WI - ICE seeks help to ID youth in photos #2 - Identified

[tambo]

Originally Posted by marie-chantal
I've seen it mentioned in the previous thread that there is an adult voice off-camera. I've also read (I haven't seen the pics-I just can't do it) that someone else is doing the filming.

None of that has been at all substantiated.

Just speculation.

No one else is doing the filming. It is very clear and obvious that he is using a webcam.

He often reaches towards it and types or moves it.

They have said they believe that an adult is is involved in this, and they are hoping to find the adult also.


"We believe there's an adult involved in all of this," Neudauer said from Minneapolis, Minnesota. "If we can identify the young person involved, we suspect that we'll be able to remove a couple of young people from a dangerous environment and also, perhaps, identify an adult."


http://articles.cnn.com/2012-06-21/...g-people-agents-minnesota-twins?_s=PM:JUSTICE

 

[Sleuthsayers]

Originally Posted by marie-chantal
I've seen it mentioned in the previous thread that there is an adult voice off-camera. I've also read (I haven't seen the pics-I just can't do it) that someone else is doing the filming.






They have said they believe that an adult is is involved in this, and they are hoping to find the adult also.


"We believe there's an adult involved in all of this," Neudauer said from Minneapolis, Minnesota. "If we can identify the young person involved, we suspect that we'll be able to remove a couple of young people from a dangerous environment and also, perhaps, identify an adult."


http://articles.cnn.com/2012-06-21/...g-people-agents-minnesota-twins?_s=PM:JUSTICE

Right, "believe". Not "know".


If the person on the other end of the webcam was an adult, there is your adult.

(also, If the video is from 2010, that boy in the video may be 18 now.)

I'm just saying. We do not have any actual confirmation that there was in fact an adult in the room during the making of this video.
That's all I'm saying.

*If* there were an adult in the room during the video they wouldn't just "believe" an adult was involved, they would know.

This home is obviously a "dangerous environment" whether there is an adult involved in making the video or not. Clearly there is parental negligence.

There is one scene where the boy is looking off in a different direction as though he may be talking to someone else in the room. But its purely speculation. A parent could have just yelled down to the basement to let them know they were going out to the store or something.

I just think if LE knows an adult is in the room and merely says that they "believe" an adult is involved, its would be misleading at best. And if we can't take what they've said at face value we kind of have to dismiss it altogether.

 

[Sleuthsayers]

Since the t shirt is described as faded from washings, I would guess that the date of the video to be even later than July. Whether that is helpful or not, I don't know. jmo
.

I've thought a lot about that ...

Did LE say faded from washings?

Because I'm starting to wonder if its just the graininess of the video that makes it seem faded.

Mostly because someone said on here, I think it was the person from 4chan, that the video appeared on 4chan IN 2010.

I don't know if that is true or not but would be very relevant to know I think.

Its a shame people who have seen the video can't come here and talk about it without fear of being turned in.
They would be able to answer these questions about if there is an adult, is there any speaking, does someone say his name, etc.

 

[SoBeCzar]

Right, "believe". Not "know".


If the person on the other end of the webcam was an adult, there is your adult.

(also, If the video is from 2010, that boy in the video may be 18 now.)

I'm just saying. We do not have any actual confirmation that there was in fact an adult in the room during the making of this video.
That's all I'm saying.

*If* there were an adult in the room during the video they wouldn't just "believe" an adult was involved, they would know.

This home is obviously a "dangerous environment" whether there is an adult involved in making the video or not. Clearly there is parental negligence.

There is one scene where the boy is looking off in a different direction as though he may be talking to someone else in the room. But its purely speculation. A parent could have just yelled down to the basement to let them know they were going out to the store or something.

I just think if LE knows an adult is in the room and merely says that they "believe" an adult is involved, its would be misleading at best. And if we can't take what they've said at face value we kind of have to dismiss it altogether.

If LE says an adult may be involved we should go with that. There are many reasons they might say "believe". One being the adult is never seen but heard and they do not know for a fact without visual confirmation it is an adult. They have some reason to believe there is an adult involved. They would not just pull that out of thin air.
We don't know most of the story with out the full video, sound included.
We cannot "dismiss altogether" anything LE says. I would never consider doing that.

 

[Sleuthsayers]

If LE says an adult may be involved we should go with that. There are many reasons they might say "believe". One being the adult is never seen but heard and they do not know for a fact without visual confirmation it is an adult. They have some reason to believe there is an adult involved. They would not just pull that out of thin air.
We don't know most of the story with out the full video, sound included.
We cannot "dismiss altogether" anything LE says. I would never consider doing that.

When one is conducting an investigation, whether it be professionals or amateurs...
It is very important to focus on substantiated facts.
I believe LE would have said there was an adult involved if they knew an adult was involved. Certainly if they knew an adult was in the room, they would know an adult was involved.
You are saying that just because they said "believe" the truth may be that they "know". Which makes "believe" a lie, but in this context lets just call it misleading or being selective with what they release to the public.
The point being... *IF* one says that LE "knows" but LE is saying they "believe" you are conceding that they aren't giving factual information to the public. If one believes they are not giving fully factual information to the public, why would one continue to believe they could take every piece of information LE releases at face value?

To get back to why I think we're fixating on this...

Even IF LE said "There is an adult involved" it does not mean there is an adult in the room.

There may very well be an adult in the room, but the evidence that *we* have doesn't bear that out.

There is not a single frame in the images that I've seen that shows an adult in the picture.

No one has said (that I have seen) "Yes I've seen the video and there is an adult in the video" or "yes I have seen the video and you can hear another person in the room who may be an adult" or anything like that.

If you can find where someone said that please direct me to it. If you dont want to do that on here you can send me a pm.

So far , it has only been speculated that an adult may be in the room.


Again, if you have any evidence (not speculation) about an adult being in the room please direct me to it.

In fact any evidence, I'm desperate for facts here.

 

[Sleuthsayers]

If LE says an adult may be involved we should go with that. There are many reasons they might say "believe". One being the adult is never seen but heard and they do not know for a fact without visual confirmation it is an adult. They have some reason to believe there is an adult involved. They would not just pull that out of thin air.
We don't know most of the story with out the full video, sound included.
We cannot "dismiss altogether" anything LE says. I would never consider doing that.

And like I said...

It seems to me that he is in communication with someone who is watching the webcam live.
If that person is an adult , that is a very dangerous adult indeed and they would want to find that person.

If there was an adult seen in the video, I truly believe the police would have issued that persons picture first.

 

[NavySubMom]

I saw the (I'm sure) same pictures and my thought process was identical to yours.
When I laid eyes on the "younger" boy, the hair stood up on my arms.

It's probably coincidence that someone somehow loosely connected to TD looks so much like the boy in the video stills, but it's still uncanny how much they look alike!

Wow, Yes, I had the exact same thought pop into my head, the "younger" version boy was to the left of a girl when looking at the pic, sitting at a table? I'm sure I looked at that same photo you are referring to, interesting to say the least I thought, hmmmmm ...... random coincidence? but I'm sure worth passing along to the tip line, glad it was passed along,

I wonder how many tips they are receiving?

IMO, MOO, etc.

 

[SoBeCzar]

When one is conducting an investigation, whether it be professionals or amateurs...
It is very important to focus on substantiated facts.
I believe LE would have said there was an adult involved if they knew an adult was involved. Certainly if they knew an adult was in the room, they would know an adult was involved.
You are saying that just because they said "believe" the truth may be that they "know". Which makes "believe" a lie, but in this context lets just call it misleading or being selective with what they release to the public.
The point being... *IF* one says that LE "knows" but LE is saying they "believe" you are conceding that they aren't giving factual information to the public. If one believes they are not giving fully factual information to the public, why would one continue to believe they could take every piece of information LE releases at face value?

To get back to why I think we're fixating on this...

Even IF LE said "There is an adult involved" it does not mean there is an adult in the room.

There may very well be an adult in the room, but the evidence that *we* have doesn't bear that out.

There is not a single frame in the images that I've seen that shows an adult in the picture.

No one has said (that I have seen) "Yes I've seen the video and there is an adult in the video" or "yes I have seen the video and you can hear another person in the room who may be an adult" or anything like that.

If you can find where someone said that please direct me to it. If you dont want to do that on here you can send me a pm.

So far , it has only been speculated that an adult may be in the room.


Again, if you have any evidence (not speculation) about an adult being in the room please direct me to it.

In fact any evidence, I'm desperate for facts here.

LE frequently uses "believe" in cases. Just google "believe to be in" and you will get tons of articles with LE saying they believe someone is no longer in danger or believe someone is in a certain car or someone is believed to be in the company of so and so.
LE is not misleading us because they say believe.
We also do not know what images were not on the imageshack link.
An adult does not have to be on camera. That is why we need sound to decide that.
LE has much more evidence than we have so I will not assume they are lying to us or misleading us.

 

[Sleuthsayers]

LE frequently uses "believe" in cases. Just google "believe to be in" and you will get tons of articles with LE saying they believe someone is no longer in danger or believe someone is in a certain car or someone is believed to be in the company of so and so.
LE is not misleading us because they say believe.
We also do not know what images were not on the imageshack link.
An adult does not have to be on camera. That is why we need sound to decide that.
LE has much more evidence than we have so I will not assume they are lying to us or misleading us.

That isn't what I said.

I put a great deal of thought into what I wrote.

I tried to use quotes/asterisks/caps/etc in an attempt for clarity.

I did not say that "LE Is misleading us because they say believe".

I said... IF LE knows, and they SAY they believe, that is misleading.

If you do not believe that saying one thing when the reality is opposite of that is misleading... I don't know what else I can say to explain what I am getting at.

And I don't know why we're arguing semantics.

Again, I made my point very clearly and excessively (as I usually do).

If you mean one thing and you say something else that is the DEFINITION of misleading. Period.

I did not say there was anything wrong with LE saying what they feel they need to say in order to achieve the desired result. Period.

I SAID that an adult does not have to be on camera. I have SAID that there could be an adult offcamera in the room knowing what is happening or orchestrating it.

I am saying that *we* don't know for a fact that one IS.

Speculation is fine, thats mostly all we can do...

However...

Stating speculation/assumptions as fact only muddies things up and makes things more confusing.

So once again, there is still zero EVIDENCE (that we have seen) that there is an adult in the room. Period.

Speculation, assumptions, guesses, even likelihood, yes.

EVIDENCE, no.

I don't know why we're still arguing this. IF you have EVIDENCE that there is an adult in the room, please share with the group.

Otherwise, I really really would like to stop arguing semantics and focus on IDing the kid.

 

[Sleuthsayers]

Does anyone know offhand what the protocol is when an adult is arrested for a sex crime they committed a minor?

Would the story be made public with his name?

 

[Sleuthsayers]

Wow, Yes, I had the exact same thought pop into my head, the "younger" version boy was to the left of a girl when looking at the pic, sitting at a table? I'm sure I looked at that same photo you are referring to, interesting to say the least I thought, hmmmmm ...... random coincidence? but I'm sure worth passing along to the tip line, glad it was passed along,

I wonder how many tips they are receiving?

IMO, MOO, etc.

Can you tell me what you're talking about in this post?

Are you able to link to the pics you're referencing?

I was trying to follow this but I have no idea where people are seeing this "younger boy".

This is a boy that is in a picture with TD?

 

[Elley Mae]

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlin...lp-identifying-teen-in-dangerous-environment/

Officials said they believe finding the boy could also help them to remove several other young people from the situation.

He is thought to be with other children and at least one adult, but officials aren’t giving any other details about the video or the circumstances the boy is in.

 

[Sleuthsayers]

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlin...lp-identifying-teen-in-dangerous-environment/

Officials said they believe finding the boy could also help them to remove several other young people from the situation.

He is thought to be with other children and at least one adult, but officials aren’t giving any other details about the video or the circumstances the boy is in.

"several young people" is interesting.
However...
when I go to the msnbc and cnn articles, the word "several" doesn't even come up at all on msnbc and it only comes up on cnn in the context of the shirt being washed several times.

"” ICE spokesman Shawn Meudauer told ABC News. “We do not have intelligence that he’s in any immediate, life-threatening danger, but that could obviously change.”"

So... its some heinous child *advertiser censored* ring involving several children and orchestrated by at least one adult. But...he's not in any immediate danger?

I took that direct quote from the ABC article.

However... The "several children" comment ... is not a direct quote. So...

This direct quote is from msnbc's article:

""We believe that if we can identify him, we can remove multiple young people from a dangerous environment," he said."

2 = multiple.

And "with an adult" just means.. he is ...with an adult.

Aren't most children with an adult? Aren't... all ...children...with an adult?

I really hope it isn't several children, because if this video is in fact 2 years old...that is a lot of damage.

 

[Sleuthsayers]

In the main picture LE released with the boy facing forward, does it seem as though his ears are pierced?

My potential match has both ears pierced and I was thinking that it couldn't be seen whether or not this kids are...but...

I just looked again at the LE pic and right away I though his right ear looks pierced!!

Nowadays guys don't pierce their right ear only right? So if the right ear is pierced its a good indication that both are pierced and that would give me a bit more confirmation in my own mind about my potential match.

Please tell me it looks like a dark dot on his right ear, lol, I am having a hard time finding either a "smoking gun" or a "definite dealbreaker" on my potential match so I can't let it go one way or another and try to start to find another potential match.


ETA: crap in the side profile pic his ear doesn't look pierced at all.

Edited again to add: In the msnbc pic his ear looks pierced in both photos, while in the abc one his right earlobe looks completely clean of any marks on the profile pic.

 

[Elley Mae]

I have not seen or read a fresh article or plea for help since the info on the video came to light. jmo weird

 

[FrayedKnot]

I think this whole thing is weird. Asking the public, but not releasing a decent face photo, no followup articles.....

Stinks of Franklin cover up. I hope nobody working for ICE turns up missing over this.

 

[SoBeCzar]

I think this whole thing is weird. Asking the public, but not releasing a decent face photo, no followup articles.....

Stinks of Franklin cover up. I hope nobody working for ICE turns up missing over this.

What's Franklin cover up?

 

[Sleuthsayers]

Pierced ears...anyone?

Does he look like his ears are pierced in the LE picture?

 

[Jacie Estes]

...I've been a lurker for quite a few years....

I'm part of the Virginia Tech community, I may have posted about that at least once, not sure....there have been a few incidents at VT that have been discussed here, and I was on campus when they all happened, and I've seen the effect that they've had on folks I know (I feel fortunate not to have been directly affected)

In spite of that, as many horrible stories as are posted here and across the internet in general on a daily basis, I have never been so disturbed by any story over the past years than this one...I hesitantly but eventually viewed the 'screenshots' link...(wishing I hadn't,....). I haven't read anymore of the thread since I viewed the link a few hours ago, and don't know if I'll be back anytime soon.

However, I've seen the help that Websleuthers have provided in other cases...please, PLEASE work together to find this little girl and help her....(and the youth involved, if he has also been a victim...whatever the case, and whatever abuse he may have suffered, he needs to monitored for the rest of his life, that's up for specialists to decide.....)

Bless you all that work to provide help in every case.

Welcome to Websleuths, valenska. I'm happy to hear you were safe during the VT shootings in 2007. I did a thesis paper on them and how an intimate violence incidence was at the core; that was definitely a wake up call for campuses.

This case is disturbing and the frustration of such limited information adds to it.

 

[Jacie Estes]

Stay safe!!!!!!!! I hope they get the fire under control.

Thank you. We had a huge t-storm last night with 3 inches of rain but there is still smoke in the air this morning. In the Black Hills everything is compacted and fire jumps quickly; this one went from 40 acres to 70 acres yesterday afternoon. It is going to be 105 here today and that is tough weather to fight fires in, especially on rugged terrain.

http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/ra...cle_1ab06480-4a8f-54d0-93ab-0e78e243ee54.html