GUILTY KY - Paige Johnson, 17, found deceased, Florence, 23 Sept 2010 *arrest in 2020*

[derkiss]

Said witness was a victim of a major sex crime while under the age of 10 and would have no reason to lie for Jacob Bumpass if he were guilty of accusations. The statements were given voluntarily and not requested.

 

[derkiss]

In a true life is stranger than fiction twist of events, there are two witnesses related to this case who at the same age (under 10) experienced violent sex offenses against them. One not close to him says he did not run and the other is a character witness plus had seen him on that night. This is a made for the movies kind of case because the movies are much more believable than these true life coincidental circumstances which are too strange to be believed. To think that all of these characters could merge together to say "No, it was not like that" is strange. Surely it must be a once in a lifetime happening.

 

[A_News_Junkie]

Just posting some resource links - they are very vague, IMHO but as written it appears if JB was under Kenton County Parole then it really doesn't address if any LE has a right to search at any time for any reason, but makes clear his parole officer does.
http://www.corrections.ky.gov/NR/rd...E5-6518A49AD90B/0/OffenderHandbookEnglish.pdf

http://www.corrections.ky.gov/pp/offenderinfo.htm

Derkiss - do we know if it was Kenton County? Do you know where online the rules/laws for a LE organization that is not part of the parole board is?
I actually always thought that KY was like most states in that if a convicted felon and in the probationary period - that ANY LE could enter without reason. So, I would like a link explaining it if you know of one - please and thanks!

To all our new posters here at WS (I am local but I have have been here a little longer) -- please lets be careful when disagreeing not to call names or bash posters as that violates the Terms of Service and ultimately violates helping to seek justice for Paige. We can debate and disagree (respectfully) but we can't post RUMORS, minor children names and links are preferred to be main stream media and are preferred when speaking something as fact. If you have a theory - that is great -- but make sure you state it as a theory not fact. If you are not sure on something then just say, I think ______ but I don't have a link, etc.
You can find more on TOS here: The Rules - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

 

[derkiss]

News Junkie, the laws governing parole are under KAR which are Kentucky administrative requirements, but I've not been able to find the full versions online. It will likely take researching at NKY's Chase Law School Library. For the headers, one can go to kentucky government pages and select law then KAR (not KRS). The various sections are under that. Under section 501 one can find the laws governing probation and parole.

 

[derkiss]

For News Junkie, Kenton, Campbell, and Boone counties are considered Northern Kentucky. There is a parole office in Campbell County just across the Licking River from downtown Covington via 4th street that has officers who can serve multiple counties. They are all part of the state parole system, and the state of Kentucky has great systems with regards to prisoners. He is currently held in Kenton County where he lives and you can look him up under the Kenton County Detention Center online inmate lookup. The officers started to take him to Campbell County for detention after his arrest then switched course taking him to Kenton County. It is not known why that change took place.

 

[derkiss]

Regarding the two young women who have spoken up to correct the record for Jacob Bumpass, for one of them I don't know the specifics of the attack and for the other I honestly have never heard in all my decades of life a more horrific offense upon a child! It is not even imaginable! Egads what a crime! Sorry, but for this circumstance to even have brought these young people all about the same age together is beyond my imagination. I know it happened, but for sure true life is stranger than fiction.

 

[newtothis]

Derkiss - did these 2 girls know each other before this incident with JB happened?

 

[derkiss]

They met only recently and don't hang out together. Different circles completely. True life is definitely stranger than fiction to bring them both into proximity of each other and have them both there to state the truth about JB in his behalf. Prior to the recent meeting, my understanding is no. They are from different areas and went to different schools. They didn't know each other. One parent remembered the news stories of the other girl though it happened some distance away and many years back because the crime was so bad and happened on similar timing as the offense against her daughter.

 

[impatientredhead]

Just posting some resource links - they are very vague, IMHO but as written it appears if JB was under Kenton County Parole then it really doesn't address if any LE has a right to search at any time for any reason, but makes clear his parole officer does.
http://www.corrections.ky.gov/NR/rd...E5-6518A49AD90B/0/OffenderHandbookEnglish.pdf

http://www.corrections.ky.gov/pp/offenderinfo.htm

Derkiss - do we know if it was Kenton County? Do you know where online the rules/laws for a LE organization that is not part of the parole board is?
I actually always thought that KY was like most states in that if a convicted felon and in the probationary period - that ANY LE could enter without reason. So, I would like a link explaining it if you know of one - please and thanks!

To all our new posters here at WS (I am local but I have have been here a little longer) -- please lets be careful when disagreeing not to call names or bash posters as that violates the Terms of Service and ultimately violates helping to seek justice for Paige. We can debate and disagree (respectfully) but we can't post RUMORS, minor children names and links are preferred to be main stream media and are preferred when speaking something as fact. If you have a theory - that is great -- but make sure you state it as a theory not fact. If you are not sure on something then just say, I think ______ but I don't have a link, etc.
You can find more on TOS here: The Rules - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

Everything I have found for Kentucky says that participants in parole and/or probation have to sign an agreement that includes:

agrees to a search, without a warrant, of his person, vehicle,​

property, or place of residence by any Probation/Parole Officer or law enforcement, at any time

my note: this is challenged all the time by convicts that break violate parole/probation and try to have the evidence suppressed as part of an illegal search. The supreme court ruling that is used in every denial of these motions is:

We adopt the reasoning of the Supreme Court in Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843 (2006), and hold that parolees who are subject to a warrantless search condition may be searched without reasonable or individualized suspicion.

Being on parole/probation puts you under the umbrella of the department of corrections and you therefore have consented to be searched at anytime, reasonable suspicion or not, just like an inmate's cell that is subject to search on demand. When you have served your time and are released from parole/probation your fourth amendment rights are restored.

 

[A_News_Junkie]

Everything I have found for Kentucky says that participants in parole and/or probation have to sign an agreement that includes:

agrees to a search, without a warrant, of his person, vehicle,​

property, or place of residence by any Probation/Parole Officer or law enforcement, at any time

my note: this is challenged all the time by convicts that break violate parole/probation and try to have the evidence suppressed as part of an illegal search. The supreme court ruling that is used in every denial of these motions is:

We adopt the reasoning of the Supreme Court in Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843 (2006), and hold that parolees who are subject to a warrantless search condition may be searched without reasonable or individualized suspicion.

Being on parole/probation puts you under the umbrella of the department of corrections and you therefore have consented to be searched at anytime, reasonable suspicion or not, just like an inmate's cell that is subject to search on demand. When you have served your time and are released from parole/probation your fourth amendment rights are restored.

The clear answer is frustrating as complete KAR and KRS are not online (in one place together - that I can find....yet!) I saw the part you quoted above but it specifies any Probation/Parole Officer - and from what I read last night, there is a process to become certified as such. From what I have read thus far, I think Derkiss might be onto something as to searches being far more lenient for Probation/Parole Officer vs any law enforcement officer based on this corrections document: http://www.corrections.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/BAC46DD8-454F-4C9E-A623-FFE6E22E116D/179543/271604.pdf

I saw a court case last night on scholar and might be able to find it again and see if it was appealed, etc - basically it was argued that a search of property where others lived, violated their 4th amendment rights. If I find it again and if this seems related to finding our answer I will post it.
So I think what Derkiss is saying is here in KY we have not stream-lined the authority for search to extend beyond the involvement of a authorized parole officer.
:waitasec::waitasec:
:banghead::banghead: Paige - come home for Christmas please!

 

[impatientredhead]

The clear answer is frustrating as complete KAR and KRS are not online (in one place together - that I can find....yet!) I saw the part you quoted above but it specifies any Probation/Parole Officer - and from what I read last night, there is a process to become certified as such. From what I have read thus far, I think Derkiss might be onto something as to searches being far more lenient for Probation/Parole Officer vs any law enforcement officer based on this corrections document: http://www.corrections.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/BAC46DD8-454F-4C9E-A623-FFE6E22E116D/179543/271604.pdf

I saw a court case last night on scholar and might be able to find it again and see if it was appealed, etc - basically it was argued that a search of property where others lived, violated their 4th amendment rights. If I find it again and if this seems related to finding our answer I will post it.
So I think what Derkiss is saying is here in KY we have not stream-lined the authority for search to extend beyond the involvement of a authorized parole officer.
:waitasec::waitasec:
:banghead::banghead: Paige - come home for Christmas please!

The statute actually enables PO to conduct a search when they would otherwise not be able to without having to go through the process of having an officer meet them each time.

Law Enforcement is already empowered to conduct a search as long as it is constitutionally allowed. By definition of being on parole/probation you have waived your fourth amendment rights and therefore it is a legal search.

I could not find a single instance of someone claiming LE could not search because the PO was not present. And in addition the stipulations I found on the state's websites actually specified PO or LE.

 

[A_News_Junkie]

The statute actually enables PO to conduct a search when they would otherwise not be able to without having to go through the process of having an officer meet them each time.

Law Enforcement is already empowered to conduct a search as long as it is constitutionally allowed. By definition of being on parole/probation you have waived your fourth amendment rights and therefore it is a legal search.

I could not find a single instance of someone claiming LE could not search because the PO was not present. And in addition the stipulations I found on the state's websites actually specified PO or LE.

It does specify PO or LE? I must have missed that - I will go back and see if I can find that and read it again (maybe this time not late at night!LOL)

I never said that the LE could not search unless the PO was present. I am just trying to find out if Derkiss is correct - that the PO must be contacted. Of course a constitutionally allowed search can occur on anyone. I hope you don't think I am arguing with you - I just want to learn and find out if KY is more stringent that the laws I have seen with other states and cases I have followed. Thank you for the information - and thanks to all for the great conversation and thread.

 

[impatientredhead]

It does specify PO or LE? I must have missed that - I will go back and see if I can find that and read it again (maybe this time not late at night!LOL)

I never said that the LE could not search unless the PO was present. I am just trying to find out if Derkiss is correct - that the PO must be contacted. Of course a constitutionally allowed search can occur on anyone. I hope you don't think I am arguing with you - I just want to learn and find out if KY is more stringent that the laws I have seen with other states and cases I have followed. Thank you for the information - and thanks to all for the great conversation and thread.

I will find the link in my history folder for the wording. I was agreeing with you, that the PO does not have to be contacted. LE is authorized to search as a matter of the job description and the consent of the parolee is part of the deal. The wording about conducting searches isn't about them having to be there, it is about empowering them to be able to conduct a search and seize with LE or a warrant. They have to give them that authority in the statutes since they are not police officers.

I am sure I am not explaining it well because there are too many words for what I am trying to say. But I agree with you.

 

[derkiss]

The clear answer is frustrating as complete KAR and KRS are not online (in one place together - that I can find....yet!) I saw the part you quoted above but it specifies any Probation/Parole Officer - and from what I read last night, there is a process to become certified as such. From what I have read thus far, I think Derkiss might be onto something as to searches being far more lenient for Probation/Parole Officer vs any law enforcement officer based on this corrections document: http://www.corrections.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/BAC46DD8-454F-4C9E-A623-FFE6E22E116D/179543/271604.pdf

I saw a court case last night on scholar and might be able to find it again and see if it was appealed, etc - basically it was argued that a search of property where others lived, violated their 4th amendment rights. If I find it again and if this seems related to finding our answer I will post it.
So I think what Derkiss is saying is here in KY we have not stream-lined the authority for search to extend beyond the involvement of a authorized parole officer.
:waitasec::waitasec:
:banghead::banghead: Paige - come home for Christmas please!

Thanks for the link. It is still not clear to me the division between LE and PO and what the parolee agrees to when he/she signs the document upon release. If it is open searches anytime by either agency, then why is the consent form and traceability needed as outlined in 271604? More law documents would be helpful, so if anyone finds these available online please share here.

I am also curious about the laws governing return of property to the owners after seizure, so if you see that while browsing this online please post. In this case, two cars were seized not belonging to the parolee but one he had the use of and each were seized in separate search warrants from LE. Appears LE has control of the property (vs. PO) and reason for seizure was to search for evidence of a separate crime unrelated to parole (Paige Johnson). Question is regarding release of property after a search. The car the parolee drove was deemed clear of any evidence of crime over a month ago but has not been released. The other car not in the parolees control was announced on the news (was that last week or the week prior) as having no evidence linked to Paige Johnson. I am curious as to the laws that enable retention of the property belonging to others.

 

[derkiss]

Impatientredhead, could you post the links you referenced above so we can read them? Thanks.

 

[MsFacetious]

LE does not have to contact the PO before searching, no.

However, it is generally in the rules of probation/parole that if the parolee has any contact with law enforcement, the parolee needs to let the PO know.

So the PO should be contacted if the parolee's house is searched, by the parolee himself.

It does specify PO or LE? I must have missed that - I will go back and see if I can find that and read it again (maybe this time not late at night!LOL)

I never said that the LE could not search unless the PO was present. I am just trying to find out if Derkiss is correct - that the PO must be contacted. Of course a constitutionally allowed search can occur on anyone. I hope you don't think I am arguing with you - I just want to learn and find out if KY is more stringent that the laws I have seen with other states and cases I have followed. Thank you for the information - and thanks to all for the great conversation and thread.

In my family's experience property hasn't been returned until they have written up motions to have it returned. Generally it has to be returned within a certain amount of time from the date of the conviction. Or completion of the sentence. Or whenever they want to. The more expensive the property, the less likely it was to be returned.

Most of what was seized had nothing to do with the crime and was not even the defendants property. It didn't matter, it was all returned at the same time only after filing a motion basically threatening to sue... because they had not returned it within 60 days of the conviction I believe was the time line. It was a full 3 years after the arrest before any property was returned. 2 years after the conviction.

Since Caleb's car had blood in it, they could probably keep that just based on that. Unless they prove it is his fiance's... which I think it probably is.

I have no idea what the laws are there, that has just been my experience. If I were Caleb, I wouldn't be counting on getting my car back unless I got a lawyer first. :twocents:

Thanks for the link. It is still not clear to me the division between LE and PO and what the parolee agrees to when he/she signs the document upon release. If it is open searches anytime by either agency, then why is the consent form and traceability needed as outlined in 271604? More law documents would be helpful, so if anyone finds these available online please share here.

I am also curious about the laws governing return of property to the owners after seizure, so if you see that while browsing this online please post. In this case, two cars were seized not belonging to the parolee but one he had the use of and each were seized in separate search warrants from LE. Appears LE has control of the property (vs. PO) and reason for seizure was to search for evidence of a separate crime unrelated to parole (Paige Johnson). Question is regarding release of property after a search. The car the parolee drove was deemed clear of any evidence of crime over a month ago but has not been released. The other car not in the parolees control was announced on the news (was that last week or the week prior) as having no evidence linked to Paige Johnson. I am curious as to the laws that enable retention of the property belonging to others.

 

[VeryVeritas]

VeryVeritas, your questions are all based on Jacob not dropping Paige off in Covington. Where are the questions for the scenario that he dropped her off? Your conclusion seems to be that by Bumpass not talking he is protecting himself or someone else. Again based on him not dropping her off. Did you forget that he DID talk though on parole and let detectives into his home voluntarily to look for her? He told them what he did. There won't be anything more he can say if he told the truth, and after 4 charges where is the incentive to continue to convince them he did so? The records do NOT show that Bumpass did not drop her off where he said he did. If the police think that, then they are technically incompetent. Research the wilder cell tower location in relation to his home and the drop off location and any <modsnip: one> can see that argument won't hold water. So redo your assumptions based on him dropping her off. The tower certainly won't prove that he didn't. There are two scenarios. Work them both. As to the drug deal scenario, it's laughable to assume that he sent a woman into such a situation. And what would he do if someone threatened a woman he was with? Probably beat them to a pulp. It is well known that he doesn't tolerate that sort of thing and has whipped many a man in his day for hitting or threatening a woman. Prostitution? He doesn't hang out with prostitutes. That would be certain people down in Covington which you aren't asking questions about because you didn't research the towers. Violent argument theory? Again, never hit a woman even though people are fond these days of saying how violent he is. If he is so dreaded violent, wouldn't you think he would have hit a woman by now? Instead he hits men who hit women. <modsnip> If he dropped her off in Covington as he said, how is talking going to help? How will he be able to say more than was already said? How will anyone ever figure it out if the basic premise has them going totally in the wrong direction?

Ok Derkiss, My desire is to arrive at the truth, not falsely accuse someone.
So, I'll entertain your request. Based on your statements as a character witness for JB and assuming that JB did drop Paige off as he says, I've revised what I think are the open theories - by all means poke holes and add your own theories. <modsnip>

1) JB the Protector: If JB were a "Protector" for Paige, why would he just let her get out of the car? I don't care where it is or what time it is, if I were dropping a woman off I make sure she gets inside the door, or walk her up to the door. If it were this part of Covington, in the middle of the night, all the more reason to make sure she got inside safely. So if JB is the chivalrous type, we should know exactly the place she walked into. Whose place was it? What's the address? Who was there?

2) The Dealer / OD theory: Let's say he picked up Paige, and they obtained some drugs, she then OD'd at the Dealer's place or in JB's car or somewhere where they both were later. If at the Dealer's the Dealer makes JB remove her, either way he has to deal with it. If he takes her to the hospital, he would go back to prison. What would he do?

3) The violence theory: Some girl's blood was in CB's car (Whose Blood is this and why is it there?) It's not to say JB committed the violence, but unexplained blood in the car and a missing girl do not rule out violence.
It was not Kool-Aid in CB's car. Someone was bleeding and someone else is missing. What if Paige killed someone and she is now in hiding, and JB disposed of that body? Or what if there was a cat-fight and Paige drew blood, but still needed to flee? It is still not explained how JB, who is broke is joy riding around East Fork Lake at 4am. when the person he was last with vanished and someone else's blood is there.

4) The bad debt theory: Let's say that Paige owed some bad people(uh like gangsters) for drugs or something else and JB helped her to flee.

5) Sex slave theory: Let's say JB despite his criminal record unwittingly dropped paige off in the middle of the night to an unknown corner in Covington which is rife with crime, and just drove off not wondering why Paige wanted to go there. Paige then is abducted into sex slavery. Nah, this just doesn't fit with Paige's good friend and protector of women - JB.

6) Pregnancy theory: Apparently the leading cause of death of pregnant women is murder. So, it's plausible... but Paige's life was an open book, so everyone would know who it was.

7) Something weird with Paige's sister and Boyfriend fleeing town Theory:
this is weird, but too fuzzy to make sense. Ok, if JB had no sexual interest in Paige, then why is he driving her around in the middle of the night instead of her "boyfriend". Were these people all together that night? What were their alibis? What do they think happened to Paige? Does their flight support any of the other theories above?

8) The Derkiss theory: <modsnip>

 

[Cubby]

Derkiss,

Welcome to WS. Do you have any links to the information you posted or did you happen to know Paige? Some of your posts seem to indicate you may have known Paige. If you do know Paige or anyone who would be considered a case player WS has a verification process and you would need to be verified in order to post as an insider.

Thank you,

Cubby
moderator

 

[MsFacetious]

Not Derkiss, but I will take this as well...

Ok Derkiss, My desire is to arrive at the truth, not falsely accuse someone.
So, I'll entertain your request. Based on your statements as a character witness for JB and assuming that JB did drop Paige off as he says, I've revised what I think are the open theories - by all means poke holes and add your own theories. <modsnip>

1) JB the Protector: If JB were a "Protector" for Paige, why would he just let her get out of the car? I don't care where it is or what time it is, if I were dropping a woman off I make sure she gets inside the door, or walk her up to the door. If it were this part of Covington, in the middle of the night, all the more reason to make sure she got inside safely. So if JB is the chivalrous type, we should know exactly the place she walked into. Whose place was it? What's the address? Who was there?

She was supposed to be going to her sister's residence at that time. The same sister she messaged on facebook who responded the next morning nonchalantly... her moving may have been planned before because I believe that is why Paige was going over there.

2) The Dealer / OD theory: Let's say he picked up Paige, and they obtained some drugs, she then OD'd at the Dealer's place or in JB's car or somewhere where they both were later. If at the Dealer's the Dealer makes JB remove her, either way he has to deal with it. If he takes her to the hospital, he would go back to prison. What would he do?

It would depend on if she was dead or alive... if she was alive I'd imagine he'd drop her off somewhere she would be found. If she was dead I'd imagine he would dump her.

3) The violence theory: Some girl's blood was in CB's car (Whose Blood is this and why is it there?) It's not to say JB committed the violence, but unexplained blood in the car and a missing girl do not rule out violence.
It was not Kool-Aid in CB's car. Someone was bleeding and someone else is missing. What if Paige killed someone and she is now in hiding, and JB disposed of that body? Or what if there was a cat-fight and Paige drew blood, but still needed to flee? It is still not explained how JB, who is broke is joy riding around East Fork Lake at 4am. when the person he was last with vanished and someone else's blood is there.

There was a VERY small amount of blood in the car. Not even visible to the naked eye, on the front passenger seat. Ripping a fingernail? Popping a zit? Not being prepared for that time of the month? Scraping your knee? There are a million reasons why people would bleed in their cars.

I also would imagine that Caleb is not the first owner of the vehicle. However, the blood should be tested against his fiance.

I think Jacob's Mom likely supported him and that is how he had money to do everything he was doing.

4) The bad debt theory: Let's say that Paige owed some bad people(uh like gangsters) for drugs or something else and JB helped her to flee.

That's possible too. Also possible that those bad people are the ones responsible for her disappearance.

5) Sex slave theory: Let's say JB despite his criminal record unwittingly dropped paige off in the middle of the night to an unknown corner in Covington which is rife with crime, and just drove off not wondering why Paige wanted to go there. Paige then is abducted into sex slavery. Nah, this just doesn't fit with Paige's good friend and protector of women - JB.

I don't think he dropped her off not knowing why she was there. However, he did not particularly like her sister at that moment. So he may not have wanted to walk her up to the door if that really was where she was going. If he had also been drinking... and Paige had been drinking and said "don't worry, it's just right there, I'll be fine..." He likely could have been talked into just letting her out.

6) Pregnancy theory: Apparently the leading cause of death of pregnant women is murder. So, it's plausible... but Paige's life was an open book, so everyone would know who it was.

I honestly think this is up there with the most likely possibilities. That Paige was pregnant and that is why she is gone. I don't know if it is because someone harmed her, maybe because they were much older and concerned about legal ramifications... or simply child support.

Or, because she chose to leave. But I think it's a likely option. Her first child is with the father's parents. What if a 2nd child had a father that she felt was dangerous? What if she would not want him anywhere near this child? She may feel she needs to leave until after the baby is born and placed for adoption... so that nobody knows she had a baby.

7) Something weird with Paige's sister and Boyfriend fleeing town Theory:
this is weird, but too fuzzy to make sense. Ok, if JB had no sexual interest in Paige, then why is he driving her around in the middle of the night instead of her "boyfriend". Were these people all together that night? What were their alibis? What do they think happened to Paige? Does their flight support any of the other theories above?

I don't know about Ronnie, but her sister may have already planned to move before Paige's disappearance. I believe it was said that the reason Paige was with Jacob that night was because she had gotten into a fight with Ronnie. So that would be why she was with him instead of her boyfriend.

Ronnie gives the impression that he thinks Paige took off or did something within her own control... while her family won't really entertain any tip that would result in Paige being alive under any circumstance. They are convinced it was Jacob, period. So I am really not sure what their theories might be.

8) The Derkiss theory: <modsnip>

Me too... :innocent:

 

[newtothis]

I find it interesting and very disturbing that Paige's family won't entertain any other theory than JB somehow harmed her. Especially since I'm of the firm belief that Brit did talk to Paige that night - despite what Brit says.
The pregnant and giving the baby up for adoption theory I really like. Seems a little old school by today's standards. But then again a healthy baby would bring in a lot of money.
I hadn't considered that until now.