In starting with the job issue alone there are multiple alarming issues just within it in his blatant lying and deceit to everyone, including. LE about his having gotten fired that morning.. That lie exposed only to yield yet another deceiving motivated lie of his having an altercation with supervisor and then quitting.. That then exposed by the supervisor as being absolutely false!!.. and the truth then known that even more suspicious and strange was his out of the ordinary behavior and actions on that morning only staying 10 mins and leaving work permanently walkingpast his boss and never uttering a peep.. Just left saying nothing.. That shows there are many elements just within the job issue itself!!*
There are so very many that it literally could go on and on.. One other quick one just to prove my point is his lying conniving and deceiving DUring LE interviews by blatantly erasing important evidence with a detective having seen him do so but then when asked where it went and why he deleted it he says he has no idea.. The investigator watched him delete it!! These type actions and behaviors don't Point "away" from Shawn whatsoever, but rather just the opposite they all point to Shawn and there is no excuse for these lies, deceit, and behaviors he has displayed!! There are so very many more examples and if someone truly believes that his "quitting his job"(again which is a multitude of issues in and of itself) is all that points to Shawn or doesn't add up then I'd suggest refreshing with the accurate info that shows the opposite.. And that it's an entire plethora of issues involving his inconsistencies, lies, deceitful motivations, and an entire host of unexplainable behaviors, actions, and statements that I am speaking of..
Reading the SW affidavits alone will refresh one's memory on several of them!!
This is exactly what happens when LE becomes fixated on a suspect.
He told BD that he was fired because he knew she would be mad if she knew that he just quit on a whim, and she no doubt passed that on to LE in her account before he told her what really happened. LE would then be thinking that there are two different accounts. He told LE he had an altercation with his supervisor and quit. LE assumed that happened at the same time, but since he just just went to work, was there for a short period, then left, it is likely that whatever this altercation was happened some time before, most likely before Christmas (most companies close over the christmas holdidays). That is reasonable. The supervisor would probably not remember anything other than SA left that day, any previous thing that offended SA probably made no impact on the supervisor so he would not remember it (that is how most bosses are). LE would have asked him if there was any altercation that day and he would have said no. LE then went "Ah ha!", but didn't think to find out if there was anything earlier than that. And that is the problem.
Then there is his movements after he left. He told BD he went to his mothers house, she assumed he went there directly and presumably she told LE that. She likes to talk, we all know that, and she invariable gets facts wrong/fills in stuff she doesnt know as if they were fact. He says that he went first to the GM's house, and then to the mothers house, which would be consistent with his record of phone calls/texts that day. We don't know what exactly he told LE, but he says they just asked him where he went and he said to the mothers house, they didn't ask more than that. We know that this is the case because in the affidavit they only said that he went directly to the mothers house, which is what BD was saying originally. IF THEY HAD ASKED FOR FUTHER DETAILS, they would have said in the affidavit what route he claimed to have followed, but since they DID NOT, it is reasonable to conclude that they were basing that allegation off what BD said, not what SA said. His account of what he did and what he told LE appears to be truthfull based on what is in the affidavit.
As for the stuff being deleted, the phone company would still have records (not to mention that it would still be on the phone's memory card even after being deleted). So, LE either were mistaken or whatever was there was not incriminating anyway, since they made no mention of what it was that he supposedly deleted.
