GUILTY VA - Noah Thomas, 5, Pulaski County, 22 March 2015 #6

[Schmaley]

IMO, the million dollar question is what was Noah's COD?? How flipping long does it take for them to get the tox results back??!!!

Apparently more than 5 weeks.

They must have an on - foot messenger delivering them...From Canada.

 

[wvsoccermom]

IMO, the million dollar question is what was Noah's COD?? How flipping long does it take for them to get the tox results back??!!!

True. This is what we all are waiting for. I just meant the million dollar question of the day. These little tidbits of info we get are driving me nuts.

 

[kaen]

Sorry if I missed it, but WHY did LE put them up in a hotel?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The house is probably seen as a crime scene. It was the last place Noah was seen. Preservation of the scene is critical. Having the parents out of the house means less contamination of the scene.

 

[ANonyMs]

The house is probably seen as a crime scene. It was the last place Noah was seen. Preservation of the scene is critical. Having the parents out of the house means less contamination of the scene.

If that were the case, then LE would have viewed this as a crime from the very beginning. I think that is the point. We know that LE would need to preserve evidence. But what we don't know is what led LE to believe the house was a "crime scene". If this was *just* a child who presumably walked out the front door as we were all led to believe at the beginning of the investigation, there wouldn't be a crime scene.

Sheriff Davis did say that they worked the case as two separate investigations from the very beginning and now I guess we know what he meant.

And, as Courtney asked, why a hotel? They both have family in the same area they could have gone to stay with but LE put them up in a hotel on the tax payers dime for a *reason*. To keep them close? To surveil them?

 

[mamaleena]

I bet the room was bugged.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[tamora1]

Apparently more than 5 weeks.

They must have an on - foot messenger delivering them...From Canada.

Well, they did say 7-8 weeks, so I guess they're still within that window. (Side-eyeing the "Grateful Doe" thread; man, that case is being handled by a courier-turtle service . . .)

 

[Silvery]

I bet the room was bugged.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I was just about to post that when I saw your post. I don't know the law, but perhaps why they paid for it initially....as in if they paid for it, they were allowed to use it as they would their home. After they got the info they needed from the bug, they didn't need it in LE name anymore?

 

[kaen]

If that were the case, then LE would have viewed this as a crime from the very beginning. I think that is the point. We know that LE would need to preserve evidence. But what we don't know is what led LE to believe the house was a "crime scene". If this was *just* a child who presumably walked out the front door as we were all led to believe at the beginning of the investigation, there wouldn't be a crime scene.

Sheriff Davis did say that they worked the case as two separate investigations from the very beginning and now I guess we know what he meant.

And, as Courtney asked, why a hotel? They both have family in the same area they could have gone to stay with but LE put them up in a hotel on the tax payers dime for a *reason*. To keep them close? To surveil them?

If LE thought they harmed the kids, it would be wrong to have them stay in a home with children domiciled. The hotel has surveillance so LE would be able to see who came and went-- less money than a detail. Although they were not POI, the hotel stay gave LE access to them 24 hrs a day if needed. The parents could talk to whoever they want so the hotel stay meant that they could surveil their calls through the hotel and cell phones. Them staying at the hotel meant that the parents did not see what LE was doing in their home or on the property. I just think keeping them separate allowed for LE to not have them tampering with other people's stories by interaction. Overall, it keeps the scene clean.

IF it were my kid who was missing, I would be fighting to stay in the house just in case he came home. If they said no to the house, I probably would have wanted to stay in a car or truck close because I was wanting to be in the last place my child had been. I wonder what the parents reacted like?

 

[ANonyMs]

If LE thought they harmed the kids, it would be wrong to have them stay in a home with children domiciled. The hotel has surveillance so LE would be able to see who came and went-- less money than a detail. Although they were not POI, the hotel stay gave LE access to them 24 hrs a day if needed. The parents could talk to whoever they want so the hotel stay meant that they could surveil their calls through the hotel and cell phones. Them staying at the hotel meant that the parents did not see what LE was doing in their home or on the property. I just think keeping them separate allowed for LE to not have them tampering with other people's stories by interaction. Overall, it keeps the scene clean.

IF it were my kid who was missing, I would be fighting to stay in the house just in case he came home. If they said no to the house, I probably would have wanted to stay in a car or truck close because I was wanting to be in the last place my child had been. I wonder what the parents reacted like?

Yes, I understand that. I can't speak for Courtney but I don't think either of us were asking about practical application. It was not, "How do crime scene investigations work?" but "What, specifically, triggered LE to choose this strategy?" None of us know that at this time. The question is more rhetorical. I agree with what you wrote - the advantages to LE placing them in the hotel are pretty easy to see, but I don't think that is really what we are pondering. It was more about the various possibilities of what LE knew, when they knew it, and how it impacted LE's strategy. I, for one, understand that we won't get a hard and fast answer to that question at this point.

My reference to the financial aspect was not to question why they would spend the money. Investigations cost plenty and a hotel bill is a drop in the bucket. It was to point out though that they could not have justified it as an act of goodwill - it had to have value to the investigation. At the time they made those decisions and put AW & PT up in the hotel, the appearance to the public was that they were remaining in the home, they were fully cooperative, etc. So, it is a point of interest and something to think about what, specifically (was it a hunch, something they said, something they saw, based on other circumstances b/c the family was known to CPS and LE, etc) that drove LE to that strategy.

Your question as to how could parents react that way is more along the same lines. It is a good question. How does an innocent parent of a truly missing child react vs a parent who knows their child is deceased? What is "normal" in other similar case? (Not asking you to answer that, again, these question are rhetorical. I plan on looking at some other cases myself for a frame of reference but not asking to have the behavior explained).

I was just about to post that when I saw your post. I don't know the law, but perhaps why they paid for it initially....as in if they paid for it, they were allowed to use it as they would their home. After they got the info they needed from the bug, they didn't need it in LE name anymore?

There are both federal and state laws at play, I would guess, as wire tapping is a federal arena, as are privacy, personal liberties, etc. I am not versed on that law, either, but I think your scenario could fit pretty well with everything else we already know. It's simple. It makes sense.

 

[Schmaley]

I was just about to post that when I saw your post. I don't know the law, but perhaps why they paid for it initially....as in if they paid for it, they were allowed to use it as they would their home. After they got the info they needed from the bug, they didn't need it in LE name anymore?

Ding ding ding. That feels like a winner to me. Makes perfect sense. And perhaps this is where the "tip" came from.

 

[courtneyb]

Look, I've seen a lot of Lifetime movies... Those distraught parents are always at their home, with LE hovering in the living room, drinking coffee, waiting for the phone to ring.

Just kidding. . Yeah, there are lots of reasons why they put them up in a hotel, I just wasn't sure if they had specified why. I do think surveillance there could have been the source of the tip.. That could be why there was a tip, then there wasn't a tip.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[wvsoccermom]

So maybe LE suspected the parents from the very beginning. They would have had to make Ashley and Paul THINK that they were on their side, in order to get them in a hotel, to surveil them. Which explains why the public kept being told the parents were grieving, cooperating, etc. Very smart. Made them feel comfortable enough so they could catch them incriminating themselves. Nice! Good possibility.

 

[ANonyMs]

So maybe LE suspected the parents from the very beginning. They would have had to make Ashley and Paul THINK that they were on their side, in order to get them in a hotel, to surveil them. Which explains why the public kept being told the parents were grieving, cooperating, etc. Very smart. Made them feel comfortable enough so they could catch them incriminating themselves. Nice! Good possibility.

Yeah, I think that was the "two" investigations thing Sherrif Davis mentioned. I just assumed when he first said that, he meant, "yes, of course we always looked at this as if it could be more than a missing persons case." But it now seems apparent they really did run two full scale investigations. And yeah, I tend to think the same thing. I think what the public was made to believe or allowed to believe was part of that strategy.

 

[ANonyMs]

Anyone else having issues with the site today? Sorry for all of my typos and corrections to posts. I can't seem to get the cursor and text to work correctly today. (No, it could not POSSIBLY be user error )

 

[Luvrosco]

I bet the room was bugged.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Interesting thought and maybe their phones.

 

[ANonyMs]

Looks like WSLS picked it up yesterday, too, off of the Roanoke Times article. No new info.

http://www.wsls.com/story/29008005/police-called-to-hotel-where-parents-of-noah-thomas-stayed

 

[courtneyb]

Anyone else having issues with the site today? Sorry for all of my typos and corrections to posts. I can't seem to get the cursor and text to work correctly today. (No, it could not POSSIBLY be user error )

Same here. But my internet seems wonky today in general.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mpnola]

When I read Noah's thread, I read it like a book. Then, I remember this is real life! And I have a child around his age. If my child went missing- like for real, not a story book missing- I would be FREEEEEEEAKING out! 150%. The entire neighborhood would know my voice! I would be screaming his name at the top of my lungs. Over and over and over for as many hours as they let me. I would be screaming his name, telling him I love him, telling him to fight whoever had him and run to my voice. But, these parents stayed holed up inside and went to the hotel. Nope. Not in my wildest imagination or dreams would that ever happen. I dont need a place to stay because I will be knocking on every damn door out there until I find him! Grief troll, I am not. A mom who can absolutely lose my breath at the though of my baby going missing, I am. These parents could care less about much other than themselves. Can't convince me otherwise.

 

[kaen]

Yes, I understand that. I can't speak for Courtney but I don't think either of us were asking about practical application. It was not, "How do crime scene investigations work?" but "What, specifically, triggered LE to choose this strategy?" None of us know that at this time. The question is more rhetorical. I agree with what you wrote - the advantages to LE placing them in the hotel are pretty easy to see, but I don't think that is really what we are pondering. It was more about the various possibilities of what LE knew, when they knew it, and how it impacted LE's strategy. I, for one, understand that we won't get a hard and fast answer to that question at this point.

My reference to the financial aspect was not to question why they would spend the money. Investigations cost plenty and a hotel bill is a drop in the bucket. It was to point out though that they could not have justified it as an act of goodwill - it had to have value to the investigation. At the time they made those decisions and put AW & PT up in the hotel, the appearance to the public was that they were remaining in the home, they were fully cooperative, etc. So, it is a point of interest and something to think about what, specifically (was it a hunch, something they said, something they saw, based on other circumstances b/c the family was known to CPS and LE, etc) that drove LE to that strategy.

Your question as to how could parents react that way is more along the same lines. It is a good question. How does an innocent parent of a truly missing child react vs a parent who knows their child is deceased? What is "normal" in other similar case? (Not asking you to answer that, again, these question are rhetorical. I plan on looking at some other cases myself for a frame of reference but not asking to have the behavior explained).



There are both federal and state laws at play, I would guess, as wire tapping is a federal arena, as are privacy, personal liberties, etc. I am not versed on that law, either, but I think your scenario could fit pretty well with everything else we already know. It's simple. It makes sense.

I have a relative in LE. The last place a person was seen yields the most information. According to relative, the house becomes a scene. If the house remains in use vital evidence can be corrupted. I don't think it is about suspecting as much as it is securing the area and doing a methodical sweep for evidence. Intruder or guilty parent, each possible piece of evidence is key. Family out of the house allows them to do a non-emotional look at the life of the family and child. Hysterical moms or dads make it hard to be methodical.

My relative also said in missing children cases it is part of their norm to look at parents/caregivers and strangers because time is of the essence. Most missing children cases (where there is ultimately a death) are parent/relative bad actors.

My guess is that the parents were cooperative AND that the police were not really asking them much. After her initial story and asking again and again, it appears she did not give any more that was useful. I think they suspected all along that this was the work of one or both. Also, the cooperative statement was probably meant to keep them from thinking they needed to lawyer up. If there was too much swirling out there, the parents could have tried the sympathy, mean police so now I have a lawyer.

 

[leighmarker]

For them to "legally" bug the room they would of had to have a judge sign off.DIFFICULT. And very rare. And by some chance if it was bugged they cannot use anything they found out while being bugged, if the bug placed was not done legally.Fruit from the poisonous tree, exclusionary for prosecution. IMO
STILL WEIRD, LE paid for the room.