]

Didn't David say he got home and the door was Locked? Thanks Knox, you cleared up a lot for me. Shawn is a liar.

 

[Knox]

Didn't David say he got home and the door was Locked? Thanks Knox, you cleared up a lot for me. Shawn is a liar.

More on Shawn's behavior and conflicting statements; Hailey was reported missing Monday, December 27. Shawn said he went to work that morning and was fired after an altercation with a supervisor and went straight to his mother's house in Big Spring. His employer said there was no confrontation. In fact, Shawn was seen, walking into the break room, buying a Dr. Pepper, then taking off around 6:10 that morning.

Billie left for work, in Snyder, around 6:20 a.m. Cell phone records show Adkins was making phone calls from the house in Colorado City, from about 6:35 a.m. until almost 7 a.m. Investigators determined, Hailey, would have been alone, at house, at that time.

Hailey's brother, David, told investigators he got home around 4 p.m. that afternoon and pounded on the door for about 5 minutes. But no one would let him in. He finally got in, he said, through a window. Billie confirmed David's claim and added when David did get inside, he saw Shawn, in the hallway, with a deer in headlights look on his face.

Adkins took 3 separate lie detector tests. During the third, he was asked if he knew of Hailey's whereabouts and failed. Then, he was asked where Hailey could be found. His answer was In Scurry County. When investigators tried to zero in on a specific location in Scurry County, Shawn walked out of the interview.

Billie also volunteered twice to take a lie detector test. The first didn't happen because she was under the influence of narcotics. But, during the second, she was asked if she had anything to do with Hailey's disappearance. The test showed deception. When asked to explain why she failed, Billie couldn't and, like Shawn, walked out of the interview.
http://www.newswest9.com/story/30502578/justice-for-hailey-a-father-p

 

[ozazure]

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1101/19/ng.01.html

January 19th

BILLIE DUNN: No. Like I said, in the beginning, three years ago, she was very upset her dad and I broke up, but I don`t think Hailey feared Sean in the least. And she wouldn`t have been afraid to come to me. She knows that she was number one, her and David are number one. And I don`t think she would have been afraid to come to me.

And she didn`t sleep in her room until about a week ago. She slept in the living room on the couch. I think Clint`s mom is just upset. She wants someone to blame also, and that`s understandable. But I really believe Hailey would have come to me or her father. And I don`t think she was afraid of Sean.

Somewhere out there in all the audio is Bille's explanation for why she got rid of that couch the week Hailey was missing. Unfortunately all the transcripts are now password protected and I don't have time to relisten to the audio.

 

[nannymo]

While we're at it ...
[video=youtube;Xgd0gEfecZw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xgd0gEfecZw[/video]

OMG! I just heard something I have never heard! 27 seconds into this video when SA is asked what he did that day, he says.....went to work, quit, didn't talk to anyone, then RETURNED to this RESIDENCE and NO ONE WAS HERE! Then just after 1 minute he says he returned to CC around 3 o'clock. HAILEY WAS THERE! Where was she at 6:30ish that AM when he came by on his way to Big Spring????

 

[ozazure]

Good catch nannymo, no doubt this was added to the timeline to account for the pings and he didn't think he needed to say Hailey was there. In his mind no one was there because she was likely already gone.

 

[lonetraveler]

OMG! I just heard something I have never heard! 27 seconds into this video when SA is asked what he did that day, he says.....went to work, quit, didn't talk to anyone, then RETURNED to this RESIDENCE and NO ONE WAS HERE! Then just after 1 minute he says he returned to CC around 3 o'clock. HAILEY WAS THERE! Where was she at 6:30ish that AM when he came by on his way to Big Spring????

Yes! I heard the same thing.

Sent from my HTCD100LVWPP using Tapatalk

 

[Knox]

OMG! I just heard something I have never heard! 27 seconds into this video when SA is asked what he did that day, he says.....went to work, quit, didn't talk to anyone, then RETURNED to this RESIDENCE and NO ONE WAS HERE! Then just after 1 minute he says he returned to CC around 3 o'clock. HAILEY WAS THERE! Where was she at 6:30ish that AM when he came by on his way to Big Spring????

"This residence" is his Grandma's house in Big Spring, she was at work when he got there after quitting. In the interview we are listening to, the reporter had caught Shawn outside Grandma's house, he is just putting it into context.

 

[Knox]

He still lied in the interview though. The account he gives of picking Billie up after work is untrue. We now know after he picked her up they stopped at an ATM, bought drugs, then went home. Whatever happened after that is still the million dollar question.

 

[nannymo]

"This residence" is his Grandma's house in Big Spring, she was at work when he got there after quitting. In the interview we are listening to, the reporter had caught Shawn outside Grandma's house, he is just putting it into context.

Wasn't grandmas house in Dunn on the road from Snyder to CC?
And I thought the house they were in front of was Billies. So I guess when he says I returned I thought he meant he returned home. That would answer the question. Also means he never went back to Billies house and saw Hailey.

My original scenario early on was SA returned to CC, assaulted and killed Hailey. (On that couch) went to mamas house, left his vehicle and phone, headed up to lake, disposed of body, back to mamas and alibi is "I was at mamas all day on the computer!
Jmo.

Not so sure now. Think Billie was involved somehow and accident happened the night before. jMO

 

[AutumnDawn]

"Authorities were carrying out two search warrants, the other from Scurry County where Texas Rangers searched the home of Shawn Adkins' grandmother in the community of Dunn, about 14 miles north of Colorado City."

His interview was in Dunn, Texas.

Also Billie stated on facebook that Shawn took her to work. Not sure why she changed her story after all these years.