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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jane Velez-Mitchell she has an hour long tv show on CNN.
She doesn't speak...she screams. I can't listen.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So a Nancy Grace type person? I can't stand her, so I am sure I would feel the same about JVM
 
I really feel for the man who took chase after them in his car. Lost them in heavy traffic. This has to be weighing heavily on him right now. Not that it should. It must haunt him as I'm sure it would anyone.
 
Hopefully LE finds clues in the home, to help them answer the question of other victims. Given his age, I find it doubtful that this was the first time. Sloppy? Yes, but he killed that poor baby within hours of her abduction. It seems to me that this reveals his comfort in doing so. The bleach, totes, location all scream to me that he was simply waiting for an opportunity and poor Hailey fit his criteria.

IMOO

Agree. Now going on memory wasn't there a manifesto found of sorts? It and his computer should be full of information. Sadly.
 
This story said they found a hat they thought belonged to Hailey

http://entertainment.verizon.com/news/read/article/ap-mo_coach_charged_in_girls_death_heads_to-ap

I have looked at the inventory twice and don't see it. Has anyone else seen it mentioned?

I just looked back to see if I'd missed a hat or cap Hailey had been wearing described in the AA. As far as I can see, no one ever said she had a hat or cap on.

A maroon cap was listed on the items seized in the search warrant, but Wood was also described as having a maroon cap on when he snatched Hailey. Must have been his instead of Hailey's, IMO.

:moo:
 
Thanks. I would almost bet money that was not on the inventory list when I read it for the first time yesterday.

It does appear to have been added later. (eg, the line goes into that row of text and the ink looks a bit different). imoo
 
Thanks. I would almost bet money that was not on the inventory list when I read it for the first time yesterday.

It was on the original .pdf. I saved it to my computer when it was first posted yesterday morning. The hat was his; described by witnesses of the abduction. I think the media article is wrong about it being possibly Hailey's hat.
 
According to "Zillow" his house was last sol in 2010. I'm assuming to him. For $75,937. With him being the only source of income, and his rate of pay I'm pretty sure he could not qualify for the loan. Could be why his parents are listed as well.

In regard to the "trust fund". IMO it could well be that the "trust" was set up by grandparents long ago to make sure the family farm "stays in the family". It could well be that the farm has been in the family for generations.

http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1538-E-Stanford-St-Springfield-MO-65804/50240785_zpid/

According to "Zillow" the family farm is 90 acres. That's a pretty good sized farm IMO.

http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/13298-W-State-Highway-T-Ash-Grove-MO-65604/50273238_zpid/
 
Here's something I don't understand. The police report says when they found a "possible body" in bags in the Rubbermaid tub they left and went to get a warrant. I know they were on a safety sweep at that time. But it doesn't say they checked to see if maybe the "possible body" still had a pulse or was still breathing? why not?
 
Here's something I don't understand. The police report says when they found a "possible body" in bags in the Rubbermaid tub they left and went to get a warrant. I know they were on a safety sweep at that time. But it doesn't say they checked to see if maybe the "possible body" still had a pulse or was still breathing? why not?

I thought I read where the report indicated her body was still cold from the chlorine?
 
Here's a question I have...with all the child *advertiser censored* found, I didn't see where they had charged him with that as of yet. Maybe I missed it.
 
Here's a question I have...with all the child *advertiser censored* found, I didn't see where they had charged him with that as of yet. Maybe I missed it.

IMO they have time on their side now. He's not going anywhere. Now that they have his computer. The Cyber Sex Unit will scour that computer. The "possession" of the photos and such are Mo State charges. If he sent a picture over the internet, it is a Federal charge. Every time he clicked "send" is a separate charge. AND the perp at the IPO address that received it will get a visit too.

The FBI is doing everything they can to get these perps off the streets before they act out on their fantasies. MOO
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
121
Guests online
2,177
Total visitors
2,298

Forum statistics

Threads
601,846
Messages
18,130,581
Members
231,162
Latest member
nurse4home
Back
Top