TX TX - Brandon Lawson, 26, San Angelo, 8 Aug 2013 - #3

[Balor51]

iReport is like Wikipedia. Anyone can edit it to say anything.

*Unless specifically indicated, all opinions are my own. *

Thank you for letting me know RW & SavetheQueen, I had no idea it is like wikki. Uggggg! :facepalm:

 

[Psychic Sleuth]

I did not realize the use of the word 'fugitive' came from a DPS (Ranger) press release. I thought it came from a reporter just being overly dramatic. IMO it has more weight since it was on an official press release and is an interesting choice of words.

Fugitive: a person who has escaped from a place or is in hiding, esp. to avoid arrest or persecution.

 

[Psychic Sleuth]

Here is the missing person forms that are completed and sent to the Texas Dept of Public Safety. It looks to me like the 'complainant' (LL?) would fill these forms out. There is no check box for voluntary missing. (an adult can go missing of their own free will)

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/internetforms/Forms/MP-4.pdf

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/internetforms/Forms/MP-3.pdf

 

[Psychic Sleuth]

From the same website as above TDPS

“Missing Person” means a person 18 years of age
or older whose disappearance is possibly not
voluntary. A“Missing Person” also includes a
person of any age who is missing and is:

I'm seeing lots of discussion about the fact that B is listed as INVOLUNTARY MISSING on the TDPS website. There is no option for VOLUNTARY MISSING because an adult can be voluntary missing if they so choose. So if I'm understanding it correctly it would be the family/friend who initiates this report.

 

[Psychic Sleuth]

I wonder if this is the same neighbor that B supposedly called that night saying he was being chased at Walmart?

According to Lori Norris, Brandon Lawson and Ladessa Lofton’s neighbor, the Sherriff’s Deputies asked Kyle Lawson if he was the one who had made the call, and Kyle stated that the vehicle was his brother’s and that he must have stepped away. Kyle Lawson would gas it up and his brother would return to retrieve it.

http://sanangelolive.com/news/2013-09-24/missing-dead-or-run-where-brandon-lawson

 

[Mrs.g]

I hit the triangle in my post... No response.

 

[TxLady2]

I can see that, then again they may think that it would be easy to do a show like that. It is not, I have heard stories on how tough Dr Phil is and his staff. And he has no problem getting in people's faces and calling them on bs.

Maybe NG would be a good alternative for them, then again NG likes drama and hollywood type of a show. I am not a fan of NG.

I wish disappeared would come back on, there are so many cases I would have loved to seen on there, plus updates were needed on several they had on there.

Are you talking about the tv show, Disappeared? It is still on, I saw it on the list last night, I believe on the Discovery channel. It may just be reruns right now, but they have not taken it off completely, I don't think.

 

[Coldpizza]

I'm not a mod and don't want to imply that I am! But I believe we can speculate that he's on the run...he does have outstanding warrants, that's one fact we have, so it's a possibility (though I don't believe it's the case). I think we just can't bring the fam into it...

This is correct^

Unless LE names a suspect in the disappearance of Brandon the family and or friends are off limits. That's the way we roll here and those are the rules.

 

[Coldpizza]

I hit the triangle in my post... No response.

All of the mods and admin are volunteers with real lives. We may not always get here as quickly as wanted.

 

[Ranch Wife]

Let's break this down..... There are basically 3 possibilities in this case.

1. BL became disoriented in the brush and is still there and has not been found.
Each of the numerous LE searches and the TexSAR search makes this a less likely possibility. Due to the rough terrain, something of BL's (scraps of clothes, etc.) should have been found if he was actually running through brush in the dark.

2. BL is voluntarily missing with the assistance of others.
Statements made by those there that night, if true, point to this as being the case - at least during the time LE was on the scene.

3. BL was abducted by persons unknown.
The 911 call leaves this impression if it wasn't known that BL called and spoke with family and friends following the 911 call.

 

[pendyjo]

I did not realize the use of the word 'fugitive' came from a DPS (Ranger) press release. I thought it came from a reporter just being overly dramatic. IMO it has more weight since it was on an official press release and is an interesting choice of words.

Fugitive: a person who has escaped from a place or is in hiding, esp. to avoid arrest or persecution.

Could you provide the link to that press release? I have only seen that on that article on SanAngeloLive and Moo- that article was poorly written/confusing. It was nothing but quotes that didn't state who made the quote . My opinion only but I don't put much faith in articles like that. There have been many comments with the same question/ concern I have about that article and even the reporter stated that herself. It doesn't make sense if TxDPS has him "involuntary" and then implying that he is a fugitive possibly on the run.

 

[Kimster]

Can I respectively ask the admins some questions here?

1) "LE was with them at the site where Brandon went missing."
It hasn't been verified by LE to the public that this spot was in fact where he went missing from. As far as the general public knows, we have a great uncertainty where exactly he disappeared from. That's one of the big mysteries of this case.

2) "It has been reported that Brandon was on the phone with them in the presence of LE."
It is only heresay that this is true. LE hasn't verified this one way or the other to the public, either. To our (the public) knowledge, all we have to go on is the word of the family and the media.

Since I'm very new to this at WS, I'm asking how we are supposed to help and develop ideas if such strict limits are placed on what we are allowed to discuss? LE considers everyone close to a victim to be persons of interest whether they formally announce it or not, and they are not necessarily going to tell everything to the public. So why are we limited on who we can discuss as long as we are not bashing them, and are only using them in possible scenarios? I, personally, consider Brandon the victim if we are going to name people as such. If family members show a public and known history of being hostile, if you will, then I, personally, don't see them as victims as all.

As for having to stick to discussing only the bare bones facts of this situation, then I take the two things I have mentioned that the admin posted as not allowed since they have not, without any doubts, been verified or substantiated by LE to the public.

So what exactly is it we can talk about? I'm not trying to be catty or ugly. I'm merely asking for the admins to see our side.

*Unless specifically indicated, all opinions are my own. *

I'm not up to date on this particular case and Salem isn't online at this time, but here's our policy on sleuthing people who aren't named in cases:

Victim Friendly

Websleuths is a victim friendly forum. Attacking or bashing a victim is not allowed. Discussing victim behavior, good or bad is fine, but do so in a civil and constructive way and ONLY IF IT IS RELEVANT TO THE CASE. Additionally, sleuthing family members that are not suspect is not allowed. Don't make random accusations or post personal information (even if it is public) like parking tickets, address, or first and last names of all their relatives and their neighbors. Also, never "bash" or attack them, or accuse them of involvement. However that does not mean that family members cannot come into discussion as the facts and issues of the case are discussed.

Rules Etiquette & Information - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community


Salem may add more to your question as time allows. :tyou:

 

[PokeyMeansBusiness]

I'm not up to date on this particular case and Salem isn't online at this time, but here's our policy on sleuthing people who aren't named in cases:

Victim Friendly

Websleuths is a victim friendly forum. Attacking or bashing a victim is not allowed. Discussing victim behavior, good or bad is fine, but do so in a civil and constructive way and ONLY IF IT IS RELEVANT TO THE CASE. Additionally, sleuthing family members that are not suspect is not allowed. Don't make random accusations or post personal information (even if it is public) like parking tickets, address, or first and last names of all their relatives and their neighbors. Also, never "bash" or attack them, or accuse them of involvement. However that does not mean that family members cannot come into discussion as the facts and issues of the case are discussed.

Rules Etiquette & Information - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community


Salem may add more to your question as time allows. :tyou:

Thank you Kimster! This clears some ambiguity up.

Also - I think our admins need to be aware that LL is not BL's wife. She is his girlfriend. Therefore, the above rule regarding family members should not apply to her. Please let me know if you disagree. I am just interpreting the rule as I see it.

 

[Kimster]

Thank you Kimster! This clears some ambiguity up.

Also - I think our admins need to be aware that LL is not BL's wife. She is his girlfriend. Therefore, the above rule regarding family members should not apply to her. Please let me know if you disagree. I am just interpreting the rule as I see it.

This rule applies to loved ones.

I've been on this site for many years. If we had been allowing the sleuthing of all people surrounding the victims in all these cases during those years, many many innocent people's reputations would be damaged. That's why we have this rule in place. These are real people.

 

[Salem]

Can I respectively ask the admins some questions here?

1) "LE was with them at the site where Brandon went missing."
It hasn't been verified by LE to the public that this spot was in fact where he went missing from. As far as the general public knows, we have a great uncertainty where exactly he disappeared from. That's one of the big mysteries of this case.

2) "It has been reported that Brandon was on the phone with them in the presence of LE."
It is only heresay that this is true. LE hasn't verified this one way or the other to the public, either. To our (the public) knowledge, all we have to go on is the word of the family and the media.

Since I'm very new to this at WS, I'm asking how we are supposed to help and develop ideas if such strict limits are placed on what we are allowed to discuss? LE considers everyone close to a victim to be persons of interest whether they formally announce it or not, and they are not necessarily going to tell everything to the public. So why are we limited on who we can discuss as long as we are not bashing them, and are only using them in possible scenarios? I, personally, consider Brandon the victim if we are going to name people as such. If family members show a public and known history of being hostile, if you will, then I, personally, don't see them as victims as all.

As for having to stick to discussing only the bare bones facts of this situation, then I take the two things I have mentioned that the admin posted as not allowed since they have not, without any doubts, been verified or substantiated by LE to the public.

So what exactly is it we can talk about? I'm not trying to be catty or ugly. I'm merely asking for the admins to see our side.

*Unless specifically indicated, all opinions are my own. *

I will answer this in the thread, but in the future, moderation questions should be addressed by sending a pm to the mod/admin.

WS is a victim friendly site and family is considered a victim unless LE/MSM tell us otherwise. WS bases it's sleuthing on MSM and LE reports. If LE hasn't said otherwise, we go with what is in MSM.

What can you talk about? The point is to try to help. You can put maps together that may help with searches. You can discuss what is in MSM and the few facts that are known. You can speculate as long as it is based on the facts available and does not involve accusing others.

Hope this helps and if you have further questions, please pm a Mod or Admin.

Thanks,

Salem

 

[Ranch Wife]

Could you provide the link to that press release? I have only seen that on that article on SanAngeloLive and Moo- that article was poorly written/confusing. It was nothing but quotes that didn't state who made the quote . My opinion only but I don't put much faith in articles like that. There have been many comments with the same question/ concern I have about that article and even the reporter stated that herself. It doesn't make sense if TxDPS has him "involuntary" and then implying that he is a fugitive possibly on the run.

I don't have a link. Anything you see in quotes - IS QUOTING THE PRESS RELEASE they were emailed by DPS.

 

[Psychic Sleuth]

I don't think I've read this article before (although some of you may have). But this BBM sentence is interesting and false according to what we know. The 911 call was NOT the last B was heard from because he was communicating with K and A AFTER the 911 call.

The last Lawson was heard from was a 9-1-1 call during which Lawson told dispatchers he had run out of gas in a field headed toward Abilene. He requested police assistance before the call was cut off.

http://www.bigcountryhomepage.com/s...ers-will-spark-n/13945/LpyuY-HupkWiQYXO2e98jw

 

[Psychic Sleuth]

I don't have a link. Anything you see in quotes - IS QUOTING THE PRESS RELEASE they were emailed by DPS.

It's in quotes and the reporter does clearly state it was an emailed press release from the DPS down at the bottom in the comments. Thank you for helping to clear this up! I think people are looking for this statement on the DPS website and can't find it, which would make sense if it was emailed rather than posted on their website. Here it is from Sanangelolive

The Texas DPS, Texas Rangers and the Coke County Sheriff are reinvigorating the search for Brandon Lawson, according to a press release.

It reads:

"At approximately 12:50 a.m. on August 9, 2013, the Coke County Sheriff's Office received a 911 call from an individual believed to be Brandon Mason Lawson. The caller indicated he was on U.S. 277 between Bronte and Abilene. The Coke County Sheriff’s Office responded to the area north of Bronte and was unable to locate the caller. A short time later, Lawson’s abandoned vehicle was found parked partially in the roadway approximately four miles south of Bronte on U.S. 277, but Lawson was not located.

"Lawson is a fugitive with outstanding felony warrants from Johnson County. He has not been in touch with his common-law wife or family. The Coke County Sheriff’s Office and the Texas Rangers are conducting an investigation into Lawson’s disappearance.

"In all, seven separate searches have been conducted by various law enforcement agencies between August 2013 and February 2014 as part of this investigation, including ground and aerial searches. These searches include the area of the abandoned vehicle, as well as all areas associated with cell phone activity, and one of the searches covered approximately 2,000 acres.

"The investigation into the disappearance of Brandon Lawson is ongoing, and anyone with information pertaining to the disappearance of Lawson is encouraged to contact the Coke County Sheriff’s Office (325-453-2717) or the Texas Rangers (325-223-6840).

http://sanangelolive.com/news/crime/2014-03-03/investigation-ongoing-brandon-lawson-case

 

[Psychic Sleuth]

Let's break this down..... There are basically 3 possibilities in this case.

1. BL became disoriented in the brush and is still there and has not been found.
Each of the numerous LE searches and the TexSAR search makes this a less likely possibility. Due to the rough terrain, something of BL's (scraps of clothes, etc.) should have been found if he was actually running through brush in the dark.

2. BL is voluntarily missing with the assistance of others.
Statements made by those there that night, if true, point to this as being the case - at least during the time LE was on the scene.

3. BL was abducted by persons unknown.
The 911 call leaves this impression if it wasn't known that BL called and spoke with family and friends following the 911 call.

I agree. But the 3rd one should read abducted and/or harmed. I realize he was communicating with family AFTER he made the 911 call and it's at the bottom of my list of options but it's still an option IMO. The person unknown could have eventually caught back up with him. Did K and A say B mentioned being chased, attacked, followed or was running from anyone other than the law? Did B tell K and A he called 911?

I guess even if he is on the run with the help of loved ones this is not an option we can discuss openly here due to TOS? This is where my confusion with TOS is. I know we can't openly accuse family/loved ones of harming the MP (even if it's quite obvious) but can we discuss loved ones helping the MP go on the run from the law?

 

[Balor51]

Are you talking about the tv show, Disappeared? It is still on, I saw it on the list last night, I believe on the Discovery channel. It may just be reruns right now, but they have not taken it off completely, I don't think.

They still run the reruns on discovery ID, but they have stopped making them. I thought at one time on another case/thread that someone had posted a news link that they would not be making anymore. No idea why, I do think the show brought a lot of MP's into the media so much more.