SA's alibi was not corroborated and credible. He started by saying he had been FIRED BY HIS BOSS. That was a LIE. His boss said SA inexplicably walked off the job, with no words about it, at 6:10 am. WHAT A COINCIDENCE that he walks away from his high paying job, for no apparent reason, the very day that Hailey goes missing.
The witnesses that say they saw Hailey are not very credible. And that lone text that was supposedly from Hailey means nothing. It could have been anyone. I don't know any 13 yr old girls, home alone on a vacationed day, with a cell, that would text ONE TEXT to a friend. No calls, no communication at all to anyone else. When a popular 13 yr old is looking for something to do, she is texting more than one text to one person.
I do not believe for a second that it was Hailey texting.
If the witnesses were correct about Hailey being out and about with other kids, in town, then there would be more than just that one lady having seen her. It is a small town where everyone knows everyone else. That sighting does not seem credible to me.
SA lied about his day at work, lied about his wherebouts after work, flunked 2 poly's, gave a bogus story about where Hailey was, admitted that he was the last one to see her alive, and then acted strangely for weeks and months...
He told BD that he had been fired. Judging from the house they lived in I doubt that they had much income, and if he lost his job that income would be reduced and BD would be none too pleased. Being fired is something that would be outside his control, which is quite different from just quitting. BD could live with him being fired, but she would boot his



out of the house if he quit, so he told her he had been fired. He apparently did not tell LE that though (otherwise they would have said so explicitly in the affidavit - they actually say that he told them that he quit - instead they say that he said that he was fired, but did not say to whom he said this). They were conflating what BD told them with what the manager told them and came up with a contradiction. If they had asked the proper questions in the first place there would be no discrepancy. Well, they did ask the proper questions, but they phrased it in the affidavit in an ambiguous way that made it seem incriminating. The purpose of that was so they could get their search warrant, but not actually lie.
Whether you think that the witnesses who claimed to have seen HD are credible or not is moot - they have made those claims and those claims have not been disproven. The claims they made seem credible to me.
The lone text means everything, since someone had to make it and it obviously could not be either BD or SA. The source of the text would have been obvious from its routing information, so the fact that it was sent from the house and sent to HD's friend is convincing evidence that HD sent it, or someone else that had both access to the house and knew who her friends were. That is a very short list, and if it excludes BD and SA by virtue of them being somewhere else at the time, there are not a whole lot of other people who could have sent it. If not HD, then who else on that very short list do you suggest?
We don't really know what other texts or calls may have been made, other than a text was sent to her friend (who apparently had no knowledge of the text, according to her mother - has no one asked how that could have worked? I can tell you - it doesn't - there is no denying the routing). Specifically, we know about that text because the message was physically on the phone. There may be other messages, deleted, and calls as well, none of which would be apparent on casual inspection of the phone. You would need the phone records from the telcom for that. We know from the final set of affidavits that LE requested that information from the telcom, and once they received it notice how progress pursuing SA suddenly stopped? I will tell you the reason why - it is because it would have been obvious that HD was at home while SA was in Big Spring. Once that happened they had no probable cause to continue on that line.
There were three different people who reported seeing her IIRC, including one who observed her in the back yard using the phone at approximately the time the text message was sent.
As far as I can tell, SA might have lied to BD about what he was doing, but he did not lie to LE (otherwise he would be behind bars right now). Polygraphs will show deceptive responses if the interview is not done correctly. For example, if it is done in an inquisitorial manner the person being interviewed will become defensive and that will show up as deception. And we know that it was done in an inquisitorial manner because they actually say in the affidavits that they were trying to narrow down the location of HD. SA was co-operating with them until it dawned on him that they were trying to frame him - that is why he walked out. What would you do under those circumstances? Just stay there and be framed?
What evidence is there that SA behaved strangely for weeks and months? He seemed to behave quite normally as far as I can tell, considering that people were basically accusing him of murder.