Found Deceased NE - Sydney Loofe, 24, Lincoln, 15 Nov 2017 #2

[Yougottabekiddingme]

I believe that November 20th is also the same day the warrant was filed. So the date range is that the warrant alleges Aubrey was in continuous possession of a firearm from September 1st through the warrant being filed. I don't think it indicates that LE knew at that time whether or not Aubrey was still in possession of the firearm.

Ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding

 

[Yougottabekiddingme]

Maybe they found a gun buried in the back yard, not a phone. :crying:

In all likelihood, during the early investigative process, AT was already raising flags....sifting through his transactions, they found that he purchased a gun. Might be a 16th century musket for all we know. It's a violation of his parole nonetheless. LE used that to legitimize commencement of his apprehension, just as they used a BS bench warrant to do likewise for BB.

 

[HuskerGal]

That is entirely possible. I think AT was less than truthful when he made the videos, but in the first video, I believe, he said (not exact) that the warrant (for possession of the firearm) came about because a weapon was found. He claimed he didn't have a gun in his house.

AT also claimed that LE searched the apartment in Wilber. This would have been around the 20th, I believe. I don't know the exact date, and am only going by what AT said in the video. He's not exactly a reliable source.

The house was searched on the 19th.



Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

 

[molly1255]

Ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding

The first warrant was filed on November 21, then was withdrawn and re-filed. I believe they re-filed to add bond to the warrant. Numerous other news sources also state November 21 as the date the initial warrant was filed.

http://www.omaha.com/news/crime/peo...cle_9ba83d38-d528-11e7-84dc-f394e3cf8f8b.html


http://www.starherald.com/news/regi...cle_935423f0-61dd-5864-a22e-c36211ce5b40.html

 

[Yougottabekiddingme]

The first warrant was filed on November 21, then was withdrawn and re-filed. I believe they re-filed to add bond to the warrant. Numerous other news sources also state November 21 as the date the initial warrant was filed.

http://www.omaha.com/news/crime/people-described-as-persons-of-interest-in-lincoln-woman-s/article_9ba83d38-
d528-11e7-84dc-f394e3cf8f8b.html


http://www.starherald.com/news/regi...cle_935423f0-61dd-5864-a22e-c36211ce5b40.html

Explanation of date still stands

 

[Hatfield]

AT said they were on the phone to LE for 3 hours on the 22nd. And LE told Katie she should go home as it was dangerous for her. Perhaps Katie phoned LE under instruction of AT and BB? Katie may have later told LE he got rid of the gun and where/how on the 20th. AT said they took her home on the 22nd. Was she some sort of hostage perhaps? AJMO

Been following along and reading up on the case.

Im really confused about this alleged other person "Katie". Im not sure she existed but if she did then it seems LE would be speaking with her to get whatever information they can from her.

I almost wonder if Katie was really Sydney and maybe LE was calling Sydney telling her she needs to leave them because she was in danger.

So much about those videos they made seem like just a way to try to convince people they had nothing to do with it. It doesnt make any sense because the public cannot help them become innocent. Only them working with a laywer could do that so not sure what they were trying to accomplish with the videos. Unless they had visions of themselves as a Bonnie and Clyde duo and thought the public would support them or something. All it seemed to accomplish was put more of a target on their backs.

 

[molly1255]

In all likelihood, during the early investigative process, AT was already raising flags....sifting through his transactions, they found that he purchased a gun. Might be a 16th century musket for all we know. It's a violation of his parole nonetheless. LE used that to legitimize commencement of his apprehension, just as they used a BS bench warrant to do likewise for BB.

In all likelihood, LE may have found AT's gun when they searched his house.

 

[Yougottabekiddingme]

In all likelihood, LE may have found AT's gun when they searched his house.

More likely that they found the receipt during that search, dated 9/1.

 

[molly1255]

More likely that they found the receipt during that search, dated 9/1.

Or ran the serial number on the gun and tracked it that way. It will be interesting to find out what really happened.

 

[Yougottabekiddingme]

Or ran the serial number on the gun and tracked it that way. It will be interesting to find out what really happened.

Agreed...but I just don't think they have the gun. If they do, and they found it in the apartment, then I don't think it's connected to the crime at all. They were out there looking for something. I think if they've had the gun since 11/20 and it's the murder weapon, we'd have seen charges by now. I strongly believe the gun was just a pawn to secure a warrant, nothing more. I'm betting it was an antique, somehow acquired in the course of their "business". A firearm is a firearm - and I think his possession of this one was used to secure a warrant.

 

[molly1255]

Hopefully we will find out whether LE actually has the gun and how SL died. I don't think the gun was an antique as antique guns in Nebraska are exempt from state firearm laws. I think AT could have legally possessed an antique gun, even though he is a felon, if the gun meets the definition of an antique.

I think the gun in question is a modern-day gun because of the warrant. I agree the warrant enabled LE to arrest him and bring him back to Nebraska.

The only thing I feel certain of is that he had a gun and LE can somehow tie his possession of the gun to a specific time-frame and the later part of that time-frame falls right into the time that SL disappeared.

Do we know what date AT and BB left Wilber for good? If it was the 20th, and LE had possession of the gun by that time, perhaps that is how they know AT was no longer in possession of the firearm on November 20?

I don't know and I am speculating. I hope we learn the details.

 

[taurus79]

Hopefully we will find out whether LE actually has the gun and how SL died. I don't think the gun was an antique as antique guns in Nebraska are exempt from state firearm laws. I think AT could have legally possessed an antique gun, even though he is a felon, if the gun meets the definition of an antique.

I think the gun in question is a modern-day gun because of the warrant. I agree the warrant enabled LE to arrest him and bring him back to Nebraska.

The only thing I feel certain of is that he had a gun and LE can somehow tie his possession of the gun to a specific time-frame and the later part of that time-frame falls right into the time that SL disappeared.

Do we know what date AT and BB left Wilber for good? If it was the 20th, and LE had possession of the gun by that time, perhaps that is how they know AT was no longer in possession of the firearm on November 20?

I don't know and I am speculating. I hope we learn the details.

I had considered the gun possibly being an antique at first but I think it wasn't. As far as when they actually left Wilber, that's a good question. I know in one of the crazy videos AT said something about being back there 4 times at some point but he isn't all that honest, imo.

The other things I found interesting when I went back and listened to the Nov 30th presser . . .

12 mins- Lincoln Police Chief gave a description of the warrants. Reporter said, "But nothing Sydney related?" The chief said , "That is correct." Then he went onto to explain why AT & BB are POI.


15mins - Saline County Sheriff's statement as to the question whether AT's firearm warrant was changed or updated at all ... "The activity on that warrant yesterday was more of the sealed nature as far as sealing the information that we have in the affidavit in that warrant so the actual warrant did not change."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sh2XJUDUEBU

Based on those statements above, it seems to me that the "source" of information for the affidavit is the main thing being protected by the sealing. I suppose source could mean all kinds of things, including witnesses, maybe even Katie if she is real. As far as whether the firearm really is or isn't Sydney related, we are yet to learn.


It appears that the possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited person covers all types of weapons. Due to all the info that has been withheld thus far, I am surprised that they told the public it was in fact a gun.Below is an image of the warrant posted to Twitter on Nov 28th, by a channel 1011 news anchor: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DPv221hVAAA9xYJ.jpg

 

[cvaldez1975]

im betting that even if antique guns are exempt from NE firearm laws, that felons still aren't supposed to possess them.

 

[molly1255]

Thank you for posting the warrant. Very interesting.

 

[taurus79]

im betting that even if antique guns are exempt from NE firearm laws, that felons still aren't supposed to possess them.

I am not too sure on NE but in Iowa felons can't posses them at all. A permit is not needed to buy antiques so more or less it protects the seller. Any guns, legally owned, and even antiques will get someone in more trouble, if they are present during the commission of felony. Several years ago a buddy of mine got caught with drugs in his house. His antique guns (not operable at all) were used to enhance his charges and he didn't have a criminal history prior to that.

 

[Oregonmama]

Is AT a POI in any other case?

 

[GoJacks]

He says it's a pistol in one of the videos right? He says something like "let's talk about the pistol found so I don't look like a liar..."

 

[taurus79]

He says it's a pistol in one of the videos right? He says something like "let's talk about the pistol found so I don't look like a liar..."

HA! He certainly does say pistol in his second video at 5 mins 52 seconds. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baKymqwUL2Y

Yeah, the other interesting thing is in the first video, which can be found at the same channel as the above link, he's talking about knowing about the warrant for possession of the firearm. Clearly the warrant says "Deadly Weapon" and then listed various things. So He went straight to saying it was a gun.

Even in this 1011 article from the 28th it doesn't specify what type of weapon. I could be wrong but I don't think I heard LE verbally confirm that it was a firearm until the Nov 30th presser.

http://www.knopnews2.com/content/news/Missing-Lnk-womans-family-actively-searching-asking-for-publics-help-459042073.html

 

[molly1255]

I am not too sure on NE but in Iowa felons can't posses them at all. A permit is not needed to buy antiques so more or less it protects the seller. Any guns, legally owned, and even antiques will get someone in more trouble, if they are present during the commission of felony. Several years ago a buddy of mine got caught with drugs in his house. His antique guns (not operable at all) were used to enhance his charges and he didn't have a criminal history prior to that.

I looked a little further into NE law (I am not a lawyer) and it appears that an antique gun (manufactured prior to 1898, etc) does not require all of the paperwork, background check, etc. as a modern gun requires.

In looking further, however, it appears the Nebraska legislature defines a firearm, as it pertains to felons, as basically any firearm that is 18" longer or less. It is possible tthe antique firearm exception to Nebraska firearm law does not apply to felons.

 

[CookieM]

Not sure if this has been posted yet. Some interesting details about BB and AT.

http://www.omaha.com/news/crime/iow...cle_ffc98ee9-8c40-52ae-96b1-a46a429f3490.html