Hailey Dunn General Discussion #2

[For The Kids]

The 2 most important pages of the affidavits. As you can see, Shawn was NOT cooperative and honest about ANYTHING.View attachment 34775
View attachment 34776


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I don't know - he did say she would be found in Scurry County

 

[Frostess]

I don't know - he did say she would be found in Scurry County

Oops, my bad. So he did tell the truth about 1 thing. LOL

 

[For The Kids]

Oops, my bad. So he did tell the truth about 1 thing. LOL

I was kind of messing about there by the way LOL

 

[Tugela]

Respectfully snipped~



Let me list the cases where the victim was reported to have been seen after they actually disappeared ... The eyewitnesses who saw them, were "uncorroborated".

Jhessye Shockley
Isabel Celis
Caylee Anthony
Haleigh Cummings
Lindsey Baum

Leila Fowler's case also came to mind. While the neighbor did not claim to see the victim, she did claim to see a man who could have been the killer.
http://fox40.com/2013/05/02/witness-recants-in-leila-fowler-investigation/

I could go on and on, the threads here are full of similar sightings of victims which prove to be false. I for one am not deflecting to prevent interest in any credible sightings of Hailey.

What about listing all the uncorroborated sightings in cases that later turned out to be true, which is what happens in the vast majority of cases.

Remember, these were not strangers making the sightings of HD, these were people who knew her.

 

[my_tee_mouse]

What about listing all the uncorroborated sightings in cases that later turned out to be true, which is what happens in the vast majority of cases.

Remember, these were not strangers making the sightings of HD, these were people who knew her.

Well then "gofer it." We've got time. We'll wait until you get that list together.

 

[Tugela]

The 2 most important pages of the affidavits. As you can see, Shawn was NOT cooperative and honest about ANYTHING.View attachment 34775
View attachment 34776


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Actually, he was cooperating for the most part, it was just that LE was adversarial and didn't like his answers. Probably because they had already decided he was their guy.

Let me suggest (as I have pointed out repeatedly) you look at what LE did NOT say in the affidavit. The details that should be there, but are not. They do not cite any specifics he said that later were contradicted. IMO it is because the contradictory information was hearsay from other people who claimed SA told them, not what SA actually told LE.

LE do not appear to have asked critical questions about details either. For example, exactly what his movements were, which way he went and when. Why? He said he went to his mothers house, but no specifics were given. SA later said in an interview that LE never asked him those sorts of details, just where he went, which is what he told them. If you read the affidavit, that is exactly what appears to have happened. Then afterwards they got phone call routing information that indicated calls made on route through CC, and they saw THAT as a contradiction. In an affidavit they can't lie and make up specifics, but they still want their warrant, so they imply a discrepancy instead.

What about the events at his work? Again, read the affidavit, and you will notice that although they give great detail about what the supervisor said, they give very little detail regarding what SA claimed (basically none). Why is that? My interpretation is that is yet another implied discrepancy, of which the affidavit is full.

 

[Tugela]

I don't know - he did say she would be found in Scurry County

If he believed that she had run off as part of a custodial dispute, where else would he think she had gone?

As far as he would be concerned (assuming she was making waves about wanting to live with her father as you claim) if one day she said she was going to visit her father, then never came back and had apparently vanished, he would believe that she was hiding out with family/friends. That presumably would be in Scurry county.

If he believed that was what happened, then he would come up as truthful in the poly when asked.

 

[Tugela]

Well then "gofer it." We've got time. We'll wait until you get that list together.

You got me. Sightings of people in criminal cases are all bogus unless corroborated electronically.

We here on WS never, ever, ever, ever accept an eyewitness account.

I'm not going to waste my time making a list because you know perfectly well that eye witness accounts are commonly accepted both here and in court routinely. They are accepted in good faith unless they can be shown to be untrue.

You don't want to accept THESE eyewitnesses basically because it doesn't suit your argument.

 

[For The Kids]

If he believed that she had run off as part of a custodial dispute, where else would he think she had gone?

As far as he would be concerned (assuming she was making waves about wanting to live with her father as you claim) if one day she said she was going to visit her father, then never came back and had apparently vanished, he would believe that she was hiding out with family/friends. That presumably would be in Scurry county.

If he believed that was what happened, then he would come up as truthful in the poly when asked.

That's a lot of assumptions really.

 

[For The Kids]

You got me. Sightings of people in criminal cases are all bogus unless corroborated electronically.

We here on WS never, ever, ever, ever accept an eyewitness account.

I'm not going to waste my time making a list because you know perfectly well that eye witness accounts are commonly accepted both here and in court routinely. They are accepted in good faith unless they can be shown to be untrue.

You don't want to accept THESE eyewitnesses basically because it doesn't suit your argument.

and you don't want to accept anything we say even if confirmed because it doesn't suit your argument that Shawn Adkins one way or an other is involved in what happened to Hailey. You don't want to accept that a 13 year old child was scared of this man. A man who has threatened many people.

 

[Tugela]

According to LE Clint and Naomi have been cleared so for me the Monday thing isn't an issue. I simply think Naomi got confused out of tiredness with it being Christmas and having a new born baby and being out searching for Hailey. As for the dogs you would expect Hailey to be going to her dads etc so the fact they maybe hit on that doesn't make a great deal and even then they cant agree on where the dogs did or didn't hit. As for the neighbor I believe he said she was on the phone. However phone records didn't back that up. I strongly suspect the lady who went to red box had a different date/time on her receipt also. Out of curiousity why do you have a hard time believing anything happened Sunday night given that Billie has lied so much about Sunday and the Monday morning?

They were "cleared" from involvement by Toombs (who is no longer has investigational jurisdiction) on the basis of a poly and his belief (in other words they were not excluded on the basis of hard evidence).

That does not mean that HD did not go to their house that day. Toombs said nothing about that, it is an extrapolation you are making. You are assuming that if HD went to CD's house that day, he/N must have done something to her, but that is simply not supported at all, nor is anyone suggesting that.

 

[Tugela]

and you don't want to accept anything we say even if confirmed because it doesn't suit your argument that Shawn Adkins one way or an other is involved in what happened to Hailey. You don't want to accept that a 13 year old child was scared of this man. A man who has threatened many people.

We have eye witness accounts who appear to be sincere.

There is no reason to disbelieve them.

If you have real reason to disbelieve them, enlighten us.

I am not going to discount them simply because you have a different theory of events and they are inconvenient to that.

Assuming this goes to trial based on your theory, the prosecution will claim that HD died the night before. The defence however will use these witnesses to show otherwise. The defence will not be required to corroborate anything, all they will need is for the witnesses to be sincere. At that point the prosecutions case is lost unless they can prove that these witnesses were wrong.

So, you are the local who knows everything the public does not, what is this proof that they are going to present? If you can do that, then you can convince me, otherwise all I am hearing from you is uncorroborated gossip.

 

[katydid23]

]We have eye witness accounts who appear to be sincere.[/B]

There is no reason to disbelieve them.

If you have real reason to disbelieve them, enlighten us.

I am not going to discount them simply because you have a different theory of events and they are inconvenient to that.

Assuming this goes to trial based on your theory, the prosecution will claim that HD died the night before. The defence however will use these witnesses to show otherwise. The defence will not be required to corroborate anything, all they will need is for the witnesses to be sincere. At that point the prosecutions case is lost unless they can prove that these witnesses were wrong.

So, you are the local who knows everything the public does not, what is this proof that they are going to present? If you can do that, then you can convince me, otherwise all I am hearing from you is uncorroborated gossip.

LIKE WHO? Are you speaking of the hairdresser? Because I agree, she is sincere, but off by one day.

 

[For The Kids]

We have eye witness accounts who appear to be sincere.

There is no reason to disbelieve them.

If you have real reason to disbelieve them, enlighten us.

I am not going to discount them simply because you have a different theory of events and they are inconvenient to that.

Assuming this goes to trial based on your theory, the prosecution will claim that HD died the night before. The defence however will use these witnesses to show otherwise. The defence will not be required to corroborate anything, all they will need is for the witnesses to be sincere. At that point the prosecutions case is lost unless they can prove that these witnesses were wrong.

So, you are the local who knows everything the public does not, what is this proof that they are going to present? If you can do that, then you can convince me, otherwise all I am hearing from you is uncorroborated gossip.

It has been posted over and over again why the witnesses were discounted. Again you have no idea what evidence LE does or doesn't have and I have NO doubts whatsoever who it will point to.

 

[Tugela]

That's a lot of assumptions really.

You needed an explanation for how someone would come across as truthful on that question in a poly in this case, and I have provided one to you.

A polygraph does not make a distinction between something you know to be true and something you believe to be true. You physio response will the same.

So, what was SA's response when the poly examination proceeded on the basis that HE knew exactly where she was? He became outraged and walked out, which is exactly what you would expect someone to do.

 

[Knox]

Well then "gofer it." We've got time. We'll wait until you get that list together.

Yes, that is a frequent request isn't it? Yet nothing is ever forthcoming in linkable form when opinions are posted, just rebuttals.

 

[Tugela]

It has been posted over and over again why the witnesses were discounted. Again you have no idea what evidence LE does or doesn't have and I have NO doubts whatsoever who it will point to.

IIRC the reasons were:

1) for the neighbor, he had a record. This is NOT a valid reason to discount him. And in fact, he reported seeing her using a phone at approximately the same time the phone was used.

2) For the hairdresser, video of HD and some boy had been obtained for the day earlier. Again, this is not a valid reason since there is no reason why HD could not have been with the boy on two separate days. The hairdresser was quite insistent that she had the day correct.

3) The woman who saw HD that evening with MB and another boy was discounted (IIRC, never understood the logic of it though) because some girls claimed to see HD in the company of some other girl who was out of town on that day.

Just one more thing to note: these are the people we know about, there have probably been many more who just reported to LE and no one else.

 

[Knox]

We have eye witness accounts who appear to be sincere.

There is no reason to disbelieve them.

If you have real reason to disbelieve them, enlighten us.

I am not going to discount them simply because you have a different theory of events and they are inconvenient to that.

Assuming this goes to trial based on your theory, the prosecution will claim that HD died the night before. The defence however will use these witnesses to show otherwise. The defence will not be required to corroborate anything, all they will need is for the witnesses to be sincere. At that point the prosecutions case is lost unless they can prove that these witnesses were wrong.

So, you are the local who knows everything the public does not, what is this proof that they are going to present? If you can do that, then you can convince me, otherwise all I am hearing from you is uncorroborated gossip.

Again ...

"Police have told us surveillance tapes at both stores put Hailey there on Sunday," Clint Dunn said.
http://www.reporternews.com/news/2011/jan/19/official-rumor-untrue-missing-colorado-city-teen-h/

 

[tlcya]

:banghead:

Waiting sucks.

That is all

 

[katydid23]

IIRC the reasons were:

1) for the neighbor, he had a record. This is NOT a valid reason to discount him. And in fact, he reported seeing her using a phone at approximately the same time the phone was used.

2) For the hairdresser, video of HD and some boy had been obtained for the day earlier. Again, this is not a valid reason since there is no reason why HD could not have been with the boy on two separate days. The hairdresser was quite insistent that she had the day correct.

3) The woman who saw HD that evening with MB and another boy was discounted (IIRC, never understood the logic of it though) because some girls claimed to see HD in the company of some other girl who was out of town on that day.

Just one more thing to note: these are the people we know about, there have probably been many more who just reported to LE and no one else.

1] It was not just because he was a heroin addict. Although that is a valid reason to be concerned. But the person who knew him said he is very unreliable. And the phone was not reported to be in use at noon. It was reportedly used to send one text at around 3 pm. VERY different scenario than her tALKING on the phone at noon.

2] The little boy that HD walked to the store with on Sunday, was at his dad's house on Monday. So she did not walk to the store with him that day.

3] there were apparently inconsistencies with that witnesses story. And if HD was out and about IN PUBLIC, with several other kids, why didn't anyone else see them? And if she had met up with MB then why were there no texts or calls between them prior to that? If MB didn't reply to her text, why would HD bother walking over there?