TX TX - Caleb Harris, 21, Texas A&M University student, Corpus Christi, 4 Mar 2024 #2

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
annpats said:
It doesn't make sure anyone's "safe" though, does it?

It just shares a location.

Big difference!
Click to expand...
No, but it sure helps for someone to know where you might be if you do need help.

We have a family group text with our kids just for sports chatter, silly memes, or meet us at XYZ restaurant. And we are all on a family locator with 3 of our 4. They are all over 18. Only the oldest opted out for himself - but get this, he stayed on to be able to see all of US, lol, we just can't see him. When #2 graduated college I figured he would take himself off but he didn't. Our 'kids' are more concerned about what we're doing than we are them, lol!

Our youngest 2 are in colleges out of state or 6 hours away. We don't micromanage them. But they do watch out for each other.

The only time we even really check to see where they might be is if we have texted or called and didn't receive a response. They're usually just out & busy or home asleep.

This is not out of the norm these days. Like Caleb's family, almost every single one of our friends & their families have a similar arrangement with their minor or college age children.
 
Last edited:
txsleuth70 said:
I put it into my DoorDash just now. The 3 items come to $12.67, delivery fee $2.99, fees and tax $4.54 for a total of $20.20 before a tip. Still doesn't make sense that he wouldn't have just stopped at QT for those things on his way to wherever he planned to fish. JMO
Click to expand...
Maybe for the same reason you ordered $12.67 worth of food and paid $20.20 plus tax (maybe approx 10 % approx. 22.50 on $12.67? Moo
 
  • Like
Reactions: PNW
None of Caleb's friends/family has expressed any question or surprise about the food order, have they? The roommates only thought it was odd when they found his food the next morning? That tells me neither the use of a delivery service nor the order itself are questionable (differing ideas about spending & budget & grocery shopping aside). To me, the question is - did he decide to wait outside and something unexpected happened, or did he just say he was going to wait outside to pre-splain going out for another reason. JMO.
 
SMK777 said:
So if he’d taken off to start a new life, or if he’d been robbed, you’d expect ATM or other activity.
Click to expand...
If he was robbed for his phone, it wasn't a very sophisticated criminal. Anytime the phone is turned on, there will be a 'ping' and a new lead for detectives to investigate. (You have to wonder if LE is intentionally holding back info on 'new' pings that have occurred since Caleb's disappearance).

Personally, I'm not a fan of this scenario as I find it more likely that Caleb knew the person, and if anything nefarious happened to him that night, I think Caleb's phone would have been tossed.
 
SMK777 said:
SBM
Since it was a contactless drop off, I think the latter is more probable than the former.
Click to expand...
I understand that perspective but personally don't see the contactless drop off as an indicator. I always choose contactless but typically go to the door and/or step outside (all buildings in my neighborhood look the same and some drivers have difficulty finding the correct driveway & door.) I'd especially do so if I had sleeping roommates and/or a dog that might hear & bark if someone approached my door. Like you, I lean toward CH using the delivery as a "cover" for going out; this just isn't one of the reasons I draw that conclusion. JMO.
 
GeorgiaRai said:
I understand that perspective but personally don't see the contactless drop off as an indicator. I always choose contactless but typically go to the door and/or step outside (all buildings in my neighborhood look the same and some drivers have difficulty finding the correct driveway & door.) I'd especially do so if I had sleeping roommates and/or a dog that might hear & bark if someone approached my door. Like you, I lean toward CH using the delivery as a "cover" for going out; this just isn't one of the reasons I draw that conclusion. JMO.
Click to expand...
Just can't see that being used as a cover. Picking up his food outside the door doesn't give him enough time to use it as an excuse for being out.

It literally takes 2 seconds to open the door to pick up the food sack. These delivery drivers don't need people to meet them in parking lots. Delivery instructions are provided in the app, and the driver and customer can text within the app if there is an issue.

Besides, these kids don't care what their roommates are doing or not doing. And they don't check in with each other when coming or going. Yes, CH's roomies got concerned the next morning when his truck was at home but he wasn't. But otherwise, they don't keep tabs on each other.
 
txsleuth70 said:
Just can't see that being used as a cover. Picking up his food outside the door doesn't give him enough time to use it as an excuse for being out.

It literally takes 2 seconds to open the door to pick up the food sack. These delivery drivers don't need people to meet them in parking lots. Delivery instructions are provided in the app, and the driver and customer can text within the app if there is an issue.

Besides, these kids don't care what their roommates are doing or not doing. And they don't check in with each other when coming or going. Yes, CH's roomies got concerned the next morning when his truck was at home but he wasn't. But otherwise, they don't keep tabs on each other.
Click to expand...
Yes, I think if he turned his phone off at 3:12 AM it was to keep parents from seeing the movement.
 
txsleuth70 said:
Just can't see that being used as a cover. Picking up his food outside the door doesn't give him enough time to use it as an excuse for being out.

It literally takes 2 seconds to open the door to pick up the food sack. These delivery drivers don't need people to meet them in parking lots. Delivery instructions are provided in the app, and the driver and customer can text within the app if there is an issue.

Besides, these kids don't care what their roommates are doing or not doing. And they don't check in with each other when coming or going. Yes, CH's roomies got concerned the next morning when his truck was at home but he wasn't. But otherwise, they don't keep tabs on each other.
Click to expand...
Seems he would've or at least could've been tracking his delivery driver, and knew when he stepped outside that the arrival wasn't imminent. I wouldn't find it mysterious that he choose to wait outside; there are a lot of reasons one might opt to do so. As for not caring, it appears his roommate did announce when he was going to bed, and Caleb did tell someone he was going outside to wait for his delivery. Whether that was the whole truth or not, I don't think anyone knows yet for sure, but to me, it indicates at least some level of caring/sharing of info between them. JMO.

ETA: by "cover" I mean he had an excuse to be seen/heard going out the door so nobody would wonder or come to investigate; they'd be asleep or back to sleep whenever he decided to return. Had Caleb returned (after receiving his delivery OR after a quick meet-up with someone), nobody would've been any the wise.
 
TIGER0822 said:
appears that the Police may have omitted a critical aspect from their timeline. That being that CH brought the puppy back inside shortly after 3am, and then came back outside, (per his Dad, link to the article below). The Police included events before and after him going inside in the timeline.

*Missing: Shortly after 3am CH brought the dog inside , and then came and came back outside again.
- At 3.12am his phone went silent.
why not mention CH going back inside and coming out again?
I watched the video, another room mate had picked up the puppy to bring it inside. It is unusual that a person would want to play longer with a puppy at 3am. My thoughts are he wanted to be outside without his roommates and used that as an excuse.
appears that the Police may have omitted a critical aspect from their timeline. That being that CH brought the puppy back inside shortly after 3am, and then went back outside, (per his Dad, link to the article below). The Police included events before and after him going inside in the timeline.
Time Line:
- 2.20am the second roommate went to bed.
- 2.44am CH shared a snapshot of him walking the puppy.
- 3:03am he sent a snapshot to a friend, a friend he rarely snapshots with.
*Missing: Shortly after 3am CH returned with the dog, and then left again.
- At 3.12am his phone went silent.
If he had gone back outside to wait for his Uber Eats, it is unlikely that he would have turned off his phone while waiting. MOO
Click to expand...

I don't see the link to an article that you mentioned with regard to this timeline. Am I missing it, and if not, please post. This isn't the timeline that the family gave in one of their other interviews, IIRC, so I would like to see the article you mention. Thanks.
 
TIGER0822 said:
appears that the Police may have omitted a critical aspect from their timeline. That being that CH brought the puppy back inside shortly after 3am, and then came back outside, (per his Dad, link to the article below). The Police included events before and after him going inside in the timeline.

*Missing: Shortly after 3am CH brought the dog inside , and then came and came back outside again.
- At 3.12am his phone went silent.
why not mention CH going back inside and coming out again?
I watched the video, another room mate had picked up the puppy to bring it inside. It is unusual that a person would want to play longer with a puppy at 3am. My thoughts are he wanted to be outside without his roommates and used that as an excuse.
appears that the Police may have omitted a critical aspect from their timeline. That being that CH brought the puppy back inside shortly after 3am, and then went back outside, (per his Dad, link to the article below). The Police included events before and after him going inside in the timeline.
Time Line:
- 2.20am the second roommate went to bed.
- 2.44am CH shared a snapshot of him walking the puppy.
- 3:03am he sent a snapshot to a friend, a friend he rarely snapshots with.
*Missing: Shortly after 3am CH returned with the dog, and then left again.
- At 3.12am his phone went silent.
If he had gone back outside to wait for his Uber Eats, it is unlikely that he would have turned off his phone while waiting. MOO
Click to expand...
How I understood the facts so far is that after the 2:44 Snapchat video (sent to his sister) of Caleb walking the dog (not a puppy), he brought the dog back to the apartment, then went back outside, as evidenced by the 3:03 bridge Snapchat pic sent to a friend.

The dog was found to be inside where Caleb was not, so it could be just a likely assumption that Caleb himself put her back inside after seeing he took the dog out according to the video sent to his sister.

To me, it is not necessarily “unusual that a person would want to play longer with a puppy at 3am” (your quote). They had just gotten the dog that Sunday, if I recall correctly. So it was the dog’s first night in her new home and with her new people. The guys would be just getting to know their new pet’s habits and vice versa. In the beginning it might be helpful to take a dog out frequently to get it familiarized with the outdoor area you’d want and expect it to do its potty business. Since Caleb was awake, it may even be the dog signaled to him she wanted to go out to relieve herself. Don’t know.

I might think it’s unusual to be up and ordering UberEats in those wee hours, but apparently the time is not unusual for college aged kids, from what his father and others even here on the thread have said.

(By the way, we’ve learned their little white dog’s name is Jenny, so that’s why I use ‘she’ above.)

All my opinion and thoughts
 
Centaurus said:
Can someone please clarify something? Who actually owned the dog? I thought it was a girlfriend of one of the roommates, but these recent posts have me confused.
Click to expand...
The owner of Jenny was a girlfriend of one of the roommates.

The phone was turned off at 2:58am. Not sure how you can send a Snapchat at 3:03, but someone said 50 threads ago that Snapchats aren't always received in a timely manner.
 
This is speculation:

What if CH was communicating with someone covertly and they didn't want to leave a trail of communication for whatever reason. The person follows his Snap account. He posts a snapchat on the bridge to let the person know he's there and ready to be picked up. Otherwise, the random photo makes no sense to me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 85 more.
Total: 250 (members: 86, guests: 164)

Online statistics

Members online
86
Guests online
164
Total visitors
250
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,466
Messages
18,239,844
Members
234,381
Latest member
Kaee_Samonee
Back
Top