WA - Lindsey Baum, 10, McCleary, 26 June 2009 - #16

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
JenniferO said:
you are missing my point, scandi. I didn't say anything about you digging around for connections (even though you really shouldn't rely on the internet to be really reliable when it points out 'possible relatives and/or roommates').

Novice Seeker is up there saying that KK and MB and any other person 'related to the case' shouldn't be involved in the search center.
And you are coming in patting Novice Seeker on the back and agreeing with her and then turning around saying 'but the one person who was the last person to see her should be helping'.
:waitasec:

See.. damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Click to expand...


What I'm questioning relates to persons who last saw Lindsey that night when she disappeared. The persons who LE has specifically insterviewed attempting to trace the last known steps Lindsey made along with determining a more specific time frame of when Lindsey was last seen. The persons I'm referring to have changed their story so many times including what they told LE which strips away their credibility and places suspicion on them, rightly so.

So, if LE has yet to clear these persons as suspects and we as sleuthers recognize that this persons story is constantly changing isn't a defense lawyer going to recognize it also? My concern is that a defense attorney will be able to use this persons inconsistenices to challange their credibility and could even suggest this person had a motive for not being truthful.

If that should happen then not only does this defense attorneys client stands a good chance of walking, it could lead to particular pieces of evidence being kept out of a trial which without it no one would ever be convicted. How is Justice going to be served when the person who last saw Lindsey can be shown to have changed their story so many times no one knows what exactly did happen.

This person posted out in cyberworld at the beginning of this case that LE was going to be giving LDT's to several of them who had last seen Lindsey. Since then, we've only heard about two. Were there more LDT exam's given that we aren't being told about? If this person didn't take a poly, why not if they have nothing to hide?

As you can see, Scandi and I are talking about different individuals and situations.

Novice Seeker
 
I have just been keeping up with Lindsey's case by reading and lurking here.

It is just my opinion that KK nor MB should be searching for Lindsey or be involved with the search center. MB for the obvious reasons, and KK because Lindsey had been at her house just before disappearing.

Anyone who refuses to take a polygraph is suspect in my opinion. There have also been too many inconsistant stories by what I consider to be key players here. When I see someone who was a professional blogger ready to immediately jump into blogging and being front and center in the media, I get suspicious. Very early on in this case, I asked a pointed question to this blogger (on her blog) and it was immediately deleted.

Lindsey did not just disappear into thin air, and I do not believe she is in the area any longer. These are just my opinions and what I think.
 
- Please cite where KK refused to take a LDT.

I don't understand why people won't acknowledge unspecific inconsistencies.
 
I can's site any of the sorts, but I have only read on here and in the media where Kampen's boyfriend took one and she didn't. Did he volunteer, or did LE ask him too? Another question is, do we know if he passed or failed? Is there stereotyping being done in the matter of lie detectors being only the males of that home taking one? I mean why would one person of the home have to take one and not the other? And if he volunteered why didn't Kampen? It seems it would eliminate alot of the tension amongst the public as to why Kampen didn't take one. I see Kampen all over the internet writing topics for money so she can be a stay at home mom. And now that I get the jest of what happened and I have taken a little time to do some searching of my own, Kampen has left herself wide open for people all the way to the east coast, and maybe globally, to wonder. Maybe there is no empathy for Kampen from the public for the simple fact that she was immediately online posting the very next morning. Maybe the public (nationally) can not grasp why Kampen's boyfriend took one and Kampen didn't. In my own opinion, unanswered questions are open to research and discussion. If it were my child I would have demanded Kampen take one.

I am also wondering, if Kampen did or does take one, would that information be made public?
 
The missing girl's mother, who wanted avoid becoming the center of the investigation, voluntarily took a polygraph test. The father of the girl's best friend, Scott Williams, also volunteered to take the test.

"At their requests polygraphs were given to them. They passed those polygraphs. We're comfortable with the information they've shared with us and comfortable with the timeline they've explained," said Grays Harbor County Undersheriff Rick Scott.

http://www.komonews.com/news/49651607.html

He volunteered, if we are talking about SW.
Hard keeping up sometimes.
 
Thank you not my kids...

I kind of pick at the little things, somewhat tear it apart. I wonder what Kampens boyfriends reasoning was for volunteering? Is it because he is a male, and it seems like males are targeted as an offender more times than a woman? That would seem logical really. However, Kampen neither refusing nor volunteering, does not seem logical. One would think she would not want the negative attention from the public.

Even if one takes a poly, they are still investigated. Polys are not 100% effective, and there are many who do not believe in them, there is controversy.

I see a lot of the public taking inventory on Kampens words through the media and forum posting that has been since the very beginning. Has Kampen ever came out to defend herself against the thoughts the public has for the misleading time-line that has been seen to change, often?

These are just a few questions I have after reading all of this. There is so much I can not keep up. It is apparent however, the frustration the public has towards Kampen, it is plain to see. I see a very few in her defense, the majority rules, and we all know that Kampen does not have to say anything. But beings she put herself out there in the very beginning, people want to know why all the indifference's.
 
jvk said:
- Please cite where KK refused to take a LDT.

I don't understand why people won't acknowledge unspecific inconsistencies.
Click to expand...

Hi Jvk, I think that stems from the fact that most posters here have not read what she has written in her many posts and other writings which is where the inconsistencies become apparant,

There was an Admin decision made here that we were not to c & paste her posts at WS. She was given the opportunity too join WS and go thru the vetting process to confirm who she was. She chose not to do that. So unless posters read elsewhere they don't know all that she has said.

IMO WS treats all cases the same. Those intricately involved in a case or even locals with info, like neighbors, would not be able to post until they were given the OK. I don't see why Lindsey's case should be any different than say Haleigh's, for example.
 
jvk said:
- Please cite where KK refused to take a LDT.

I don't understand why people won't acknowledge unspecific inconsistencies.
Click to expand...


We aren't scheming to start rumors. IMO from posting with others most of us are here to have intelligent discussions, to suggest otherwise would be insulting to the other members. There are strict guidelines as to what can and can't be discussed here which we respect.

As to who took a LDT and who didn't, LE has acknowledged two people have taken this test. Yet, an individual who was interviewed by LE commented that LE was going to be administering the LDT to several people and s/he was waiting their turn. This person has discussed everything else about this case except if s/he took the test. LE hasn't acknowledged they took it. The question is why? Since there has been no confirmation from this person about the LDT then most of us see that as one more inconsistent statement with questions as to why not.

Novice Seeker
 
jvk said:
- Please cite where KK refused to take a LDT.

I don't understand why people won't acknowledge unspecific inconsistencies.
Click to expand...

I do not think there is any written source stating that KK had refused to take a polygraph. However, I have read who did take a polygraph and she was not one of them.

As to any inconsistancies, there are plenty and were back in the threads.

JMO
 
It is not productive to keep going in the same square one circles over and over and over again.

Starting over again - Brainstorm session - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community


Certain things would be more appropriate there ^

(IMO) It seems little to zero +/-new sleuthing has been done lately.

I told some one the other day: Nothing like waking up in the morning or going to bed on or up2 a weekend filled search reading people bash over and over on the point, existence or methods of the search center.

No amount of posts from KK or (as we've seen) MB will ever be good enough - they both have attempted to answer questions - at points, KK relentlessly.

Hell even if i say i'll deal with something directly it's not good enough.

I'm sure i've said something that was incorrect. Does that mean it's a smoking gun?

Nothing will ever be good enough for a certain set of people.

Do something for Lindsey

I need/people to:​

- Start looking @ (+/-possibly) (more) abandoned houses, structures & properties.
- Examine diff types of maps closely (aerial, topo, historic)
- More info on other warrants served.
- More info on 'dump sites & hang outs
- More info on arrests/detained individuals in/around McCleary

What i don't need is: Regurgitated rumors or Inaccurate descriptions.

We generally act on everything that's given.
 
MarieG said:
// snipped //

I see a lot of the public taking inventory on Kampens words through the media and forum posting that has been since the very beginning. Has Kampen ever came out to defend herself against the thoughts the public has for the misleading time-line that has been seen to change, often?

These are just a few questions I have after reading all of this. There is so much I can not keep up. It is apparent however, the frustration the public has towards Kampen, it is plain to see. I see a very few in her defense, the majority rules, and we all know that Kampen does not have to say anything. But beings she put herself out there in the very beginning, people want to know why all the indifference's.
Click to expand...

Hi, MarieG,

Regarding your 'misleading time-line' point: is that meant to imply an intent on the part of that person?

I see it this way:

During an investigation, LE attempts to establish time-lines including:
  • who
  • what
  • where
  • when
  • why
Early in an investigation, dates and times are gathered and recorded. As time progresses, the same people who provided dates and times early in an investigation might provide different dates and times as they re-think the event or the event fades in their memory.

Unless intent is proven, I attribute slight to moderate differences in reported times as 'natural deterioration' of event experience. That effect is more evident when there is no 'mnemonic' event that occures immediately previous to or after a main event in question, i.e., ("Do you remember what you were doing when you first heard President Kennedy was assassinated?").

Typically it's best to rely on the initial data that was reported. Of course, LE must sort through differences as reported by multiple principals and a best guess is all that is ascertained but the crucial data gathering period must occur as close to the event as possible.

Now, if that person has posted different times explaining the same event I would review the posting dates and context, i.e.: ("At first I thought it was 9:05 but then I thought about it and it seems like it was closer to 9:15"). Given that, I would not suspect intentional deception .. only 'natural deterioration' of perceived fact. :twocents:
 
jvk said:
It is not productive to keep going in the same square one circles over and over and over again.

Starting over again - Brainstorm session - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community


Certain things would be more appropriate there ^

(IMO) It seems little to zero +/-new sleuthing has been done lately.

I told some one the other day: Nothing like waking up in the morning or going to bed on or up2 a weekend filled search reading people bash over and over on the point, existence or methods of the search center.

No amount of posts from KK or (as we've seen) MB will ever be good enough - they both have attempted to answer questions - at points, KK relentlessly.

Hell even if i say i'll deal with something directly it's not good enough.

I'm sure i've said something that was incorrect. Does that mean it's a smoking gun?

Nothing will ever be good enough for a certain set of people.

Do something for Lindsey

I need/people to:​

- Start looking @ (+/-possibly) (more) abandoned houses, structures & properties.
- Examine diff types of maps closely (aerial, topo, historic)
- More info on other warrants served.
- More info on 'dump sites & hang outs
- More info on arrests/detained individuals in/around McCleary

What i don't need is: Regurgitated rumors or Inaccurate descriptions.

We generally act on everything that's given.
Click to expand...


But who determines what needs to be focused on and the authority to decide what is simply a waste of time? IMO if some of the questions being discussed were answered truthfully and seems consistent with one's statement, behavior then we could move on to another issue or dispute.

I wouldn't dream of insulting others by dictating what should and should not be discussed about any criminal case. We're all adults and have the intelligence to form opinions of what we think is important.

Novice Seeker
 
scandi said:
Hi Jvk, I think that stems from the fact that most posters here have not read what she has written in her many posts and other writings which is where the inconsistencies become apparent
Click to expand...

Pretty sure my inbox has more room.

Inconsistencies -> Inbox
 
jvk said:
Who was that directed at?
Click to expand...

Again, b/c of the rules certain things can't be posted. By asking someone to break a rule which could get them banned it could be perceived as intimidating. And that has no place in any situation.



Novice Seeker
 
concentric said:
-------------------------------

Hope she had a cell phone and called someone reliable to pick her up, instead of a random passerby; i.e. hitchhiking.

Chuck, I really am impressed with your level of intelligence coupled with concern on this case. Thank you.

This mushroom hunting thing had me thinking back when I was a kid swimming in my set up pool at home in the country. One day this guy was hiding behind a tree in our backyard with a big knife watching us girls swim. My mom started yelling at him and the police said he was "just hunting mushrooms" on our property. Scary.

I have been posting here since the case broke. I keep thinking Lindsey is still alive.
Click to expand...

It was not reported how she acquired the 'ride'. Odd event, that.

Also, you're welcome, concentric, :blushing: I'm glad you seem to tune in with my posts. I believe everyone on this forum offers forth their own unique levels of knowledge, expertise and opinion and hopefully most of us gain by their presence, especially the person or persons who are our primary focus.

Mushrooms are fascinating. Some are so precise and intricate, as with 'gills' or 'teeth' under their caps while others appear to be of the ugliest edibles on the planet. I should like to know: what led the first person ever to see an old-growth, decayed shelf fungi, to say, "Hey! I shall eat this!"?
 
So not my kids, Tuba responded to my post over at FA thread. Want to sleuth that angle with me here or should we do that on the theory thread?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 62 more.
Total: 2,129 (members: 63, guests: 2,066)

Online statistics

Members online
63
Guests online
2,066
Total visitors
2,129
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
601,922
Messages
18,131,924
Members
231,187
Latest member
atriumproperties
Back
Top