California Sunset
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2020
- Messages
- 466
- Reaction score
- 2,115
delete because it was a bad post. thank you.
Last edited:
Vanessa Guillen Case Archive is updated.
Vanessa Guillen -TX- by amanda reckonwith
If you have trouble with that link, try this and scroll:
7/6/20 Cecily Brown Aguilar
Well, I'm so glad that it looks like there'll be a congressional investigation into the Army's handling of the investigation. If she left all of her things, including her blood spatter, in the armory that day, it really doesn't speak well to the way Ft Hood personnel handled this. At the very, very least, it was reckless and sloppy. Perhaps it was worse than that, and involved a bit of covering up...I read there was blood evidence in his armory.
A notice prior to posting photos of grizzly scenes are always appreciated.You do wonderful work, you are amazing. I really appreciate your effort. But, no offense, this is another time I can do without seeing the photos. I can read but I cannot watch.
Seattle1 said:snipped by me....
Aguilar's next court appearance will be for a preliminary hearing at 9 a.m. on July 14.
Thank you for the "tag"! Also - I read it was a preliminary and bond hearing.
Thank you for the "tag"! Also - I read it was a preliminary and bond hearing.
Perhaps you should read the link in my post, which right now is #512. The army has nothing of which to be ashamed or embarrassed. Let them do an investigation. I'd like to believe the article I read was accurate. Just because the info wasn't shared here doesn't mean the army wasn't up on the investigation.
She left her things in her armory, (or did she?) and he killed her in his armory. If he was known to be harassing her, he was not a superior, she didn't have to take orders from him, he should have been reported. If he was harassing her, why did she go to his work place? She apparently had no idea how dangerous he was. This makes no sense.
I mean, your first post stated quite clearly they only got location data after they searched the river site. This is untrue and the reverse of what happened. You then asked what changed after they searched the river (presumably to be able to get a warrant for geolocation data). Nothing changed because they already had the data. They got location data after individuals implicated him in the murder and there were calls between him and CA during the time period he said he was at her apartment that night. They searched the river site because of the location data they were able to obtain that put him at the river site. They didn’t find anything the first time they searched, but remains were recovered the second. As I said previously, they didn’t get location data because they searched the river site. They already had location data and searched the river site because of that data.I made a simple statement that has been totally misconstrued. Maybe I didn't state it simple enough. But regardless, I'm done going over this. Thanks and goodnight...
The military doesn’t care about cameras in 80% of cases, especially when you’re dealing with old buildings like they have on Ft. Hood. New construction, sure. But it takes a lot of time and effort to actually do something like that, including running a bid for the contract and figuring out specifications and how exactly you want cameras set up. All of that for something that in most cases would not provide any real benefit, and would go unused and cost even more money in maintenance and upkeep. Most decision-makers in the army would probably rather have a few privates walking around and doing patrols if they felt something like that was necessary, than deal with the mess of installing and maintaining a camera system.Super late jumper here. However, I just wanted to say, that this case is way to weird. I feel like there are answers that we aren’t getting. I don’t know a thing about the military, so I won’t act like I do. But a few things really stand out to me, coming from a standpoint of someone with a CJ degree..
I know we spoke about the cameras and someone said that they used to work there so they really didn’t have the cameras. If that is true, doesn’t it seem odd that they don’t as a military base. Even if they do have some cameras around the base, it make zero to me that the arms room, hallway of it, or a building outside of it doesn’t have cameras. I also heard that they’re is an office that’s like literally 100ft from it. So you mean to tell me absolutely no one heard a peep.
and again, if they had no cameras - it’s just all weird to me. If being a military base isn’t enough to have cameras in those areas — you would atleast think that 2009 shooting there would have atleast forced them to amp up the cameras within fort hood. Usually when big events like that happen, safety and security is looked at and it gets ramped up.
Of course this JMO, but it’s absolutely ridiculous that they would not have cameras especially in that area. You can say how much security they have in order to get in the room but still makes no sense. Also, the story that the gf gave maybe correct with what he told her, but I absolutely don’t think it’s the truthful story. I think he made that part up to his gf. Vanessa didn’t look like a girl who gave two craps about him and his gf. She could careless about contacting some ex husband of his gf. So I for sure feel like that was a lie on his part. This was also pre meditated. Not necessarily the Murder but could be that too. He texted her for a reason. She left her stuff in the room bc she planned on going back.
Gut feeling, he either called her over there and tried to make a move and she rejected him and it hurt his feelings so he snapped.
Or it gets deeper. There were more involved. Maybe she told another friend in her unit that she was about to turn him in which then they turned around and told him.
I still don’t understand why the army would be so quick to deny this and protect a specialist, but then again, they haven’t had the best record with cases recently either
What does a person like that look like? You can tell about her moral compass from her appearance? Adultery is an offense under UCMJ. I could easily see someone that cares about upholding values reporting this sort of thing, especially if it became something like an uncomfortable topic of conversation or he decided to show off pictures or brag or whatever. No public evidence of what actually transpired, but this is weirdly dismissive of a perfectly valid complaint she might have had.Vanessa didn’t look like a girl who gave two craps about him and his gf.
The only thing the Army has denied is that he was the person she had told others was sexually harassing her. This appears to be true from what we know so far (he is junior enlisted, and not her supervisor). There has been no comment, as far as I know, as to what happened prior to the murder/what led up to the murder.I still don’t understand why the army would be so quick to deny this and protect a specialist, but then again, they haven’t had the best record with cases recently either
I'm sure he left behind traces of blood and evidence of cleanup. The question for me is did investigators ever look for it? They must have sealed it off as a crime scene at some point so we don't know what they have found by now.I'm just saying that I doubt the full attack (and resulting, catastrophic skull and dental damage) happened in the armory. I'm far from a fan of the Army's investigation into this murder, but I can't imagine he'd have been able to clean up all the blood evidence if the full hammer attack happened in the armory.