GUILTY MO - Hailey Owens, 10, Springfield, 18 Feb 2014 #2

[MsFacetious]

I think he planned on taking her to his house the whole time.
He had everything there and ready to go. Bleach, bags, bins, bed, bullets, etc.

I don't think he changed his plan at all when he realized he'd been spotted.
If he had changed his plan it would have been in self preservation... like letting her go. :twocents:

 

[PoirotryInMotion]

http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1538-E-Stanford-St-Springfield-MO-65804/50240785_zpid/
According to "Zillow" the house sold (apparently to him) August 2010. There are pictures and it's hard to say about the crawl space. But I have to believe the LE who were there.

I feel like the only reason he took her to his house was because it was his emergency situation. He knew he had been seen picking her up.

Thanks, jggordo. I do believe LE when they say there's a basement there. It's just I'm wondering if it was built later on, (see post below). And if so, if it went under the detached garage instead of under the house.

 

[PoirotryInMotion]

Okay. I think maybe (?) I've figured it out...(about the house being "crawl space" but with a basement...):

Check the photo from Zillow of the back of the house (see below). There are three rooms with windows: (Left to Right)--there's a single window room (kitchen--window above sink), a triple window room off the kitchen (eating and living area?), and then the southeast bedroom (double window). There is no back door visible on the face of the rear of the house. There is a little shed-type structure instead, attached to the southwest corner of the house, facing the rear detached garage. I'm wondering that since the search warrant description said LE entered a BACK door, with a vestibule and stairway in the vestibule leading down to a basement, if that little structure was added to the back of the house as a rear entry at some point. So I'm wondering if the basement was, too?

If a later addition, it might've been added or dug from that vestibule structure that faces the rear garage (does it go under that garage, then, which is probably just a slab foundation?) Looking at the window above the kitchen sink in these photos, it also looks like it may have been a rear door opening at some point, then converted to a window, maybe with a remodel of the kitchen. The sink is positioned off-center under window; it looks oddly like the top window of a door to me.

The front of the house is pier and beam, like prewar houses were. Those were usually crawl space (the floor grate in the middle room seems to bear that out, too--though it could be connected to duct work in a basement, if there was one under that room).

FRONT


BACK


KITCHEN


CENTER REAR ROOM


BACK S/W BEDROOM


REAR DETACHED GARAGE

 

[CHERIE.T]

We have several members familiar with the underweb and I am hoping one of them will locate some info and share. I avoid those areas of the web. Some of our members are more savvy and feel more confident lurking close to those edges and they sometimes bring valuable info on our perps. That is not for the faint of heart and therefore, not for me for sure.

B b m
Had no idea members went to those areas on the net.

 

[CHERIE.T]

http://www.kansascity.com/2014/02/20...#storylink=cpy

The link above mentions that friends said he helped his parents with chores at the farm frequently; showed fox trotters in a 2007 competition. So we know (even without the google photo) that he was frequently at the farm. But I'd think they'd need cause (eg. a missing or unsolved from the area) to go looking with probes, unless the parents themselves invited that. And so far, no hits...

He kidnapped, murdered and hid the body of a 10 year old child. During their search of his home LE found a notebook of child *advertiser censored*. Isn't that enough probable cause to search land he at one time lived on? What about other children who vanished from that area? Someone kindly listed those a few days ago. Shouldn't that contribute to probable cause ? Just thinking out loud.

 

[BrownRice]

Congratulations on the multi-quote!!!

I've been here since 2005 and STILL can't!

LMAO'


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Linda, you're not alone. I have never figured it out either.

 

[BrownRice]

That looks like Time Square on NYE. God bless all of them. Although nothing can take away any pain of Hailey's family, I hope they feel the love of this community in their hearts.

 

[CHERIE.T]

JackieRehwaldNL ‏@JackieRehwaldNL 7m

Huge crowd at corner of Commercial and Campbell for #HaileyOwens vigil.

Love seeing so many people there! Hailey's murder has touched many lives.

 

[CHERIE.T]

Several thousand! God bless good, caring people!

 

[BrownRice]

I read somewhere on here yesterday that Hailey was 5'2" - is that correct? She looked tiny in these pictures (and 5'2" is tall for a 10 yo).

I'm 5'2" and a normal adult size. I don't think a grown man would be able to throw me in a truck so quickly (not saying it couldn't happen at all, but just not as fast as a child). I can't imagine 5'2" is correct for her.

 

[Methodical]

I read somewhere on here yesterday that Hailey was 5'2" - is that correct? She looked tiny in these pictures (and 5'2" is tall for a 10 yo).

I'm 5'2" and a normal adult size. I don't think a grown man would be able to throw me in a truck so quickly (not saying it couldn't happen at all, but just not as fast as a child). I can't imagine 5'2" is correct for her.

I had seen a report of her being 5' 2" a few days ago also. For that reason, and many more reasons, I have not been 'comfortable', or as hard as this is to say, fully accepting that her body was found intact. I believe LE has been vague and (rightfully) withholding facts pertaining to this. It is simply very difficult for all but a very oversize plastic tote to house a body of that size intact. I pray that it was a very oversize tote and that I am wrong.

 

[CHERIE.T]

Unbelievable!
Awe inspiring !

 

[LaLaw2000]

I'm curious if there are any criminal attorneys that can chime in, in regards to the obvious 'clerical error' on the search warrant inventory/receipt. I saw the error when it was first released by media, but so far haven't seen anyone mention or question it.

I'm just catching up here but wanted to answer your question. As someone who has been on the LE end of writing reports, each report is a form. At the end of every report, you draw a diagonal line from left to right (corner) under the last line of a report. That is so no one can write anything further on that paper. It is for your own protection. I would always also write - 'Nothing further.' at the end of my report, then sign it along with the date and time.

Evidently the maroon cap was added after the report had been written. As this maroon cap was in the description (or at least color of it) of the kidnapper, it was confiscated and added to the evidence. It should have been added to a new report and not break the rule of adding anything further to the evidence sheet/report after the diagonal line had been drawn.

The maroon cap must have been located and packaged in the residence for it to go onto that particular evidence list. The report should have been started over. It would not have passed muster at the agency I worked for.

You can tie that into the saying of; "If it's not on paper, it didn't happen." The chain of custody would have been broken had it not been noted. That's why I think Wood must not have been wearing the cap when he was taken in for questioning. It had to have been at the residence because no way would it have been on that particular evidence list/report unless it had.

Whomever added it knew full well that he/she should have done it differently, IMO. I was not CSI, but the format is the same no matter what. These are numbered by category as the same agency.

:moo::moo::moo:

 

[CHERIE.T]

LaLaw2000, thanks for explaining that!
I didn't know if the hat was added as an after thought or was an error.

 

[Methodical]

Original poster's pics snipped by me for space.

Okay. I think maybe (?) I've figured it out...(about the house being "crawl space" but with a basement...):

Check the photo from Zillow of the back of the house (see below). There are three rooms with windows: (Left to Right)--there's a single window room (kitchen--window above sink), a triple window room off the kitchen (eating and living area?), and then the southeast bedroom (double window). There is no back door visible on the face of the rear of the house. There is a little shed-type structure instead, attached to the southwest corner of the house, facing the rear detached garage. I'm wondering that since the search warrant description said LE entered a BACK door, with a vestibule and stairway in the vestibule leading down to a basement, if that little structure was added to the back of the house as a rear entry at some point. So I'm wondering if the basement was, too?

If a later addition, it might've been added or dug from that vestibule structure that faces the rear garage (does it go under that garage, then, which is probably just a slab foundation?) Looking at the window above the kitchen sink in these photos, it also looks like it may have been a rear door opening at some point, then converted to a window, maybe with a remodel of the kitchen. The sink is positioned off-center under window; it looks oddly like the top window of a door to me.

The front of the house is pier and beam, like prewar houses were. Those were usually crawl space (the floor grate in the middle room seems to bear that out, too--though it could be connected to duct work in a basement, if there was one under that room). <pics snipped for space>

I agree that it appears the home originally was raised pier/beam foundation, but was later supported and had a full or partial basement installed with full depth concrete foundation walls.

I think it is also possible the entire east portion of the house (behind the front porch) may have been a later addition, (IF) at which time access to basement excavation could have been done on that side. The rear S/W vestibule also seems to be a later addition, as it matches the rearward projection length of that east 1/3 of the present house, as it extends beyond the main portion of the house.

See pic/aerial shot (below) as viewed from the east and above.

I did notice horizontal concrete form seams on the west side of the house, and won't go into technical detail, but it indicates a full concrete foundation was poured underneath, with house in place, at sometime over the years.

What's odd is that the present rear door entrance is not on the driveway or rear side of the vestibule, which would allow easier access from exiting a driveway vehicle, but it is on the 'inward' east side, making one go 'the long way around' to enter the rear door.

BTW, I also gave more thought on that puzzling 'single bullet' found. Another possibility is that it was the bullet(projectile) used in the murder, which left her body via an exit wound.

 

[Methodical]

I'm just catching up here but wanted to answer your question. As someone who has been on the LE end of writing reports, each report is a form. At the end of every report, you draw a diagonal line from left to right (corner) under the last line of a report. That is so no one can write anything further on that paper. It is for your own protection. I would always also write - 'Nothing further.' at the end of my report, then sign it along with the date and time.

Evidently the maroon cap was added after the report had been written. As this maroon cap was in the description (or at least color of it) of the kidnapper, it was confiscated and added to the evidence. It should have been added to a new report and not break the rule of adding anything further to the evidence sheet/report after the diagonal line had been drawn.

The maroon cap must have been located and packaged in the residence for it to go onto that particular evidence list. The report should have been started over. It would not have passed muster at the agency I worked for.

You can tie that into the saying of; "If it's not on paper, it didn't happen." The chain of custody would have been broken had it not been noted. That's why I think Wood must not have been wearing the cap when he was taken in for questioning. It had to have been at the residence because no way would it have been on that particular evidence list/report unless it had.

Whomever added it knew full well that he/she should have done it differently, IMO. I was not CSI, but the format is the same no matter what. These are numbered by category as the same agency.

:moo::moo::moo:

I agree fully on your post (I'm also experienced in chain of custody & property/inventory reports), but I wasn't referring to what you listed. (but I do agree on all your points).

The error I was referring to was that the agent/officer apparently and mistakenly put a checkmark on page 1 (of 4 inventory pages) that showed "Items Returned To", rather than the correct "Items Received From". The other 3 pages had the correct entry.

Search Warrant Inventory/Property List

 

[Methodical]

I also wanted to apologize to the forum as a whole, and especially the witnesses of Hailey's abduction. Prior to the later reports of the *actual facts* and the true extent they went to, to try and save/shout/follow the perpetrator, I originally was critical that it appeared they didn't do these things. The true fats were not all in, at the time, plus I was so (overly) angry at the fact that this sweet innocent child had seemed to have been just swooped up without anyone giving it their all. I was wrong.

I am glad that I was wrong, and they did go 'the full mile' trying to do whatever they could. Had they not done that, then I guess my criticism would at least held 'some' water, but I'm just glad my initial thoughts were wrong.

They truly did the best anyone could ever do, under the circumstances. Yes, they are heroic and even met my highest standards/expectations of citizen involvement.
I also re-read some of my earlier posts and they *were* far more negative to others (on print) than what was going thru my mind. For that I also apologize.

 

[LaLaw2000]

I agree fully on your post (I'm also experienced in chain of custody & property/inventory reports), but I wasn't referring to what you listed. (but I do agree on all your points).

The error I was referring to was that the agent/officer apparently and mistakenly put a checkmark on page 1 (of 4 inventory pages) that showed "Items Returned To", rather than the correct "Items Received From". The other 3 pages had the correct entry.

Search Warrant Inventory/Property List

As crazy as it sounds, those items are returned to the search warrant listed. That list is returned along with the search warrant. It is LE's copy.

Items confiscated legally via search warrant. The received (from) is the copy left in the home is the list left for the home owner.

Hard to explain, but it will not cause a legal problem at all. And all I was talking about was the maroon cap added after the list had been signed off on.

:moo:

 

[psyquestor]

These were my thoughts too. Wouldn't they have checked instead of trying to preserve evidence. It doesn't sound like they checked inside the bags at that time. JMOO

I keep seeing this, so I wanted to point out something that may not be obvious. There might not have been much left of her head, or it was otherwise obvious that she had not survived. One wouldn't need to check for a pulse, in that case.

Also, we don't know that they didn't check. I think a lot is being assumed about how LE handled the crime scene. None of us were there and all we have to go on is what LE has released to the media.

I have known (through my support group) several parents who found their children after gswh. Hard to even identify them afterwards.

 

[Methodical]

As crazy as it sounds, those items are returned to the search warrant listed.
Items confiscated legally via search warrant.

Hard to explain, but it will not cause a legal problem at all.

:moo:

I'm still thinking this has to be a mistake on the checkmark entry on the form.
As we both know, chain of custody has to be as minimal (direct) as possible, exchanging as few hands and locations as possible. Typically the officer that first places his hands on evidence/inventory for retrieval, is *the one* to directly/solely take custody of that evidence until it reaches the crime lab, evidence room, or wherever it is intended to be received.

All of the items listed on page 1 surely appear to have been items originally found in Room B of the home. They appear to all *possibly* be from the basement, tho we cannot be certain of Room B's location.

But if you are correct, then "somewhere" there would have to be another (previous) inventory/property sheet showing them on a "Items Received From" sheet, with their original location. That is why I still think it is just a mistake on page 1 of the form.