bellesnwhistles
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2014
- Messages
- 1,651
- Reaction score
- 4,908
Can someone please post Tylee’s SM? Sorry, there’s a lot of threads to go through!
This is high season in Hawaii. Many rentals are booked a year in advance or more. So they might be squeezing into calendar holes. I did that for several months when I moved here while the house I owned was still leased to someone else. I actually don't find it unusual. Lots of long term visitors and new arrivals do that.Maybe Lori had a friend there who helped with rentals and such. Just a thought.
what are they smiling about? what is so funny about her children being missing?
Not a quote I would expect from their attorney.
It's not in the print story, but in the video report she says, "Now this morning I spoke with Vallow and Daybell's attorney who told me, Sean Bartholick who's here in Rexbug, who told me he's still in communication with Vallow even though she is in Hawaii. He was unable to tell me whether or not she planned on presenting the kids. And that he didn't know where the kids were or if they were even alive."
Police confirm Vallow search warrant served - Local News 8
BBM. I think that's possible and I also think it's possible that Tylee ran away (wouldn't exactly be running away if she truly is emancipated or has resources) before the search and all the rest started. Early September, maybe. Based on things she said, I thought she might have gone to Hawaii, but LE said there's no sign of her there.
Wow! The last sentence.
Nate Eaton, earlier, reporting on where Lori and Chad were actually staying, and on Lori's ties to that location:
East Idaho News.com
I think that was his one mistake. I think he was talking about Kay, who is her former sister in law / JJ’s grandmother, not Lori’s mom. I am not aware of Lori’s mother ever publicly stating anything.
edited to add agreement with others theory that Nate might have been misspeaking on purpose to solicit a response.
Can someone please post Tylee’s SM? Sorry, there’s a lot of threads to go through!
I’m not a fan of that theory.So what if....
- Tylee and JJ both witnessed CV's murder
- Tylee ran off with JJ to protect both of them
- Lori truly does not know where they are because they are hiding from her
- Lori is protecting Tylee from kidnapping and other charges
- And OMG, what if Tylee actually fired the shots and AC/LV are covering for her?
So much we are assuming but don't know!
I don't know anyone who encrypts their phone. Unless you are doing something illegal, secret or confidential, what is the benefit?
Are her accounts deleted?Tylee hasn’t been on SM for several months.
2 are dead young I believe.If true, are the exes still alive?
So what if....
- Tylee and JJ both witnessed CV's murder
- Tylee ran off with JJ to protect both of them
- Lori truly does not know where they are because they are hiding from her
- Lori is protecting Tylee from kidnapping and other charges
- And OMG, what if Tylee actually fired the shots and AC/LV are covering for her?
So much we are assuming but don't know!
Ah yes, the 'Nothing to hide' fallacy.
Bruce Schneier, a computer security expert and cryptographer, expressed opposition, citing Cardinal Richelieu's statement "If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged", referring to how a state government can find aspects in a person's life in order to prosecute or blackmail that individual. Schneier also argued "Too many wrongly characterize the debate as 'security versus privacy.' The real choice is liberty versus control."
Edward Snowden: "Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say."
"When you say, ‘I have nothing to hide,’ you’re saying, ‘I don’t care about this right.’ You’re saying, ‘I don’t have this right, because I’ve got to the point where I have to justify it.’ The way rights work is, the government has to justify its intrusion into your rights."
a government can leak information about a person and cause damage to that person, or use information about a person to deny access to services even if a person did not actually engage in wrongdoing, and that a government can cause damage to one's personal life through making errors. "When engaged directly, the nothing-to-hide argument can ensnare, for it forces the debate to focus on its narrow understanding of privacy. But when confronted with the plurality of privacy problems implicated by government data collection and use beyond surveillance and disclosure, the nothing-to-hide argument, in the end, has nothing to say."
I for one, care about my privacy, not because I'm doing illegal stuff, but because who knows what will be considered wrong or illegal in the future?
Ah yes, the 'Nothing to hide' fallacy.
Bruce Schneier, a computer security expert and cryptographer, expressed opposition, citing Cardinal Richelieu's statement "If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged", referring to how a state government can find aspects in a person's life in order to prosecute or blackmail that individual. Schneier also argued "Too many wrongly characterize the debate as 'security versus privacy.' The real choice is liberty versus control."
Edward Snowden: "Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say."
"When you say, ‘I have nothing to hide,’ you’re saying, ‘I don’t care about this right.’ You’re saying, ‘I don’t have this right, because I’ve got to the point where I have to justify it.’ The way rights work is, the government has to justify its intrusion into your rights."
a government can leak information about a person and cause damage to that person, or use information about a person to deny access to services even if a person did not actually engage in wrongdoing, and that a government can cause damage to one's personal life through making errors. "When engaged directly, the nothing-to-hide argument can ensnare, for it forces the debate to focus on its narrow understanding of privacy. But when confronted with the plurality of privacy problems implicated by government data collection and use beyond surveillance and disclosure, the nothing-to-hide argument, in the end, has nothing to say."
I for one, care about my privacy, not because I'm doing illegal stuff, but because who knows what will be considered wrong or illegal in the future?
It's not actually my theory, just saying we have no real evidence to dispute it.I’m not a fan of that theory.