Found Deceased TX - Thomas Brown, 18, Hemphill County, 23 Nov 2016 #2

[niikkee]

I am going from memory here......the podcast and articles can be located, but I don't think I ever heard that the AG thought Penny had the phone all along. I do remember Penny stating that the AG's office grilled them very hard on quite a few things. I thought it was the phone calls to the "old gay guy in Denver" they gave her a hard time on. It's my impression the AG office "interrogated" them harshly, trying to "break" them into telling something and it just did not happen.

I am probably somewhat biased here, but I believe Penny and don't think she has hidden anything. Her story has never changed and she doesn't have any "far out" ideas about what happened.

As for Penny's comments about Thomas being gay.....I understand her 100%. I don't necessarily agree with her but I know where she is coming from. I live in Abilene, we have 3 christian universities here with a population of 100+K. I was born and raised here. I have heard the biblical discussions about homosexuality all my life. I understand her comments totally. Would she have counseled him about her beliefs? Yes! I think Penny was being very open and truthful about what she would have done IF she thought Thomas was gay. But she never thought that, so never did. I am sure if Thomas had ever approached her that he was gay, she would have still loved him very much. We want the best for our children. When they do not believe as we do, it is difficult to understand, but they are still our children and we support them!
Doesn't mean we let them commit suicide and we hide their body!!

Obviously you don’t know the family very well. I don’t know them at all and was able to find more info about them than most people in Canadian know. And I guess being an outsider and not knowing them lets me see things in a different way. I think it was strange from the very beginning....
AND If people are not able to see what kind of a guy Klein is and exactly what his motives are in this case then I don’t have alot of hope the truth will ever come out.

 

[niikkee]

When the AG took over the case exactly 3 years ago in February 2018, their mandate was to investigate and "leave no stone unturned". Much of the early evidence had long been lost, discarded, or never collected due to the gross incompetence of the HCSO and it's Sheriff. Therefor AG investigators were faced with a significant uphill challenge. They had to begin literally at "square one". During their first few days of the investigation, who do you suppose provided their initial briefing on the case? That answer is obvious. Within a matter of days in February 2018 they initiated the polygraph exams for at least four persons (maybe more, I don't know). Investigators did what investigators frequently do in such situations; they begin with a friendly interview including asking for verbal and written detail. Then a week or so later comes the polygraph. During the subsequent "interview" after the polygraph exam, they apply pressure by suggesting that the polygraph indicates some level of deception, then drag the interviewees through hell and back while observing behavior and reactions. A common tactic. IMO, the investigators gained information from the polygraph/interview process .... and that information did not implicate that Tom's family was nefariously involved in any way.

So are you saying that Penny passed her polygraph?

 

[niikkee]

No, the big question is "what happened to Tom".

That obviously is the question for this conversation but not distinctly to these topics of conversation.

 

[niikkee]

My takeaway from the secretly recorded AG meeting after listening several times is that the AG investigators were trying to force Penny to admit she had the phone case. They laid it out & she was honest.

Since the Durango was sent back to the family the SAME afternoon, is it possible that Tucker or Penny found it while looking through the Durango as evidence is WASN'T processed? I have always felt it was her ace in the hole so to speak to have a bit of evidence that LE (really NL) was lazy/incompetent/corrupt...take your pick.

Yes when asked she did tell them what they already knew but why didn’t she tell them before then? Why did she keep it a secret?

 

[8th Bob-White]

Because she needed to have SOMETHING to show someone in authority that the investigation was mis-handled from the very beginning. It was her proof that they were incompetent or corrupt. I think she didn't tell them because she didn't know who to trust anymore.

 

[niikkee]

Thanks niikkee. I think all of us only want for the family of Tom Brown to finally learn what truly happened to Tom on that night. As I pointed out, I have an audio copy of the meeting. I also have copies of the Canadian Record that you referenced above, which contains some slanted inaccuracies as related to what was actually said and/or implied by investigators at the meeting. I have heard nothing in the actual audio recording that indicates to me that AG investigators believed that Penny or any member of Tom's family planted the phone. The ENTIRE reason that AG investigators mandated that the meeting remain private with no press was to prevent exactly what occurred with the Canadian Record series of articles. But, of course somebody did not adhere to that request and recorded the meeting ......

I don’t think this was actually in the recording but I do believe that Klein was accused of having something to do with the phone being planted, which I understood at the time did take place after that meeting.

 

[niikkee]

Because she needed to have SOMETHING to show someone in authority that the investigation was mis-handled from the very beginning. It was her proof that they were incompetent or corrupt. I think she didn't tell them because she didn't know who to trust anymore.

Because she needed to have SOMETHING to show someone in authority that the investigation was mis-handled from the very beginning. It was her proof that they were incompetent or corrupt. I think she didn't tell them because she didn't know who to trust anymore.

I am sorry but I find that very hard to believe.

 

[Rush4087]

Even though the phone was "turned off" that night, it seems likely that whoever had it in the immediate aftermath of Tom's disappearance would have tried to turn it on to access it for one reason or another (nefarious or not) had they known the passcode.

So it may actually be unfortunate for the investigation that whoever possessed the phone at the time DIDN'T know the passcode - as I would think that as soon as they turned the phone on, it would have pinged or attempted to join a nearby wi-fi network revealing its location (I admit I don't know much about cell phone pinging, tower dumps, etc). If the phone HAD pinged - even if only for a brief moment - wouldn't that digital evidence be discoverable by LE?

If evidence of a ping, or evidence of an "attempt to connect" could be found, wouldn't it reveal where the phone had been at the time, and by inference, who possessed it?

So while PM asking Tom's friends for the passcode might infer that she might have had the phone, the sheriff's office NOT asking PM for the passcode (if that's even true), would not necessarily mean that they were not in possession of the phone - just that (even if they perhaps had thought it might contain evidence that could incriminate them) they were smart enough not to risk implicating themselves by turning it on in order to find out.

Then again, if there had been any evidence in the phone incriminating the sheriff or the sheriff's office, wouldn't it still be in the phone today? Yet they wouldn't have planted the phone knowing (or not knowing if) it contained incriminating evidence...

The phone issue just drives me crazy. There's no way it was just there, in the cut grass, in pristine condition. Could somebody else have had it (I guess I mean other than PM or NL)? If so, who? MC? JC? PG? Tom's ex?

Just thinking out loud

 

[Rush4087]

My takeaway from the secretly recorded AG meeting after listening several times is that the AG investigators were trying to force Penny to admit she had the phone case. They laid it out & she was honest.

Since the Durango was sent back to the family the SAME afternoon, is it possible that Tucker or Penny found it while looking through the Durango as evidence is WASN'T processed? I have always felt it was her ace in the hole so to speak to have a bit of evidence that LE (really NL) was lazy/incompetent/corrupt...take your pick.

By "it", I assume you mean the case, not the phone.

I guess it wouldn't be out of the question that the sherif or somebody in the sheriff's office removed the phone from the case in the brief window of time they had the Durango before returning it "unprocessed" to PM.

There may have also been other opportunities earlier that day (between 12:15 and 5:56 am) for NL to remove the phone from it's case in the Durango (again, this premised on Tucker of PM Fung just the cars - and I don't think we know neither to be fact...jmo

Or did I read that somebody said Tom had left the case at home that night for some reason ? Does anyone have a link for that? TIA,

 

[Rush4087]

Obviously you don’t know the family very well. I don’t know them at all and was able to find more info about them than most people in Canadian know. And I guess being an outsider and not knowing them lets me see things in a different way. I think it was strange from the very beginning....
AND If people are not able to see what kind of a guy Klein is and exactly what his motives are in this case then I don’t have alot of hope the truth will ever come out.

No offense, but not knowing much about the individuals - and not knowing the families very well - would seem to put you at a marked disadvantage when it comes to "seeing things". And we all "think it was strange from the very beginning"..

Don't misunderstand, I don't think anybody besides PM was counting on Kline. I think most of us knew when he first entered the picture just what his motives might be. If the case IS eventually solved, imo it will have noting to do with the investigative efforts of Klein.

I do however think, and hope, that the truth will eventually come out. TB desserves that

 

[Mistyjks]

I’ve not gotten up to speed on everything about this case, but I hope too.

I did want to comment on something that I don’t believe has been mentioned. RE: phone case - now it’s been a very long time since I’ve owned an android phone. I’ve had Apple-iPhone for several years now, which I’m not certain if they are still the only ones with the charger cover technology- probably not. I have never used a charger cover as is being mentioned. However, when I standard charge my phone via the cable and outlet/charger pack if it is powered off, it automatically turns on regardless if that was my intention or not. I actually dislike that it does that and not that I’ve researched but I don’t think there’s any way to change settings so that won’t occur. Point being, if a charging case has the same logic, it wouldn’t have been able to turn off AND stay powered off.

If it’s true that he NEVER took it off, either he did so that day intentionally knowing he himself would be powering it off, or... It would be quite interesting to know if the phone was power cycled before it was completely off and stayed off. As in, someone else, not realizing the power case was on it, powered off only to have it power on by itself, and realizing why, this removed the case and powered off again. I do not believe one would recognize the cover as being a charger - technology was still quite new regarding this feature. Surrounding this only if I had to project a guess, he himself, or someone that knew the case type was a charger removed it prior to powering off - or it was power cycled and then powered down again in close timing. Obviously all MOO, and as I said I still have a lot of reading to catch up here, but do we know WHY she has said that she had the case?

 

[8th Bob-White]

By "it", I assume you mean the case, not the phone.

Yes, I meant the case....I think the phone was removed by someone involved in Tom's disappearance and they discarded the case and left it in the Durango (perhaps in error).

Yes, the phone may have been removed before Tom's Durango was found abandoned or while LE was "processing" the Durango.

 

[Mistyjks]

I’ve not gotten up to speed on everything about this case, but I hope too.

I did want to comment on something that I don’t believe has been mentioned. RE: phone case - now it’s been a very long time since I’ve owned an android phone. I’ve had Apple-iPhone for several years now, which I’m not certain if they are still the only ones with the charger cover technology- probably not. I have never used a charger cover as is being mentioned. However, when I standard charge my phone via the cable and outlet/charger pack if it is powered off, it automatically turns on regardless if that was my intention or not. I actually dislike that it does that and not that I’ve researched but I don’t think there’s any way to change settings so that won’t occur. Point being, if a charging case has the same logic, it wouldn’t have been able to turn off AND stay powered off.

If it’s true that he NEVER took it off, either he did so that day intentionally knowing he himself would be powering it off.. or...It would be quite interesting to know if the phone was power cycled before it was completely off and stayed off. As in, someone else, not realizing the power case was on it, powered off only to have it power on by itself, and realizing why, this removed the case and powered off again. I do not believe one would recognize the cover as being a charger - technology was still quite new regarding this feature. Surrounding this only if I had to project a guess, he himself, or someone that knew the case type was a charger removed it prior to powering off - or it was power cycled and then powered down again in close timing. Obviously all MOO, and as I said I still have a lot of reading to catch up here, but do we know WHY she has said that she had the case?

 

[Balloon light]

Thanks niikkee. I think all of us only want for the family of Tom Brown to finally learn what truly happened to Tom on that night. As I pointed out, I have an audio copy of the meeting. I also have copies of the Canadian Record that you referenced above, which contains some slanted inaccuracies as related to what was actually said and/or implied by investigators at the meeting. I have heard nothing in the actual audio recording that indicates to me that AG investigators believed that Penny or any member of Tom's family planted the phone. The ENTIRE reason that AG investigators mandated that the meeting remain private with no press was to prevent exactly what occurred with the Canadian Record series of articles. But, of course somebody did not adhere to that request and recorded the meeting ......

Regarding the phone, it seems that most agree the phone was planted. As far as Penny is concerned, she was unsure of the color of the phone being correct and her first impressions after the discovery were that this was not Tom’s phone. It doesn’t seem likely to plant evidence and then deny it’s his phone? I also tend to think that Penny did not plant the phone. And as for the charging case, well, maybe because her son was missing details like that felt insignificant ? IMHO the charging case is likely not important to the events of that night.

However a consideration is why was the phone planted at all and not tossed with his keys and wallet ?

In the end, his phone showed one thing (at least from what we know) that Tomas search history had a deleted record of visiting the suicide hotline website. How so? There are no details on that. Granted, here we aren’t in a position to access evidence, but I’ll put this out there.

If a search history is deleted. It can then be found in the DNS cache. But DNS is notoriously unreliable with both the websites and the time stamps of lookups. You can ping a website, for instance, and it can get added to your DNS cache as part of your search history without ever having visited the site. And the timing could also be off by hours.

If the phone was planted, it’s discovery led to the website, and a visit to the suicide hotline does help to encourage more people to believe the suicide scenario.

Even the AG seemed to agree that the phone was planted, so it may be worth considering that perhaps his search history was doctored too?

 

[niikkee]

Yes, I meant the case....I think the phone was removed by someone involved in Tom's disappearance and they discarded the case and left it in the Durango (perhaps in error).

Yes, the phone may have been removed before Tom's Durango was found abandoned or while LE was "processing" the Durango.

That doesn’t make sense to me. I believe the case was on the on the phone until it was removed and turned off. The phone was later placed to be found in a search organized by Klein and Klein was the only one who knew when and where that search was to take place. The phone was in pristine condition although it had been wiped and PM had the case. On the night the family was searching for Tom the Deputy/LE Went to PM house and here it was 3:00am in November and they all have a meeting in the front yard. LE was not invited into the house to have this conversation about their son. Sounds very strange to me.

 

[OutWest]

Regarding the phone, it seems that most agree the phone was planted. As far as Penny is concerned, she was unsure of the color of the phone being correct and her first impressions after the discovery were that this was not Tom’s phone. It doesn’t seem likely to plant evidence and then deny it’s his phone? I also tend to think that Penny did not plant the phone. And as for the charging case, well, maybe because her son was missing details like that felt insignificant ? IMHO the charging case is likely not important to the events of that night.

However a consideration is why was the phone planted at all and not tossed with his keys and wallet ?

In the end, his phone showed one thing (at least from what we know) that Tomas search history had a deleted record of visiting the suicide hotline website. How so? There are no details on that. Granted, here we aren’t in a position to access evidence, but I’ll put this out there.

If a search history is deleted. It can then be found in the DNS cache. But DNS is notoriously unreliable with both the websites and the time stamps of lookups. You can ping a website, for instance, and it can get added to your DNS cache as part of your search history without ever having visited the site. And the timing could also be off by hours.

If the phone was planted, it’s discovery led to the website, and a visit to the suicide hotline does help to encourage more people to believe the suicide scenario.

Even the AG seemed to agree that the phone was planted, so it may be worth considering that perhaps his search history was doctored too?

Balloon light, excellent points based on clear logic.

 

[Rush4087]

Regarding the phone, it seems that most agree the phone was planted. As far as Penny is concerned, she was unsure of the color of the phone being correct and her first impressions after the discovery were that this was not Tom’s phone. It doesn’t seem likely to plant evidence and then deny it’s his phone? I also tend to think that Penny did not plant the phone. And as for the charging case, well, maybe because her son was missing details like that felt insignificant ? IMHO the charging case is likely not important to the events of that night.

However a consideration is why was the phone planted at all and not tossed with his keys and wallet ?

In the end, his phone showed one thing (at least from what we know) that Tomas search history had a deleted record of visiting the suicide hotline website. How so? There are no details on that. Granted, here we aren’t in a position to access evidence, but I’ll put this out there.

If a search history is deleted. It can then be found in the DNS cache. But DNS is notoriously unreliable with both the websites and the time stamps of lookups. You can ping a website, for instance, and it can get added to your DNS cache as part of your search history without ever having visited the site. And the timing could also be off by hours.

If the phone was planted, it’s discovery led to the website, and a visit to the suicide hotline does help to encourage more people to believe the suicide scenario.

Even the AG seemed to agree that the phone was planted, so it may be worth considering that perhaps his search history was doctored too?

Great point about PM not recognizing the phone (not being certain that it was Tom's, due to the color: gold or rose-gold). It does seem unlikely that she would have planted the phone as evidence only to later deny that it was Tom's phone.

But - PM's inability to immediately recognize and identify the phone doesn't necessarily prove that she had not ever had it. She might have only ever seen the phone when it was otherwise covered by it's case - hence she wouldn't have necessarily been familiar with the nuance of the color.

If at one point PM WAS in possession of the phone (this is not known), she could have perhaps given it to Klein - and then maybe he (for some reason) removed the case and returned (the case) to PM. That's a lot of if's and maybe's..

But why would PM have ever given the phone to Klein in the first place, if, as some have suggested, she thought TB's disappearance might've been due to suicide and she wanted to deflect from any speculation or investigation that was headed in that direction? It would've been unnecessary - even self-defeating - for the phone to have been discovered if it was later found to contain evidence that TB was perhaps considering suicide..

And if she DID gave the phone to Klein, and if Klein DID remove the case, what possible reason could he have had for doing so? It just remains one of the many mysteries of this case. If ANYBODY (other than Tom) separated the phone from it's case, what possible reason would they have had for doing so?

Imo the fact that somebody had TB's phone all along, and then planted it, is hugely significant to solving this case. Who had the phone?

 

[OutWest]

Rush4087, I agree with your points. I too have attempted to evaluate the scenarios that you describe and find that all of the "pieces" (in the totality of the case) just do not fit well, especially when trying to determine all of the reasons "why and how". I could only come up with bizarre, complex reasons that, IMO began to border on crazy science fiction. No doubt, it's a very puzzling case ..... which actually leads to the purpose of the potential upcoming Grand Jury inquest..

 

[Balloon light]

What niggles at me is the Alexander’s deli security cameras catching the Durango twice at 5 :50 something am before finally heading out to be parked near the water treatment facility and being captured one last time by another security camera as it turned onto the road there.

However, from the timings on the cameras we know the car went from Alexander’s Deli to its final parking spot. There was no time in between surveillance cameras to get to the site of the backpack and then park it. The backpack was likely already gone by that time. As was Tom.

The trajectory and locations of Tom’s items and his remains along with the time stamps on the security cameras and the gas consumption implies certain scenarios. The most prominent being that Tom and his car were taken out of town towards Lake Marvin where he was disposed of and his remains were found. Then his car was brought back to town and abandoned.

It follows that once he was removed from then car, the perp(s) then had plenty of time before daylight and headed back towards Canadian, stopping along the way to clean out of the car, wipe blood (according to Kleins luminal tests ) and clear the car of Tom’s possessions. For the record, the backpack was later found on the side of the road going back towards Canadian from Lake Marvin.

When you fit the pieces, It becomes harder to believe that Tom was the one driving the Durango by the time it passed Alexander’s Deli.

But what driving past those cameras at Alexander’s twice tells us is that the Durango almost went home but didn’t, instead it turned around and went to the water treatment facility to be discovered in the morning.

When asked about the Deli security footage, the sheriff had claimed that it was Tom passing close to home to “say” goodbye before committing suicide/running away.

The big question remains ... Why drive towards home?

This is all pure speculation and other thoughts and ideas are most welcome.

It may be that it was initially intended by the perp(s) that the car be brought back home ... perhaps as a way to further promote the theory he ran off ? ( “Hey! I found Tom’s car and brought it back. Look his stuff is gone too. Seems he ran off”) ... Then there was a quick change of heart, and the Durango turns around and goes the water treatment facility where it is finally abandoned.

So who would be so brazen as to consider bringing the car back home without fear of being implicated?

 

[niikkee]

What niggles at me is the Alexander’s deli security cameras catching the Durango twice at 5 :50 something am before finally heading out to be parked near the water treatment facility and being captured one last time by another security camera as it turned onto the road there.

However, from the timings on the cameras we know the car went from Alexander’s Deli to its final parking spot. There was no time in between surveillance cameras to get to the site of the backpack and then park it. The backpack was likely already gone by that time. As was Tom.

The trajectory and locations of Tom’s items and his remains along with the time stamps on the security cameras and the gas consumption implies certain scenarios. The most prominent being that Tom and his car were taken out of town towards Lake Marvin where he was disposed of and his remains were found. Then his car was brought back to town and abandoned.

It follows that once he was removed from then car, the perp(s) then had plenty of time before daylight and headed back towards Canadian, stopping along the way to clean out of the car, wipe blood (according to Kleins luminal tests ) and clear the car of Tom’s possessions. For the record, the backpack was later found on the side of the road going back towards Canadian from Lake Marvin.

When you fit the pieces, It becomes harder to believe that Tom was the one driving the Durango by the time it passed Alexander’s Deli.

But what driving past those cameras at Alexander’s twice tells us is that the Durango almost went home but didn’t, instead it turned around and went to the water treatment facility to be discovered in the morning.

When asked about the Deli security footage, the sheriff had claimed that it was Tom passing close to home to “say” goodbye before committing suicide/running away.

The big question remains ... Why drive towards home?

This is all pure speculation and other thoughts and ideas are most welcome.

It may be that it was initially intended by the perp(s) that the car be brought back home ... perhaps as a way to further promote the theory he ran off ? ( “Hey! I found Tom’s car and brought it back. Look his stuff is gone too. Seems he ran off”) ... Then there was a quick change of heart, and the Durango turns around and goes the water treatment facility where it is finally abandoned.

So who would be so brazen as to consider bringing the car back home without fear of being implicated?

<modsnip pending link>

I knew about Tom’s diaper fetish but when Sheriff Lewis told Penny about it she didn’t believe him and tried to dismiss it.