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

[IBsleuthin]

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

I got that part, but I also learned that the unread messages are logged for 30 days. The police waited until FEBRUARY? Boooo.

Young, drunk, tired? Could have missed a message that would be crucial. Any communications now have been lost. Waiting until February? Not responsible, not acceptable.

Now of course, we will never know because it's all gone. POOF.

(SOOO thankful I'm too ugly to worry about Snapchat). Teach your kids to never send photos of themselves in their birthday suit. <------My birthday suit is too old. haaahaha

 

[human]

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.

There is a case on here from,MN. A missing child. Barway. It is very interesting what info is coming out about this situation that was held back originally.

LE seems to have some rabbits hidden and being shown now.

I am hoping that they have surprises with Thomas as well

 

[bizzle2]

There is a case on here from,MN. A missing child. Barway. It is very interesting what info is coming out about this situation that was held back originally.

LE seems to have some rabbits hidden and being shown now.

I am hoping that they have surprises with Thomas as well

From the most recent article:
"There have been a number of search warrants filed in the case, though it was possible some of them had been sealed from public view, he said.

Moorhead police Lt. Tory Jacobson said Friday he isn’t sure how many search warrants have been filed in Clay County District Court in the Bearson case. No publicly viewable search warrant affidavits have been filed in Clay County."

I think the key words there are "publicly viewable", and I'm guessing that has a lot to do with the public attention on this case. This tells me LE knows a heck of a lot more than they are letting on, and based on the concealment of the search warrants they don't want anyone to know they know it.

 

[CantNotCare]

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.

No, I am not confusing either. I didn’t specify drugs, if you read my initial post. Toxicology involves alcohol also.

This is NOT public speculation:

“Then, early in the morning on Sept. 12, Bearson was arrested for driving under the influence and minor in possession”

“He was pulled over shortly before 3 a.m. that morning in the 1300 block of 18th Street N. and blew a blood alcohol level of 0.181 percent in a breathalyzer test”

“He was unable to take two of the tests the officer tried to give him because his lack of balance made the officer concerned for his safety.”

“In the back of the squad car, Bearson had to buckle himself to keep from sliding, and he told the officer he thought they were driving when the car was stationary. He then vomited in the hallway of Sanford Medical Center and the booking room of Cass County Jail”

“He failed one field sobriety test, and because of his poor balance at the time, two others were not given for safety reasons”


The most commonly used “politically correct” statement by LE in this case has been “confirmation cannot be provided in order to not compromise this very active investigation”. But you say it would be “silly of them” ?? (LE) to answer any other way with toxicology? I disagree, it DID fuel speculation.
It is indeed standard procedure to run toxicology with an autopsy, but it is NOT standard procedure to inform the public of its occurrence, unless it becomes pertinent. Check other cases such as Hannah Graham for example.

 

[CantNotCare]

However, since the wheels of speculation were set in motion very early in this case, spilt milk....
Doesn't mean any of it means anything, in fact, every publication regarding this case has the feel of meaning very little to be honest, other than perhaps a "bait feel".

 

[IBsleuthin]

There is a case on here from,MN. A missing child. Barway. It is very interesting what info is coming out about this situation that was held back originally.

LE seems to have some rabbits hidden and being shown now.

I am hoping that they have surprises with Thomas as well

Is this an old/cold case? I will have to look this up! Thank you for this info.

 

[Rocco]

Is this an old/cold case? I will have to look this up! Thank you for this info.

No, it's not an old case. Here you go, my little butterfly:

http://www.startribune.com/local/north/297859631.html

 

[CantNotCare]

There is a case on here from,MN. A missing child. Barway. It is very interesting what info is coming out about this situation that was held back originally.

LE seems to have some rabbits hidden and being shown now.

I am hoping that they have surprises with Thomas as well

10th day since disappearance. Nice reward, I sure hope it helps, and this boy is found safe.

 

[bizzle2]

No, I am not confusing either. I didn’t specify drugs, if you read my initial post. Toxicology involves alcohol also.

This is NOT public speculation:

“Then, early in the morning on Sept. 12, Bearson was arrested for driving under the influence and minor in possession”

“He was pulled over shortly before 3 a.m. that morning in the 1300 block of 18th Street N. and blew a blood alcohol level of 0.181 percent in a breathalyzer test”

“He was unable to take two of the tests the officer tried to give him because his lack of balance made the officer concerned for his safety.”

“In the back of the squad car, Bearson had to buckle himself to keep from sliding, and he told the officer he thought they were driving when the car was stationary. He then vomited in the hallway of Sanford Medical Center and the booking room of Cass County Jail”

“He failed one field sobriety test, and because of his poor balance at the time, two others were not given for safety reasons”


The most commonly used “politically correct” statement by LE in this case has been “confirmation cannot be provided in order to not compromise this very active investigation”. But you say it would be “silly of them” ?? (LE) to answer any other way with toxicology? I disagree, it DID fuel speculation.
It is indeed standard procedure to run toxicology with an autopsy, but it is NOT standard procedure to inform the public of its occurrence, unless it becomes pertinent. Check other cases such as Hannah Graham for example.

You are correct that the inclusion of those facts in the article is not public speculation. That information was obtained by the writer of the article from a public records search. The writer is summarizing a police report from TB's DUI report on Sept 12, which the police have to file in every arrest. That info was in public records before his murder, and there is nothing the police can do to stop someone from obtaining it. The writer chose to include it in the article. Not any member of LE. I highly doubt that someone from LE contacted the writer and said "Hey, make sure you include info from the police report on Tom's DUI arrest in your article." Including that information was up to that media outlet alone, and not a decision made by LE. So if anyone is providing fuel for speculation there it would be the media.

That is something I notice on WS a lot -- posters will take info from media reports and see that as being from LE itself, which is not the case. The media can put any slant they want on any article they write! They choose which information to include and which to leave out. In this case, that particular media outlet chose to include that info about his DUI arrest in their article. I'm not saying I'm anti-media, because obviously most media outlets do great work in keeping the public informed on current events. But it is true that you have to consider the source of everything you read. There are three layers for the release of information: 1) LE 2) Media 3) General Public. As the general public we are the ones to get it last, so you have to be able to peel back the layers to tell where the information is coming from.

 

[CantNotCare]

You are correct that the inclusion of those facts in the article is not public speculation. That information was obtained by the writer of the article from a public records search. The writer is summarizing a police report from TB's DUI report on Sept 12, which the police have to file in every arrest. That info was in public records before his murder, and there is nothing the police can do to stop someone from obtaining it. The writer chose to include it in the article. Not any member of LE. I highly doubt that someone from LE contacted the writer and said "Hey, make sure you include info from the police report on Tom's DUI arrest in your article." Including that information was up to that media outlet alone, and not a decision made by LE. So if anyone is providing fuel for speculation there it would be the media.

That is something I notice on WS a lot -- posters will take info from media reports and see that as being from LE itself, which is not the case. The media can put any slant they want on any article they write! They choose which information to include and which to leave out. In this case, that particular media outlet chose to include that info about his DUI arrest in their article. I'm not saying I'm anti-media, because obviously most media outlets do great work in keeping the public informed on current events. But it is true that you have to consider the source of everything you read. There are three layers for the release of information: 1) LE 2) Media 3) General Public. As the general public we are the ones to get it last, so you have to be able to peel back the layers to tell where the information is coming from.

How can you be sure that the writer wasn't tipped off by NDSU to know to do a public records search, since the arrest was made by campus police? Tip-offs occur...and writers agree to keep that off record.
And...LE still could have not confirmed it (toxicology) like EVERYTHING else they are not confirming.

This below seems to have a concurrent theme, IMO:

http://www.valleynewslive.com/story/...ed-as-homicide

“Fargo Police tell Valley News Live they cannot comment on specifics of the case, but they feel there is no threat to the community at this time. Lt. Joel Vettel says there is no reason to believe people should be living in fear, and Fargo is still a safe place to live."

"Vettel did say there is a concern after these events. He realizes the first reaction for people might be shock and alarm. Adding people should have a heightened awareness."

"Both departments agree people should look out for their own safety.”



P.S. What I notice a lot is that some people think everything is always on the up and up (you know black and white thinking/no gray areas), when it is not always that way in real life. In real life, there are many, many layers. All depends on what needs protected, and often where the cash cow lies. Some People can even convince themselves that some things are okay because it is for a greater good. Spokespersons play an important role, it is "RISK management". Oh yeah, and then there was that campus video of Tom that was being currently viewed, but then couldn't be confirmed. And then the campus came to realize that they had no surveillance at all.
I did not come down in the last rain....(thank goodness).

 

[CantNotCare]

"Fargo is still a safe place to live"???

Well, let's see, I bet that wouldn't be Thomas Bearson's "take on it" if he could post on this thread.
So....whose view is that now?

 

[bizzle2]

How can you be sure that the writer wasn't tipped off by NDSU to know to do a public records search, since the arrest was made by campus police? Tip-offs occur...and writers agree to keep that off record.
And...LE still could have not confirmed it (toxicology) like EVERYTHING else they are not confirming.

This below seems to have a concurrent theme, IMO:

http://www.valleynewslive.com/story/...ed-as-homicide

&#8220;Fargo Police tell Valley News Live they cannot comment on specifics of the case, but they feel there is no threat to the community at this time. Lt. Joel Vettel says there is no reason to believe people should be living in fear, and Fargo is still a safe place to live."

"Vettel did say there is a concern after these events. He realizes the first reaction for people might be shock and alarm. Adding people should have a heightened awareness."

"Both departments agree people should look out for their own safety.&#8221;



P.S. What I notice a lot is that some people think everything is always on the up and up (you know black and white thinking/no gray areas), when it is not always that way in real life. In real life, there are many, many layers. All depends on what needs protected, and often where the cash cow lies. Some People can even convince themselves that some things are okay because it is for a greater good. Spokespersons play an important role, it is "RISK management". Oh yeah, and then there was that campus video of Tom that was being currently viewed, but then couldn't be confirmed. And then the campus came to realize that they had no surveillance at all.
I did not come down in the last rain....(thank goodness).

I can't be sure that someone wasn't tipped off about looking there, but I'm not going to assume that is the case with no evidence to support it. And I don't believe that everything is always on the up and up. There are definitely situations where the media and police are in bed together. That has happened before and sadly it will probably happen again. But the fact that it does happen doesn't mean it is the norm. Cases where corruption exists are outliers so we should always have them in the back of our mind, but we also shouldn't think we can automatically apply them to every situation when we get frustrated with the investigation. Too many good folks on WS could be putting their bright minds to better use, but instead many seem to assume that if they aren't getting the answers they want then there must be corruption somewhere along the line.

If I were tasked with writing an article about Tom's life (as was the writer in the article you quoted) I would probably do a public records search. It's free, super fast, and gives me info for my story. I don't think there is anything out of the ordinary about doing that.

Reporters/writers/law enforcement are no different than accountants, waitresses, truck drivers and doctors. There are a few bad apples in the bunch, but as a whole they are just like the rest of us...they just want to do an honest job the best they can, have dinner with their family, and relax on the weekends. The bad apples will never go away, but that doesn't mean we should stop picking apples.

 

[CantNotCare]

I can't be sure that someone wasn't tipped off about looking there, but I'm not going to assume that is the case with no evidence to support it. And I don't believe that everything is always on the up and up. There are definitely situations where the media and police are in bed together. That has happened before and sadly it will probably happen again. But the fact that it does happen doesn't mean it is the norm. Cases where corruption exists are outliers so we should always have them in the back of our mind, but we also shouldn't think we can automatically apply them to every situation when we get frustrated with the investigation. Too many good folks on WS could be putting their bright minds to better use, but instead many seem to assume that if they aren't getting the answers they want then there must be corruption somewhere along the line.

If I were tasked with writing an article about Tom's life (as was the writer in the article you quoted) I would probably do a public records search. It's free, super fast, and gives me info for my story. I don't think there is anything out of the ordinary about doing that.

Reporters/writers/law enforcement are no different than accountants, waitresses, truck drivers and doctors. There are a few bad apples in the bunch, but as a whole they are just like the rest of us...they just want to do an honest job the best they can, have dinner with their family, and relax on the weekends. The bad apples will never go away, but that doesn't mean we should stop picking apples.

I am not discussing the norm. I just definitely consider the source of anything that I read.
You have no idea how thankful I am that I am able to do an honest job the best that I can, have dinner with my family, and relax on the weekends&#8230;.and don&#8217;t currently have to worry about having a son or daughter living there or going to college there right now.
I know that others exist doing that same thing. Thank goodness.
Personally I have put my good mind to use (and there are a few others along with me, we work together) gathering a lot of information that we have found that could or does pertain to this case. Just because it isn&#8217;t all shared on here, doesn&#8217;t necessarily mean it isn&#8217;t happening. Of course, law enforcement and media are in that same boat. I have known that from day one.
This conversation began in regards to toxicology tests on this case not being released. I have never believed Tom&#8217;s death was related to anything a toxicology report could provide anyway. We were already provided with the fact early on that he died from homicidal violence. My original post on this subject was comparing it to other cases where toxicology isn&#8217;t even mentioned (although often performed of course), and how this case seems to differ in that regard. I pay attention to details such as that.

 

[IBsleuthin]

No, it's not an old case. Here you go, my little butterfly:

http://www.startribune.com/local/north/297859631.html

THANK YOU SO MUCH, I just can't thank you enough for providing this link. Thank you.

 

[Fargo7]

"Fargo is still a safe place to live"???

Well, let's see, I bet that wouldn't be Thomas Bearson's "take on it" if he could post on this thread.
So....whose view is that now?

Well I do live in Fargo and I think most other Fargo residents agree its safe place to live. The Metro area is about 225K so there is bound to be some crime. To label a city un-safe because of one murder is not fair. By that logic 99% of cities in the USA would be unsafe.

 

[CantNotCare]

Well I do live in Fargo and I think most other Fargo residents agree its safe place to live. The Metro area is about 225K so there is bound to be some crime. To label a city un-safe because of one murder is not fair. By that logic 99% of cities in the USA would be unsafe.

It's good you feel that way, very glad to hear that. Nobody should have to live in fear.
Lt. Joel Vettel probably just wanted to assure others that might not feel that way, and to help make sure that Fargo isn't labeled as un-safe.

 

[Justiceforall99]

I don't think it matters what city/town/area you live in... you should always have some level of heightened awareness. Be aware of your surroundings and pay attention. Strange things can happen any where at any time.
From my experience, people in ND are trusting people. Too trusting at times.
Also I think it is just strange that we are now just hearing about the Snapchat account. Why did they choose to release THIS snippet of information to share with us? I already assumed all his phone/social media/snapchat was being looked into. So why do you think they actually decided to tell us about this, when in the end, we really don't know what they found out anyway???

 

[CantNotCare]

Also I think it is just strange that we are now just hearing about the Snapchat account. Why did they choose to release THIS snippet of information to share with us? I already assumed all his phone/social media/snapchat was being looked into. So why do you think they actually decided to tell us about this, when in the end, we really don't know what they found out anyway???

This echos my thoughts....first the car, then the snapchat.
Could be completely off base, but it DOESN'T give me the impression that the information is being put out with JUST the intention to provide information on how the case is progressing. It seems like it is meant specifically for someone(s) who would know what these things mean to them (LE).
Despite the missed timelines, and snapchats supposed deletion schedule, this comment in the article stood out to me "police received the information they wanted from the search warrant which included usage logs from Bearson&#8217;s Snapchat account&#8221;

 

[CantNotCare]

"the account for “seetommyb23” was linked to Bearson’s email and phone number. However, Snapchat informed Fargo police it only releases the contents of an account in response to a search warrant."

I wonder if separate search warrants are required by these social media companies for any accounts that might have sent something to Tom?

 

[CantNotCare]

"the account for &#8220;seetommyb23&#8221; was linked to Bearson&#8217;s email and phone number. However, Snapchat informed Fargo police it only releases the contents of an account in response to a search warrant."

I wonder if separate search warrants are required by these social media companies for any accounts that might have sent something to Tom?

"There have been a number of search warrants filed in the case"

"he isn&#8217;t sure how many search warrants have been filed in Clay County District Court"

Could some involve out of the area?

"investigators have received a lot of voluntary cooperation from members of the public, which often removes the necessity for law enforcement to seek search warrants."

Sounds like perhaps there are voluntary cooperators and some not?