Search Warrants Affidavits 3/18/2011

[swedie]

I was also going to say that I like to think that LE are telling us was found and they are also lumping CP in there also. = CP. They claim in the affidavit that at least one image was found on 2 computers, but I want to believe that this is their way of letting the public know that SA was also into CP as well as other disgusting material. That's their way of saying We'll give you just a little hint". JMHO In the above report it doesn't say anything about CP, just P.

 

[bessie]

I was also going to say that I like to think that LE are telling us was found and they are also lumping CP in there also. = CP. They claim in the affidavit that at least one image was found on 2 computers, but I want to believe that this is their way of letting the public know that SA was also into CP as well as other disgusting material. That's their way of saying We'll give you just a little hint". JMHO In the above report it doesn't say anything about CP, just P.

I have to disagree, Swedie. Under FOIA, LE responded to a request from the media, but the affadavit was not written for the public's eyes.

 

[swedie]

Hi Bessie :seeya: Looks like we're the only 2 night hawks left in here. You very well could be right but did you read my post 319. I'm off to bed, these late nights are killing me lol.

 

[Tugela]

When I hear of the types of that he was collecting(not the child ) and then child gets thrown into the mix, for some reason my mind doesn't go to teenager child . I feel the that they have determined to be child might be younger than what may be marginally mistaken for under 18. This is just an intuitive reaction I have had since the beginning. Deviant is a very strong word to describe what they found on that first computer.

Deviant would be things like anal, bodily functions or BDSM orientated material probably. Most of the pictures were likely soft core or regular though. They said that the picture from the grandmothers computer "might" be CP, implying that person depicted appeared to be a teen close to age. They also said that it appeared similar to other pictures from the mothers computer, meaning that those pictures were also likely of young looking teens. Anyone who downloads any volume of from non-commercial public sources will allmost certainly have also downloaded a few dubious pictures since they would not know what they have downloaded until they actually looked at it. The only way to avoid that is to obtain from commercial sites only, and since SA appears to be living hand to mouth it seems unlikely that he would spend money on that.

I think if you were looking at someone who was into CP you would find a large number of such images since they would collect them. If there was a large collection of , with a few CP images, and they were deleted, then I would say that whoever downloaded them probably wasn't specifically looking for or interested in CP.

And we can't be sure that SA was the one who actually downloaded the anyway, there were other people living there too. I know they denied downloading CP, but just because they said they didn't doesn't mean they didn't, and it doesn't mean they didn't download the other stuff which could inadvertantly have included CP (content on "free" sites doesn't exactly comply with BBB standards when it comes to naming protocols). The same thing applies to anything found at the grandmothers house. The people there could say it wasn't them, but SA will say that too.

Bottom line is that unless they find quantities of illegal material on something that he alone has access to, or is undeniably his exclusive property, they will have a tough sell to charge him with anything.

 

[swedie]

While there might be only one image of child on RN's computer, it could turn out to be a very important one.

The affadavit says "images of child " were found in the slack space of SA's mother's computer. It goes on to explain that slack space is unallocated space where deleted files are stored. This is the unused portion of a disk drive that catches "debris", scattered bits and pieces of discarded files. These images were not associated with an e-mail account.

Another image of child was found on RN's computer. This image was associated with SA's e-mail account. And, it appeared to match at least one of the images found on SA's mother's computer. This finding is significant because it links the images on SA's mother's computer to SA, thereby furthering the child investigation. Whether it will lead to answers regarding Hailey remains to be seen. :twocents:

In regards to the slack space found on SA's mom's computer, in the affidavit it says there were images of CP found. And that was over a month ago they found them. Then I want to clarify that when they searched gramma's computer on Thursday, they found only 1 image that matched up to the one on his mom's computer. Doesn't mean that there isn't more there. As I mentioned, I don't believe this gentleman is done looking at the devices taken from gramma's house. I really believe there were images found as it states and I underlined. Hope this makes sense. It's late lol. Nite y'all :seeya:

 

[Tugela]

While there might be only one image of child on RN's computer, it could turn out to be a very important one.

The affadavit says "images of child " were found in the slack space of SA's mother's computer. It goes on to explain that slack space is unallocated space where deleted files are stored. This is the unused portion of a disk drive that catches "debris", scattered bits and pieces of discarded files. These images were not associated with an e-mail account.

Another image of child was found on RN's computer. This image was associated with SA's e-mail account. And, it appeared to match at least one of the images found on SA's mother's computer. This finding is significant because it links the images on SA's mother's computer to SA, thereby furthering the child investigation. Whether it will lead to answers regarding Hailey remains to be seen. :twocents:

The deleted files aren't "stored" anywhere. What happens is that the pointers to the files are removed so that the sectors appear blank to the OS, but the file data is still in the same place where it was until the OS writes something else in those sectors.

As far as the email account is concerned, that may not be too usefull. If it is a sent file it could be SA, or it could be anyone in the house if the account was set to automatically remember passwords. If it was a recieved file then the person who sent it would be the one to blame.

Btw, the picture on the grandmothers computer was not the same picture as the ones on the mothers computer, it "appeared similar". There is no match unless it is actually the same picture. IMO if it had been the same picture they would have said so. And even if it was the same picture, that wouldn't mean much if it was only one since any particular picture could be obtained from a large number of sources on the internet (that stuff is all pirated). It could just be coincidence.

In order to say for sure that it was SA, they would have to show that it was sent from SA's email account on the mothers computer to the account and recieved on the grandmothers computer. Why would he do that for just one picture though? And why would he go that trouble?..it would be a lot easier to simply load it onto a thumb drive if he wanted to move it around.

And no, it won't lead to finding HD. This is a side show.

 

[Donjeta]

Waayyy back someone had asked whether SA was searched at BD's or where. This report claims he was searched at BD's. The last sentence according to Toombs sounds like BD has lied to them in the past, don't you think? AND to the media or anyone else who was listening, I would say. Also sounds like LE had to go searching for SA??? (underlined) Still catching up and sorry if this has been clarified.


Officers later found Adkins at Dunn's residence where he was searched but not arrested. Officers arrested Dunn after she denied that Adkins was there and also found the drugs while searching her house, Toombs said.

"She did lie to a police officer whenever he (Shawn Adkins) was there," Toombs said.

http://www.macon.com/2011/03/18/1491940/mother-of-missing-west-texas-cheerleader.html

I think the whenever could be a spellchecker typo and it ought to be "whether he was there".

 

[LisaB]

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.

I thought there had been an official statement that Hailey was NOT found in any of the images. Unless there's something new, she's not, and if she was I think it would assure immediate arrest,

 

[bessie]

The deleted files aren't "stored" anywhere. What happens is that the pointers to the files are removed so that the sectors appear blank to the OS, but the file data is still in the same place where it was until the OS writes something else in those sectors.

As far as the email account is concerned, that may not be too usefull. If it is a sent file it could be SA, or it could be anyone in the house if the account was set to automatically remember passwords. If it was a recieved file then the person who sent it would be the one to blame.

Btw, the picture on the grandmothers computer was not the same picture as the ones on the mothers computer, it "appeared similar". There is no match unless it is actually the same picture. IMO if it had been the same picture they would have said so. And even if it was the same picture, that wouldn't mean much if it was only one since any particular picture could be obtained from a large number of sources on the internet (that stuff is all pirated). It could just be coincidence.

In order to say for sure that it was SA, they would have to show that it was sent from SA's email account on the mothers computer to the account and recieved on the grandmothers computer. Why would he do that for just one picture though? And why would he go that trouble?..it would be a lot easier to simply load it onto a thumb drive if he wanted to move it around.

And no, it won't lead to finding HD. This is a side show.

You make some valid points. I'd like to reply to the statements I've bolded.

Regarding the first paragraph, thanks for the clarification.

It might be difficult to prove conclusively that SA accessed the image from his e-mail account if, as you suggesteted, his password is automatically filled in on his cousin's computer. Possession of child is a crime, though, and it doesn't matter whether he was the sender or receiver. At this point, it's enough that the image was downloaded from his e-mail account.

We don't know whether or not the pictures on the two computers are the same. The affadavit states they are "very similar". Apparently, the investigator thought they were similar enough that they might be a match. Or, if not the exact same image, one depicting the same subject or location. For instance, two different children in the same setting. If the one downloaded from SA's e-mail account on RN's computer is the same image, or an image from the same source as one found on his mother's computer, it is evidence that SA owned all of the child on his mother's computer. I disagree that he had to e-mail it to himself. You'll note that I said the finding will further the investigation. Nothing has to be proven at this stage. LE only needs probable cause to move from step A to step B. And hey, it worked! Based on the investigator's report, he was able to obtain additional search warrants.

I don't regard this investigation as a side show, although personally, I doubt it will end in a major child bust. If the CP, however, provides an "in" for LE to gain access to SA's electronic data, then so be it, because if SA and/or BD are responsible for Hailey's disappearance, it's very likely that those computers/flash drives/memory sticks will hold clues to finding her.

 

[LisaB]

We don't know how many there are. It says child images. There is no qualification on that statement. It is clear he is stating that those are child images. Not maybe, not could be, not I"m not sure.

This is a sworn affidavit for search warrant by a computer forensic specialist. He stated what he stated. There is child on the mother's computer.

The only qualification is on the one that appears to have gone through email where it says appears to be. And it doesn't state that this one image is one of the ones he has already qualified as child . It could be one that they are unsure of, in the I don't know category. The point to this whole comment being that he was putting emphasis on the fact that Shawn was transferring media around in many ways and thus we need a warrant to search x, y and z. They were trying to prove this movement of media.

Reading this affidavit in full tells me *there was confirmed child on the computer*.

And, Law Enforcement does carefully word any document they know is going to be released under the Freedom of Information Act. They are not going to be specific.

I feel the same way I have felt since we heard about this activity of . That Shawn was in possession of some pretty nasty in voluminous amounts, and that it includes child which is against the law.

This document didn't change or diminish my opinion, but only reinforced it more. He was swapping this nasty stuff all over the place between electronic devices.

OK, here's my opinion on the questionable image and the emailed image. I believe these are the same image, which he viewed on both computers after receiving it via email. I don't think Shawn emailed a photo to himself, which seems to be the impression some people took from the SWA. I think one of the apparently numerous girls he met online sent him a topless or nude photo of herself via email, probably at his request.

I used to hang out online a lot in a particular chat room. It was supposed to be music-industry related, but had long since turned into a general chat when I found it while looking for a musician friend. I "met" a lot of nice people, helped some teenagers work through problems, and often advised girls of 13-14 who were telling guys they were 18 NOT to do that. "But I look 18" is not good enough. But it happened a LOT. I sort of felt bad for the guys, who might eventually meet up with an underage girl believing her to be older because she had lied.

Anyway, I was married, and people knew I was married, I was not there to "hook up." But every so often a guy (different ones) friend with whom I'd never had a sexual conversation would ask me to "send photos" and generally they were not asking for a family portrait.

I think that this is basically how Shawn got the emailed image. She may or may not be 18, and she may be young and have misrepresented herself as 18, but I think the photo was sent to Shawn's email by the subject. I'd guess that they could find her via her email address to ascertain her age.

Also... is it a fair assumption that an expert in computer forensics, able to recover deleted files and material from damaged devices is particularly qualified to judge whether or not an "iffy" photo is of a female under or over 18? Unless it is really obvious (like a 10 year old) I don't think this guy is any more qualified than you or I to make the call on that. KWIM?

He may be amazing with computers, but is he also an expert in child ? Does he have any training at all? Or is his opinion that of a layman as far as the actual content of the recovered data. For instance, if he got hold of a computer used in a real estate fraud and recovered deleted financial records, would he also be the person to pore over those records to build a case against the fraudsters? More likely that task would fall to someone with a background in accounting.

MOO

 

[LisaB]

On Page 2 of the Search Warrant Affidavit there is a paragraph towards the bottom of the page beginning with "Any and all online storage email or other remote computer storage subscription," etc.

I am under the impression that they are looking for a subscription and login and password for any paid sites. Does anyone else have this impression?

My netbook came with some utilities, and a certain amount of free storage online. I can log in and have my computer backup stored on their server. It's like having an external drive, only it is "off-site." If my house is destroyed with my computer and backup disks inside, I can retrieve the file and restore it to the replacement computer. There is also online storage that comes with my internet provider.

I think they are looking for something like that. A private storage space on an off-site server where he stores files he doesn't want to lose. Not a place people can go to download, as there is only one name/password combination to access it. Thus, only one person has access.

 

[LisaB]

Waayyy back someone had asked whether SA was searched at BD's or where. This report claims he was searched at BD's. The last sentence according to Toombs sounds like BD has lied to them in the past, don't you think? AND to the media or anyone else who was listening, I would say. Also sounds like LE had to go searching for SA??? (underlined) Still catching up and sorry if this has been clarified.


Officers later found Adkins at Dunn's residence where he was searched but not arrested. Officers arrested Dunn after she denied that Adkins was there and also found the drugs while searching her house, Toombs said.

"She did lie to a police officer whenever he (Shawn Adkins) was there," Toombs said.

http://www.macon.com/2011/03/18/1491940/mother-of-missing-west-texas-cheerleader.html

Me again! Can I ask if you are basing your assumption that Toombs is saying Billie lied to LE more than once on his use of the word "whenever" (which suggests that every time she was asked she lied)? I personally find this annoying as heck, but lots of people I know use "whenever" to mean "when". I thought it was regional until I heard that Toombs had said it. Drives me NUTS (but I am a word-freak).

 

[grandmaj]

The statement about Hailey not being in the pictures was at the point of examining the flash drive and the mother's computer. We have it listed as 2/25/2011 in our media links section.

http://www.newswest9.com/Global/story.asp?S=14144265

That was before seizing the rest of the electronics On March 17, 2011. Almost 3 weeks after that statement was made. So what we know is that before the latest sweep of computer/media/device search that there were no images of Hailey found. But we do not know if any were found in this latest seize of these items.

As far as who is reviewing these images to determine if they are truly child it takes time and no I don't believe one person is doing that. Let's face it a federal probation officer is the one that reported to investigators that there was all of this electronic equipment in the other residence. Right after he found these items a search warrant was issued by a judge. The FBI has special investigators who are trained to make these determinations.

The mother's computer was seized in January. They have had enough time to make a determination on that material. And the affidavit states there were images of child found. *no qualifier on that statement*.

Now when it comes to what was seized in the latest sweep that is probably still all under review. Toombs said it could take up to two weeks to determine.

As far as an immediate arrest they can't just arrest him. A warrant for his arrest has to be given by a judge.

This is a part of the investigation into Hailey being missing. They have conducted a methodical investigation and are working with the DA and stated this would go to a Grand Jury to determine if sufficient evidence would indicate an arrest or arrests. This isn't about only the child this is about the entire investigation and they will carefully weigh this evidence and how it may affect the Hailey investigation before going to Grand Jury.

There are many people in these homes where the material is found. They have to connect it to a person or persons, eliminating others, and ask for a warrant for arrest. In the Sommer Thompson case it took over a month to effectuate the arrest after child was reported to be on the killer's computer.

 

[Kamille]

The deleted files aren't "stored" anywhere. What happens is that the pointers to the files are removed so that the sectors appear blank to the OS, but the file data is still in the same place where it was until the OS writes something else in those sectors.

As far as the email account is concerned, that may not be too usefull. If it is a sent file it could be SA, or it could be anyone in the house if the account was set to automatically remember passwords. If it was a recieved file then the person who sent it would be the one to blame.

Btw, the picture on the grandmothers computer was not the same picture as the ones on the mothers computer, it "appeared similar". There is no match unless it is actually the same picture. IMO if it had been the same picture they would have said so. And even if it was the same picture, that wouldn't mean much if it was only one since any particular picture could be obtained from a large number of sources on the internet (that stuff is all pirated). It could just be coincidence.

In order to say for sure that it was SA, they would have to show that it was sent from SA's email account on the mothers computer to the account and recieved on the grandmothers computer. Why would he do that for just one picture though? And why would he go that trouble?..it would be a lot easier to simply load it onto a thumb drive if he wanted to move it around.

And no, it won't lead to finding HD. This is a side show.

BBM

The LE officer who examined the grandmother's computer in her residence with her permission back in February was also involved in the more extensive search of SA's mother's computer which they had in their possession as of Dec 30th. I'm sure after viewing 108000 images of from that computer, some of which was CP, he might have a hard time remembering each and every picture exactly over a month later. He did not have the two computers side by side to compare so he's not going to state for a fact in the affadavit that the two pictures were one and the same. He might have thought he saw the same image on the mother's computer but how could he be absolutely sure when he was sitting in the grandmother's home looking at the other one. He might also be going by the tag on the picture.

Putting this information in the affadavit was his way of convincing the judge that he needed to seize the computer and other computers and media devices that he did not have permission to view, in a search warrant to do a more thorough check and comparison IMO.

As far as this CP investigation being a side show, LE have done everything they can up to this point to separate BD and SA and get one of them talking. They also have not found HD or any evidence that she is deceased at the hands of either BD or SA although they certainly seem to believe that one or both of them are responsible. Being able to arrest either of them for any reason certainly helps further their cause in the HD investigation. They will no longer be able to co-ordinate their stories and answers to LE questions.

And if they never get a conclusion to her disappearance, at least they may be able to get a conviction on their main suspect on CP charges. They seem to believe that at least SA is responsible for HD's disappearance and likely death and if they can't get enough evidence to prove that, having him convicted for up to 10 years on each count of child in his possession will be the next best thing I suppose. I fear that this will be the final outcome of this case and that we may never know what happened to Hailey and whether there was more than one person involved. But it will be some small consolation to know that SA may spend some considerable time in prison for his "hobby" and that he is not free to threaten to kill other people "in a way that will be remembered" for quite some time. If he's not responsible for what happened to HD but has some information that may help to solve the case, perhaps he will use it to work out a plea deal on the CP.

The CP investigation is critical to the missing person case IMO. They could never have gotten the same results with some drug misdemeanors which is all they appeared to have on SA and BD at the beginning.

MOO

 

[grandmaj]

I also think this "1" picture is getting us hung up as it related to this affidavit. In that paragraph the investigator was attempting to do one thing. He wasn't saying it was or was not child . It might have been in the questionable category. The Investigator said that it resembled one found on another family members computer that is questionable.

What he was attempting to do is give probable cause documentation, to get all of these electronic devices tied together for purposes of getting a search warrant for all media, electronics, printer devices, stored medis etc., etc.,. That is the "important" reason for him to have gone into this detailed explanation. He is tying the electronics together so that the judge could determine that this is in several places, thus ordering the search warrant.

 

[Linda7NJ]

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

or perhaps they are desperately trying to establish it was Shawn's CP by referencing the one photograph that can be found on both. Thus ruling out the defense that someone else downloaded it and because he shared it via his e-mail account or Kodak Easy Share, printer etc.. They seem to be trying to link it all together.

I'm doing my best to give LE the benefit of the doubt, but I find what they're doing hard to swallow.

 

[everyoneneedsavoice]

Probably mentioned already, but I think they're trying to establish / determine possession vs distribution / promotion.

TX Penal Code:

(e) A person commits an offense if:
(1) the person knowingly or intentionally promotes or
possesses with intent to promote material described by Subsection
(a)(1); and
(2) the person knows that the material depicts the
child as described by Subsection (a)(1).
(f) A person who possesses visual material that contains six
or more identical visual depictions of a child as described by
Subsection (a)(1) is presumed to possess the material with the
intent to promote the material.

http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/43.26.00.html

 

[missy1974]

I believe there has been 'what appears to be' CP found. I don't think it's in the volumes that that some believed there was though. And if it turns out it is undeniably CP, then I hope he fries for it.


I thought we were told last week that there was 'child on every electronic device that was connected to SA' but I have not been able to find it, so I must have been mistaken. I did find where they said pornographic images on every electronic device connected to SA though.

On page 4, paragraph 2 of the search warrant:
Since we have found pornographic images on every electronic device that we have been able to search to which Shawn Casey Adkins had access and child on two computers to which Shawn Casey Adkins had access...

It seems to me that these statements made in the media in late February do not appear to be true though:

Both the computer and the memory stick contain images depicting bestiality and child , said Mitchell County Sheriff Patrick Toombs
http://www.reporternews.com/news/201...-suspect-case/


The memory stick had over 300 images of , including child . Mitchell County Sheriff Patrick Toombs said the memory stick contained “320 images and videos of pornographic nature” with images depicting bestiality and child
http://www.examiner.com/missing-per...-dresser-won-t-attend-human-trafficking-rally <<< the heading of this article is 'Child found on Billie Dunn's Dresser Won't attend human trafficking Rally'

 

[yllek]

I believe there has been 'what appears to be' CP found. I don't think it's in the volumes that that some believed there was though. And if it turns out it is undeniably CP, then I hope he fries for it.


I thought we were told last week that there was 'child on every electronic device that was connected to SA' but I have not been able to find it, so I must have been mistaken. I did find where they said pornographic images on every electronic device connected to SA though.

On page 4, paragraph 2 of the search warrant:
Since we have found pornographic images on every electronic device that we have been able to search to which Shawn Casey Adkins had access and child on two computers to which Shawn Casey Adkins had access...


It seems to me that these statements made in the media in late February do not appear to be true though:

Both the computer and the memory stick contain images depicting bestiality and child , said Mitchell County Sheriff Patrick Toombs
http://www.reporternews.com/news/201...-suspect-case/


The memory stick had over 300 images of , including child . Mitchell County Sheriff Patrick Toombs said the memory stick contained “320 images and videos of pornographic nature” with images depicting bestiality and child
http://www.examiner.com/missing-per...-dresser-won-t-attend-human-trafficking-rally <<< the heading of this article is 'Child found on Billie Dunn's Dresser Won't attend human trafficking Rally'

Was there a definitive statement taking back the confirmation that child was found on the memory stick? Hard to keep up with everything - I might have missed it!

P.s. If there was no retraction to Toombs's previous confirmation, I don't think the fact that the 3/16 affidavit doesn't mention the memory stick means there was no child found on it; just wasn't necessary to include anything about it to secure the search warrant for granny's house and the electronics therein.

 

[Jo in Calif]

I believe there has been 'what appears to be' CP found. I don't think it's in the volumes that that some believed there was though. And if it turns out it is undeniably CP, then I hope he fries for it.


I thought we were told last week that there was 'child on every electronic device that was connected to SA' but I have not been able to find it, so I must have been mistaken. I did find where they said pornographic images on every electronic device connected to SA though.

On page 4, paragraph 2 of the search warrant:
Since we have found pornographic images on every electronic device that we have been able to search to which Shawn Casey Adkins had access and child on two computers to which Shawn Casey Adkins had access...

It seems to me that these statements made in the media in late February do not appear to be true though:

Both the computer and the memory stick contain images depicting bestiality and child , said Mitchell County Sheriff Patrick Toombs
http://www.reporternews.com/news/201...-suspect-case/


The memory stick had over 300 images of , including child . Mitchell County Sheriff Patrick Toombs said the memory stick contained “320 images and videos of pornographic nature” with images depicting bestiality and child
http://www.examiner.com/missing-per...-dresser-won-t-attend-human-trafficking-rally <<< the heading of this article is 'Child found on Billie Dunn's Dresser Won't attend human trafficking Rally'

Notice where the quote marks are, in the examiner statement, from Toombs.
I could not get the other article to come up, were there any quote marks on Toombs statement?