GUILTY IN - Shaylyn Ammerman, 14 mos, Spencer, 23 March 2016 #2

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
The obvious "red flag" is why is a 23 year old male interested in caring or hanging out with a baby girl?

Certainly not normal behavior for young 20 year olds!

As mentioned previously, alcohol was probably a regular beverage in this house. Being drunk is a different perception to each person. KP did manage to drive safely that night and recall his actions. To me, that would tell me he wasn't too drunk or he would have wrecked. If he had plans to snatch the baby, he was in control of the amount he was drinking and just fooling Adam that he was drinking more.
 
Hippie Heart said:
Do you have a link to her saying those things? My impression was when she recounted the event where she walked in on him rocking the baby, it was not done to condone his behavior like oh isn't that sweet he's rocking the baby. My impression was she was saying that it alarmed her. I could be wrong though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I don't have the links, per se. The other things she said in various other interviews and she wasn't referring to the drinking/rocking incident, but other interactions grandma had with KP. The articles were in MSM and are posted on this thread. That's the best I can do.
 
ILOKAL said:
No, it certainly is not rocket science. ID's and background checks for everyone, including Auntie Mary, teachers, priests, doctors, and even your OWN kids! Because, in reality, you really can't trust anyone as the various cases on WS prove over and over again :(

And, there's that single glass of wine or can of beer.
Click to expand...

I get what you've been saying here. I will admit I've held my children and even grandchildren after having a drink or two. Amazingly they all lived and suffered zero damage. I must be like what so many here believe this family to be. In reality I am an extremely moderate drinker and even less now as I get older.

Prior to finding this child dead and KP being charged, this family had very little negative to say about KP. There was no mention of finding him drunk, holding & rocking the baby, no mention of their "knowledge" of his *advertiser censored* habits, no mention of AA seeing a dangling foot.

I see two things happening here. 1. The family is trying to distance themselves from KP, and 2. Some on here will never see dad & grandma as anything but complicit with KP. Because they appear different from people's ideal, they must be guilty of something. Even after LE has stated they do not anticipate further arrests, they are still unwilling to call the family anything other than POIs. Early on, many were convinced the family was guilty of the disappearance/death of this baby and now that facts indicate something different, they just can't back away and say they were wrong.

The comments on FB are horrible and thankfully we have moderators on here or some posts would be very similar.
 
If I, as a grandmother, meet a young man, and don't know him well, yet one of the things I DO know about him is that he likes *advertiser censored*, then yeah, that's a red flag for me. I should think that she should know him VERY well in order to know him well enough to know anything about his sexual proclivities.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
1&2&3 said:
The obvious "red flag" is why is a 23 year old male interested in caring or hanging out with a baby girl?

Certainly not normal behavior for young 20 year olds!

As mentioned previously, alcohol was probably a regular beverage in this house. Being drunk is a different perception to each person. KP did manage to drive safely that night and recall his actions. To me, that would tell me he wasn't too drunk or he would have wrecked. If he had plans to snatch the baby, he was in control of the amount he was drinking and just fooling Adam that he was drinking more.
Click to expand...

Do you mean because he is a male or are you saying it would be weird for anyone in their early 20s to want to be around a baby? I really don't find it weird.
 
LaborDayRN said:
I'm not sure I would compare family relatives to a guy whose last name the entire family claimed not to know.
Click to expand...

Do you have a link to something official stating that they said they didn't know his last name? I can't recall them actually saying that but I may be remembering wrong. I do know that I saw them saying just his first name, but not that they didn't know it. Not knowing it and not saying it are two different things. As I said, I may have missed that, which is why I'm asking for a link, if it is actually a fact that they said that. I can't imagine them not knowing the last name of an approximately year long friend, though they may just have not mentioned it.
Thanks!
 
Butler said:
I get what you've been saying here. I will admit I've held my children and even grandchildren after having a drink or two. Amazingly they all lived and suffered zero damage. I must be like what so many here believe this family to be. In reality I am an extremely moderate drinker and even less now as I get older.

Prior to finding this child dead and KP being charged, this family had very little negative to say about KP. There was no mention of finding him drunk, holding & rocking the baby, no mention of their "knowledge" of his *advertiser censored* habits, no mention of AA seeing a dangling foot.

I see two things happening here. 1. The family is trying to distance themselves from KP, and 2. Some on here will never see dad & grandma as anything but complicit with KP. Because they appear different from people's ideal, they must be guilty of something. Even after LE has stated they do not anticipate further arrests, they are still unwilling to call the family anything other than POIs. Early on, many were convinced the family was guilty of the disappearance/death of this baby and now that facts indicate something different, they just can't back away and say they were wrong.

The comments on FB are horrible and thankfully we have moderators on here or some posts would be very similar.
Click to expand...

I think a lot is getting Lost in translation. I don't think anyone is saying a person who has one or two drinks should not hold a child. Maybe some are, but I don't feel that way.

I think it's in the context of him being a virtual stranger.

I don't understand your comments comparing posts here to those horrible things said on Facebook. I for one have never seen anybody say anything that could be compared to those other posts. Am I missing something?

I recognize that this family is a little "different" at least than me, and I do think there are some instances where they haven't shown the best judgment, but I do not believe any of that is an absolute indication of guilt. Just to be clear, not everyone here thinks that because these people are a certain way that they're GUILTY. Matter of fact, I don't recall seeing anyone say that exact thing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
1) I do not for one second believe that it was known to all, that KP's viewing of *advertiser censored* was known to everyone in the house. It might have been discussed between KP and AA and even possible JA, but it would surprise me if grandma and grandpa knew anything about it.
2) I suspect all of the drinking went on because KP was able to provide them with alcohol. None of them were working and probably had minimal amount of money. I suspect that is why KP was around as frequently. (At least on the Ammermans side)
3) I feel like after finding out that KP killed Shaylyn the Ammermans sat down and started talking and things he had said started sticking out and began bothering them and that is why these are now hot topics and did not bother them in the beginning. We are all guilty of hearing something and having it bother us but not enough for us to instantly think huh this person is going to go off and murder my child. It's not until something else happens that we start putting two and two together.


DO NOT mistake what I am saying, I am not in anyway defending anyone, NOT KP AA, JA, or anyone else. I do feel like they did have enough info that it should have thrown them off and made sure he wasn't back in the house, however that's just my opinion!! I just don't feel like the Ammermans have the intellectual skills to perhaps put all of it together (again I am in no way putting them down) before this terrible situation.
 
ILOKAL said:
I don't have the links, per se. The other things she said in various other interviews and she wasn't referring to the drinking/rocking incident, but other interactions grandma had with KP. The articles were in MSM and are posted on this thread. That's the best I can do.
Click to expand...

i just posted a few
 
I thought I saw one but I can't find it now. Anyone have a link to a picture of the outside of the house AND a link to the inside layout? TIA!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Midge Montana said:
Do you have a link to something official stating that they said they didn't know his last name? I can't recall them actually saying that but I may be remembering wrong. I do know that I saw them saying just his first name, but not that they didn't know it. Not knowing it and not saying it are two different things. As I said, I may have missed that, which is why I'm asking for a link, if it is actually a fact that they said that. I can't imagine them not knowing the last name of an approximately year long friend, though they may just have not mentioned it.
Thanks!
Click to expand...

im pretty sure it was in this initial phone interview

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nBR22v3YzA8
 
Hippie Heart said:
Do you have a link to her saying those things? My impression was when she recounted the event where she walked in on him rocking the baby, it was not done to condone his behavior like oh isn't that sweet he's rocking the baby. My impression was she was saying that it alarmed her. I could be wrong though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

My original response didn't provide a link, but Post #1043 has some of the grandma's other statements about her interactions and observations of KP and states he had been in her home about a dozen times.
 
Midge Montana said:
Do you have a link to something official stating that they said they didn't know his last name? I can't recall them actually saying that but I may be remembering wrong. I do know that I saw them saying just his first name, but not that they didn't know it. Not knowing it and not saying it are two different things. As I said, I may have missed that, which is why I'm asking for a link, if it is actually a fact that they said that. I can't imagine them not knowing the last name of an approximately year long friend, though they may just have not mentioned it.
Thanks!
Click to expand...

It's towards the very beginning of the first thread. I'll go back and see if I can find it. I wish we could have a media thread for this case. It would make finding information so much easier.

Here is the link. You have to listen to the audio interview. If you look under the video that first appears when you go to the page, you will see a black screen with white writing. That is the audio interview. you can also just sit through the first video and it will go right into the audio interview. http://www.theindychannel.com/news/local-news/toddler-missing-from-fathers-home-in-spencer
 
FWIW, I think it's fairly common for young men to view *advertiser censored*. I find it disgusting, personally, but there's a reason why the industry is so lucrative.

I don't think his viewing *advertiser censored*, in and of itself, makes him a monster or a sexual deviant. I'm not trying to defend KP AT ALL, just to be clear.
 
ILOKAL said:
No, it certainly is not rocket science. ID's and background checks for everyone, including Auntie Mary, teachers, priests, doctors, and even your OWN kids! Because, in reality, you really can't trust anyone as the various cases on WS prove over and over again :(

And, there's that single glass of wine or can of beer.
Click to expand...

C'mon. Kyle is not my auntie Mary, uncle Earl or cousin Jed. He's a guy with a criminal history and a drinking problem. I don't care how helpful he is, if he comes into my house drunk and touches my baby, he's outta there.

I think we're at cross purposes. I believe the family knew about Kyle's problems. I believe the grandmother erred by allowing Kyle around Shaylyn after the drunken episode. I believe the family had no business going to sleep, leaving Shaylyn alone, while Kyle was in the house - drinking.

Not trusting Kyle is not equivalent to not being able to trust anyone else. For Pete's sake, there are degrees of caution.
 
So, AA knew KP for about a year, and he visited their home an average of once a month. I would also assume that AA and KP had other interactions at other times/places.

That's not what I would call a virtual stranger. I have close friends I don't see that much!

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 67 more.
Total: 272 (members: 68, guests: 204)

Online statistics

Members online
68
Guests online
204
Total visitors
272
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
609,160
Messages
18,250,288
Members
234,549
Latest member
raymehay
Back
Top