Search Warrants Affidavits 3/18/2011

[curiousc]

The child was in the paragraph above and then the officer continued on to explain what else has been found is the way I read it. Two different paragraphs outlining everything that was found.

Why I think they talk about the one child image is that they are connecting the dots and know that it ties to SA. What we do not know is that out of over 100,000 images on his mom's computer, how many are in fact child ?

It does seem all confusing but we really don't have a clue as to what LE really has as evidence.

We have to remember too that this affidavit is to give probable cause for them to search GMA's house which is why they mention that one cp image that ties two computers in two separate residences.

 

[ajk]

http://www.ktxs.com/news/27240005/detail.html
i wanna see what is on this one.:waitasec:[

 

[ajk]

http://www.ktxs.com/news/27240005/detail.html
sorry here it is

 

[concernedmother]

There ya go gram.. From page 3.. It says there were adult images..and "appears to him that the image of child found on this computer" ..That says one image that appears to be child and its that image {singular} that seems to be similar to an image on his mom's computer..

Thats what I am referring to..

I am not alone in my disappointment and feeling of being mislead..as we too find that there is no child on the memory stick..
Those are my concerns

This is talking about what was downloaded from his email tho doesnt it?

 

[LisaB]

I'm kinda thinking that if LE just wanted to procure search warrants and put an end to the innocent "wonderful" mother and "awesome" boyfriend charade, they could have more easily focused on drugs. At this point, I think the illegal is major and valid and I'll let LE continue proving their case. They want to find Hailey, not unjustifiably crucify Shawn and Billie, imo. The deviant plays into the disappearance imo. Lots to ponder...

IMO, if they had used drugs as the focus of the search warrant, they would not have been able to justify taking electronics. The only way they'd get a warrant for the electronics was by explaining why they wanted them.

 

[els]

i think they need to clarify, wether he has CP or not. in the uk we have the "top shelf" in the newsagents which is where all the is put, and there are so many different "just 18" magazines, even magazines called hideous things like "barely legal" so theres obviously a call for it. if an image is in question if it is CP or not but not for definate then it cant be a small child which is an ALMIGHTY relief for a start.

the only man i know who vehemently swears to hate is my partner and i didnt believe him to begin with! i've not met a guy, that doesnt use or watch or download , its a certain conditioning of generations sadly, and being under 30 i find its made out to us be more acceptable. as SA is only 25 i'd be suprised if he didnt use it. my last housemate who was the same age was obbsessed with the stuff, but with what i'd say was a niche area (a legal one) and his life revolved around downloading and saving and storing and watching the carp when he wasnt at work. he went to a doctor eventually to ask for help as it became his life. i cant imagine at his level of downloading, which must be on a par with the amount of images found on the SA computer,and searching out his type of he didnt accidentally come across something terrible like CP. i dont know, i never asked him, but maybe sheer statistics would mean that he might have come across one image at least, especially as he had "specialist tastes".


unfortunatly it really is everywhere, but when it comes to this case i cant help but feel like LE are not being so clear and straightforward, we're no closer to Hailey, and BD is just making holes for herself and climbing right in. I hope and somewhat feel that LE know exactly what they are doing and are looking for something specific and are maybe using things like this to get a closer look at things. i cant imagine they'd get search warrants easily if they only had a computer full of "normal" or legal . maybe even just one image that cant be decided can help to unlock other things?

ETA

Why I think they talk about the one child image is that they are connecting the dots and know that it ties to SA. What we do not know is that out of over 100,000 images on his mom's computer, how many are in fact child ?

It does seem all confusing but we really don't have a clue as to what LE really has as evidence.

We have to remember too that this affidavit is to give probable cause for them to search GMA's house which is why they mention that one cp image that ties two computers in two separate residences.

this is a good point, maybe they are talking about one image as it connects the two computers, not because there is only one image in total. i didnt think of that!

 

[Ssejors]

108000 images of CP is not a hobby or an addiction folks. That's a business. There is no way that is one man's collection. Organised Child abuse RINGS don't have that much media.

 

[cluciano63]

If there isn't any child ...I have to change my opinion about whether or not SA is involved. That was a big turning point for me.

And about the beastiality...there should be no mistaking that, even for this LE Either there are images depicting sex acts with animals and people or not. I can see where there may have been questions about the ages of women/teens in images...and am not sure how that can ever be cleared up for sure, especially if any of the is "homemade."

I was gaining so much confidence in how LE was working this case, but now it is slipping a little. It makes me wonder about all the things Billie disputed from the original interview with LE, i.e. that LE says she told them she was buying illegal drugs, or what SA was to have said about Hailey, etc...I really hope LE taped those interviews and every one since.

 

[SmoothOperator]

SmoothOperator... I wanted to address your last post but didn't want to quote for space lol

You were talking about the young guys on the RR that share clips/images of unbelievable things...
My first thought when I read in the affidavit that an image was found to be downloaded from SA's email and it matched one on his mothers account... was that it was one of those 'omg you gotta see this type email's' and someone sent it to him from his mom's house. I also thought it was very possible that it could be a random junk email. I have 3 email accounts that I use fairly regularily... I never ever ever ever click on emails that I don't know who they are from and I get tons of them... but not everyone is that smart lol

ewww I kinda feel dirty now, I feel like I am sticking up for SA, and I am in no way defending him, because I do believe it's very possible he is responsible for Hailey's disappearance.

yes Missy I know exactly how you feel and coming to Shawn Adkins defense is the last motive in this entire universe that I have..that I promise you..because no matter what is NOT found to be on those devices I still have grave concern with him being the perpatrator to what happened to Hailey.. I'll explain just a little further..Then I'm hushing for the night{lol..because I too now feel dirty..lol}His fascination with the horror..the evil..the serial killers and brutal true crime stories that seemed to be his and BD's bedtime stories..His obsession with the horror masks..the knives..and even the occult..as if thats not enough to be concerned about..you add in his obvious need for ..period..I don't care if its granny ..or regular labeled ..his obvious need for it by the sheer numbers alone and on EVERY SINGLE DEVICE CONNECTED TO SHAWN..

THOSE TWO THINGS IMO ARE MORE THAN ENOUGH FOR ME TO HAVE GREAT CONCERN THAT HIS RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT HAPPENED TO HAILEY..

It definitely does not have to child for me to think of him as the numero uno suspect extraordinaire!! I still 100% believe its him..

but as for this whole misleading deal thats been going on..its not that its Shawn Adkins being wronged{I could care less}..but its any Joe Schmo that lives in AnyTown USA that "Shawn" represents as far as getting slammed as a child pornographer just to start with.. when if its questionable "teens" that could pass for being under 18 with their school girl uniform and pigtails...and LE is just using the "CP" thing as a way to further investigate Hailey's case{yes I understand that but at the same time I think of those guys that I kept bringing up from The RR..and if it indeed happens to be just young looking 18 year olds that they're stating "could be" child ..etc..etc.. well whats happening to Shawn's name and character{completely seperate from Hailey case}is being destroyed and painted as tho he is for a fact a child addict..most likely as well as a child pornographer manufacturing and trading/selling it..

Thats my issue is that if any of those guys I speak of's devices were analyzed some might be quite similar{if it turned out to be just young looking 18 yr olds}...I think u get what I'm saying just as I totally understand your saying "you feel dirty" for in some way seeming to defend Shawn Adkins.. I am not defending Shawn Adkins I am defending the points made above and it happen to be a young guy anywhere in the world..

I'm done for the night tho..I've got indigestion{lol} from getting riled up over the BS that may or may not be going on..

 

[missy1974]

Why I think they talk about the one child image is that they are connecting the dots and know that it ties to SA. What we do not know is that out of over 100,000 images on his mom's computer, how many are in fact child ?

It does seem all confusing but we really don't have a clue as to what LE really has as evidence.

We have to remember too that this affidavit is to give probable cause for them to search GMA's house which is why they mention that one cp image that ties two computers in two separate residences.

If they were only going to use 1 image to connect the dots, I would hope they would try to use an image that they are 100% sure of. Not one that 'appears to be'. Or if it is as many as we thought it was, that they would have more than 1 dot to connect. JMO

I do believe that there will be some sort of CP connected to SA in all of this. What doesn't sit well with me, is that it was implied and put out there by LE as being more than what is in the affidavits. And I know that not everyone is going to agree... but when BD said 'phewwww there was no CP on the memory stick', popular opinion was that she was a liar and she is in denial and she is covering for SA and it was said that she was pretty much calling LE liars because they were quoted as saying there was CP on that memory stick, but they never corrected that publicly. I think that's wrong.

I have to wonder if there are any legal implications for them saying publicly that there was CP on that memory stick, if there in fact wasn't?

 

[yllek]

IMO, if they had used drugs as the focus of the search warrant, they would not have been able to justify taking electronics. The only way they'd get a warrant for the electronics was by explaining why they wanted them.

True. But, I think the only reason they want the electronics is because they have a strong belief that they contain illegal . If all they wanted was a legal excuse to search all of his residences in regards to Hailey's disappearance and there really isn't evidence of illegal , they could likely have made a case to search for drugs more easily (possibly based only on his public youtube video). JMO. I'm very interested to see where all of this leads...

 

[Wondergirl]

It's my OPINION that unfortunately I do believe the "one" cp image that LE is referring to could in fact be Hailey.

That is why it is specifically mentioned in singular form.

I really, really hope I am wrong. Don't even like typing it.

But it's possible that it is.

 

[grandmaj]

This is talking about what was downloaded from his email tho doesnt it?

Yes you are correct. These are two different events. One being that child was found on the computer had been deleted but can be retrieved.

and next thought, next point being......

that there was one picture that was sent through email.

These are two totally different statements which hold on their own merit, one not canceling the other out in importance. One talks about images of child .

The next paragraph goes on to explain the one image having gone through the email and one matching one found on the mother's computer.

New paragraph new thought, point, reason for asking for the warrant.

 

[concernedmother]

Yes you are correct. These are two different events. One being that child was found on the computer had been deleted but can be retrieved.

and next thought, next point being......

that there was one picture that was sent through email.

These are two totally different statements which hold on their own merit, one not canceling the other out in importance. One talks about images of child .

The next paragraph goes on to explain the one image having gone through the email and one matching one found on the mother's computer.

New paragraph new thought, point, reason for asking for the warrant.

Thats the way I understood it too. It specifically says on the one it was from his email .

 

[grandmaj]

Read paragraph 2 page 3 again. They found child on the mother's computer.


"On that computer in the slack space area the FBI found images of child ."

And then in the next paragraph in addition they talk about the picture transmitted through email.

This email is important in that it shows he was using multiple devices and moving this stuff from one place to another. And then they talk about the other adult ........

But it doesn't diminish or cancel out that child was found on the computer.

 

[SmoothOperator]

This is talking about what was downloaded from his email tho doesnt it?

"an image that it appears to me to be a child pornographic image
It appears to me that the Child Pornographic image found on this computer is similar..."

yes you are correct that this was where on "the computer"{Grandmas}that the child pornographic image found in this computer. SINGULAR AS IN ONE IMAGE ON THE COMPUTER..

WHERE HE SPECIFIES THAT ITS SIMILAR TO ATLEAST ONE CP IMAGE ON HIS MOM'S..PLURAL AS IN MORE THAN ONE..but is it just 2? most importantly it "appears" TO HIM that its Child ..but its not discerned if its even an underage person{most likely a teen who could go either way..18+/-}..
so one image found on grandmas{I take it theres one iffy on grandmas pc} appears to be like atleast the same one of mom's{and plural that are iffy on mom's pc}..but they "appear" and none are proven to even be child ..

IMO this is why no one has been arrested..because its obviously a girl in photo that is a teen that could possibly be either or and until its proven that it is indeed a minor then of course no one could be arrested../

 

[cluciano63]

I have doubts about Hailey being on an image, only because how could they not make an arrest, if so? It would have to be SA, or certainly reasonable cause to believe it was SA who had/stored/taken that image. His family would not have had reasonable access to Hailey.

 

[SmoothOperator]

It's my OPINION that unfortunately I do believe the "one" cp image that LE is referring to could in fact be Hailey.

That is why it is specifically mentioned in singular form.

I really, really hope I am wrong. Don't even like typing it.

But it's possible that it is.

Well wondergirl I would try to reassure you that its not Hailey because LE make the statement that no images found on any devices were of Hailey..but they also stated there was child on the memory stick from the drawer and now we know there is NOT cp on memory stick..

ETA~ tho You still should feel assured it is not Hailey because if it was Hailey..well there would be none of this hem-hawing with "the image appears to be child "..but not yet proven..so if it was a pic of Hailey..they know for certain she is underage..13 yrs old and would "definitely be child " and he would be arrested..So IMO that's not a worry..
Until they discern whether or not the girl in the image that "appears" to be the same girl in one of the images from mom's pc..until its found what her age is and if its found that she s under 18 only then could they attempt to file CP charges..jmo tho..

 

[Kamille]

From what I understand in the affadavit, the LE officer was voluntarily given the opportunity to look at one computer in the grandmother's residence that SA was known to use back in February. The computer was not seized at that time but was "gone over" by the LE officer there in the home. And from what he was able to assess, there was not only the possibility that this computer connected an image of possible CP to the mother's computer which appears to have contained at least one image, but there were other computers and devices in the home that the officer did not have permission to look at.

So I believe that the affadavit was to obtain a search warrant for the premises and any and all computers and media devices that SA may have had access to. And with that search warrant, would they not have been able to seize the computers and media devices that they found for a more in depth look at them?

MOO

 

[Knox]

Just reading the SW and trying to catch up. I am confused by the legal language in search warrants sometimes, they sure went to great lengths to describe that house, even though photo's are also part of the exhibit.

"suspected party" whether one or more ... Are those named (other than SA) the other POI's?