ND ND - Thomas 'Tom' Bearson, 19, Fargo, 20 Sep 2014 #4

[bizzle2]

I have to agree with you to a certain extent. Often the manner of death is with-held in MANY cases, and for good reason, such as it is specific information that the knowledge of may indicate direct involvement. The with-holding of that information can be detrimental to a case, and I agree, pointless to provide to the public.

I have no idea why a toxicology report would be with-held, especially if it is not related to his death as was stated. That is unusual, and I can only surmise that with-holding it means something as much as releasing it would, to be honest in my opinion. Toxicology tests aren't even mentioned in some homicide cases in the first place. For some reason, in this case, the fact that it was being investigated was very well known, only to then be with-held, and eventually reported as not significant. That is odd, in my opinion.

What I find completely ridiculous is how we keep hearing about this shoe and cell phone. IF this whole case's chance of resolution lies in the balance due to the lack of these items, that is a bleak picture. I'd be shocked, by the way, if they actually surface ever, especially after all the publicity about HOW important they are to find.

I think you answered your own question when it comes to the toxicology report. If they don't think it had anything to do with his death there is no reason to release it. I mean, if a man is killed by a co-worker over a dispute at work and the police find out through the course of their investigation that he was cheating on his wife there is no reason for them to release that info if it didn't have anything to do with his murder. It just isn't necessary. The only reason to release it would be to satisfy those who are curious, but it doesn't help the investigation at all.

With the shoe and the cell phone I think the important part is WHERE they are. Their location tells police one of two things -- either that he was killed there, or those items were dropped there after he was dead which would give the police another data point as to where the perps have been since the murder. The physical items don't provide much value, but their location does.

 

[bizzle2]

Somehow, the perp(s) knew that Larry's RV Sales lot had inoperable however obvious video surveillance cameras. I find that verrrryyyy interessssttting.....

How do we know that the perps knew that? The only way we could really know is if we know who the perps are...

 

[Rocco]

How do we know that the perps knew that? The only way we could really know is if we know who the perps are...

:thinking: I do believe that you are correct.

 

[CantNotCare]

That's what crossed my mind, but it's still a "very active investigation", so...we'll see if that bears fruit.

 

[Justiceforall99]

I have faith that it will be solved. People talk, brag, gossip, etc. Unless the people- and I say people because I don't believe that only 1 person was involved- are bound by a strict code of silence (such as a gang perhaps), details will come out. If law enforcement is re-interviewing people, it means their stories do not add up. And it's just a matter of time I think before messes up. I do wonder though why there isn't a reward?

 

[IBsleuthin]

Other than to satisfy the public curiosity what good would releasing the autopsy report and things like drugs levels/cause of death do?

Lets just say they release that TB had been drinking, and smoking pot, and was beaten to death with a hammer (SIMPLY AN EXAMPLE , I AM NOT SPECULATING), how would that drive the investigation forward?

Would someone be like "Oh yea now I remember, I did see a kid get beaten to death with a hammer at a party but thought nothing of it!" Publicizing this information has no upside, other than to satisfy public curiosity . I would like to hear any idea's or theories on how releasing this info could possibly help.

All of your examples here seem to go right to the extreme.

They've got squat and they know it.

Release what video they have. Release information on exactly how it was they were able to pinpoint where his body was at? Far too much conflicting wording in these early police articles.

Or? Better yet, NEVER say a word. Never ask for the public's help at all. Don't get us involved. It seems that in the current political climate the go to wording is, "We cannot release this information as this is an ongoing investigation."

FINE. But leave me out of it then. Don't ask me to look for a Fing SHOE. Don't ask me to look for a flipping PHONE. Just don't ask me.

AND DO NOT tell the public that there is, "No current threat to the public safety." When you cannot answer any questions in a press conference, or identify who may have done this.

A murderer is walking the streets, there's a threat.

Me? I'm just going to go about my business.

 

[IBsleuthin]

:thinking: I do believe that you are correct.

I think you should think about that a little more.

 

[dennygreen]

http://www.inforum.com/news/crime/3709803-fargo-police-sought-records-about-bearson-snapchats

 

[CantNotCare]

I think you answered your own question when it comes to the toxicology report. If they don't think it had anything to do with his death there is no reason to release it. I mean, if a man is killed by a co-worker over a dispute at work and the police find out through the course of their investigation that he was cheating on his wife there is no reason for them to release that info if it didn't have anything to do with his murder. It just isn't necessary. The only reason to release it would be to satisfy those who are curious, but it doesn't help the investigation at all.

With the shoe and the cell phone I think the important part is WHERE they are. Their location tells police one of two things -- either that he was killed there, or those items were dropped there after he was dead which would give the police another data point as to where the perps have been since the murder. The physical items don't provide much value, but their location does.

Nothing much has been answered with this case at all. My opinion is simply just that (an opinion) when it comes to the toxicology report.

Let's look at your analogy: Man killed by co-worker at work. Media is given information that the possibility of him having an affair is being investigated, and that is repeatedly reported for about 4.5 months, and that the results of that aren't quite solidified yet. Finally, 5 months later, it is reported that the results of whether or not he truly was having an affair is NOT going to be released, but the public can now rest assured that even if he were, that in fact did not cause his death.

What part of that was necessary in the first place? The only reason to have included ANY of it in the first place was to satisfy the maddening crowd temporarily. You know....because there is no threat to the public as long as you don't do the kind of things this guy POSSIBLY was doing. Whatever....

 

[CantNotCare]

http://www.inforum.com/news/crime/3709803-fargo-police-sought-records-about-bearson-snapchats

Thank you dennygreen. Good to hear something at least.

I would think that his call log/texts would be more informational, but....I'm sure that it ALL matters.

Despite a search warrant, it sounds like Snapchat only still has available anything unopened though, right? Everything else disappears to the abyss? Supposedly the beauty of snapchat.

 

[CantNotCare]

I have faith that it will be solved. People talk, brag, gossip, etc. Unless the people- and I say people because I don't believe that only 1 person was involved- are bound by a strict code of silence (such as a gang perhaps), details will come out. If law enforcement is re-interviewing people, it means their stories do not add up. And it's just a matter of time I think before messes up. I do wonder though why there isn't a reward?

Other codes of silence exist too like within fraternities, families..... but loose lips occur too, especially when bad blood happens, and sooner or later.....

 

[IBsleuthin]

Other codes of silence exist too like within fraternities, families..... but loose lips occur too, especially when bad blood happens, and sooner or later.....

An example is when lover's fight. Things shared in confidence during intimate moments are used more expertly than a butcher's knife when they fight.

Maybe it will simply take time.

 

[CantNotCare]

http://www.inforum.com/news/crime/3709803-fargo-police-sought-records-about-bearson-snapchats


Sounds like an opportunity was missed according to these dates

"Fargo police subpoenaed Snapchat on Oct. 13"

"The Los-Angeles based company responded to the Fargo police subpoena the next day, Oct. 14"

"Snapchat deletes messages from its servers once all recipients have seen them, messages that are unread are kept for 30 days."

"Fargo police responded to Snapchat’s response on Feb. 18"

"Fargo police Lt. Joel Vettel said he wasn’t familiar with Snapchat’s deletion schedule, but that the delay in filing the search warrant was connected to investigators prioritizing productive leads over less-productive ones in the case"

And yet

"Vettel said police received the information they wanted from the search warrant, which included usage logs from Bearson’s Snapchat account."

Usage log, I would surmise simply shows activity, not specific videos and message content.

Thus simply timeline verifications? Possibly identifies recipients and senders phone numbers or Snapchat accounts too hopefully? Or...locations at usage time?

Yep, that healthy optimism creeping in, BankingOnIt, haha :facepalm: :facepalm:

 

[dennygreen]

Yeah, they had to focus on all those productive leads instead of worrying about search warrants.

Hard to believe that finding out all of his recent communication of any kind would not be a high priority.

I thought the FBI was there, surely they could have helped out with that if the Fargo cops were so overwhelmed with leads.

 

[MINNESOTA-MOM]

All of your examples here seem to go right to the extreme.

They've got squat and they know it.

Release what video they have. Release information on exactly how it was they were able to pinpoint where his body was at? Far too much conflicting wording in these early police articles.

Or? Better yet, NEVER say a word. Never ask for the public's help at all. Don't get us involved. It seems that in the current political climate the go to wording is, "We cannot release this information as this is an ongoing investigation."

FINE. But leave me out of it then. Don't ask me to look for a Fing SHOE. Don't ask me to look for a flipping PHONE. Just don't ask me.

AND DO NOT tell the public that there is, "No current threat to the public safety." When you cannot answer any questions in a press conference, or identify who may have done this.

A murderer is walking the streets, there's a threat.

Me? I'm just going to go about my business.

I echo these thoughts.
Scary, huh?

 

[MINNESOTA-MOM]

Surely these cops are smart enough to be reading social media, aren't they?

Well.. Following up on a five month old subpoena isn't promising.. There's really no excuse for the incompetence. Tom was reportedly snap chatting moments before he died! (Possibly..) Yet.. They are just now getting a warrant for those communications (which are now lost) ?! Does this worry anyone else?

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

I'm hoping this is just a "mirage" of insouciance or incompetence!

 

[IBsleuthin]

Three words: "Dropped The Ball."

I would think communication on Snapchat, especially by this young group would have been HIGH priority.

Wouldn't you want to know what he was chatting about and with WHOM?

This information upsets me. I'm not a cop and I would know enough to want to get that information immediately.

 

[georgihx]

Three words: "Dropped The Ball."

I would think communication on Snapchat, especially by this young group would have been HIGH priority.

Wouldn't you want to know what he was chatting about and with WHOM?

This information upsets me. I'm not a cop and I would know enough to want to get that information immediately.

The problem with snapchat is that nothing is saved at all. One of its main selling points is that unlike Facebook messages, texts etc information sent through it is deleted a few seconds after the recipient opens it. So the police will be able to see who was talking to who and when, but not know what was said or sent.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bizzle2]

Nothing much has been answered with this case at all. My opinion is simply just that (an opinion) when it comes to the toxicology report.

Let's look at your analogy: Man killed by co-worker at work. Media is given information that the possibility of him having an affair is being investigated, and that is repeatedly reported for about 4.5 months, and that the results of that aren't quite solidified yet. Finally, 5 months later, it is reported that the results of whether or not he truly was having an affair is NOT going to be released, but the public can now rest assured that even if he were, that in fact did not cause his death.

What part of that was necessary in the first place? The only reason to have included ANY of it in the first place was to satisfy the maddening crowd temporarily. You know....because there is no threat to the public as long as you don't do the kind of things this guy POSSIBLY was doing. Whatever....

The thing that you are confusing is what the police said vs public speculation. Here is how it went: The media asks questions of police as to whether an overdose or other drug involvement was possible. The police answer with "We don't know, but we'll let you know when the toxicology reports get back." That's not fueling any speculation, it's just saying that they don't know if drugs were involved yet. And it would be silly of them to answer any other way before the tox reports are back. The media asked a question and LE answered it in the most politically correct way possible. After the media reported that the police were running toxicoloy reports there was some speculation by the public (probably some on here) that a drug overdose was possible. It is not the police's responsibility to control how the media reports something or how the public reacts to it.

And it is not uncommon at all for toxicology to be run on a dead body where the COD isn't obvious, in fact I would assume it is standard procedure. (Just like it is standard procedure to run toxicology in a fatal auto accident, even if there was nothing about the circumstances that indicated a driver was impaired.)

The only time the police ever said anything about drugs (other than when they said tox reports weren't back yet) was when they said at the news conference that he did not die of a drug overdose. That is all they have a responsibility to do. It's the same thing as the CI talk. The police never said anything about that until they mentioned at the news conference that he wasn't a CI. All the speculation about that being a possibility came from us. My point is this -- most of the speculation you refer to didn't come from the police, it all came from people like us.