TX - Hailey Dunn, 13, Colorado City, 27 Dec 2010 - #49

[Hatch]

I think we are both right actually this article says they migrate south however some stay behind BBM

Turkey vultures breed throughout Texas but typically migrate south in the winter. Although some stay year-round, most spend the winter in Central America. Black vultures also migrate and may travel as far south as Brazil. Both are common in open country, woodlands, fields and farms, with black vultures more likely to be found near human settlements and garbage dumps.



http://www.passporttotexas.com/birds/oct00.html

guess you could you and I qualify as Buzzard Specialists ! Wonder when they will call for our advice ? LOL I know we have a dead cow down at the back of our pasture, and she has been there about 7 weeks, she has not deteroriated very much at all. She blowed up and then the gases dispersed and it is like she is freeze dried ! No flies, no buzzards and no coyotes ! So that is what got me to thinkin, if there was a body lying somewhere for the past 4 weeks it probably is in relatively good condition , because of our mild weather. And I heard on a forensics show last week that a woman's female organs are the last to deteriorate, because they are made of the strongest tissue in the body, so speculating that they do find HD in the next few weeks, DNA testing for semen and such would be a good probability that there is traces still inside the body !
Sorry for the gross description ! Hope I don't get a TO !

 

[Amster]

hmmm - is this another 'new' unnamed person or the one that made the threat?

Unnamed Person Could Have Information On Missing Teen

More than a month into the disappearance of 13-year-old Colorado City teen Hailey Dunn, and her mother is now saying there's a person who could give police more information about her daughter's whereabouts.

Billie Dunn told KTXS off camera she believes there is a person who has information about her missing daughter.


more here, including KTXS waiting on confirmation from LE about this unnamed person

http://www.ktxs.com/news/26664667/detail.html

Told KTXS off camera?? Like, she didn't think it would be reported? Or, just an afterthought after the camera was turned off? Thankfully, KTXS wasn't manipulated into reporting this as fact, yet. I wonder if they will be shunned now by Billie for daring to confirm something she uttered?

 

[czgtz]

Told KTXS off camera?? Like, she didn't think it would be reported? Or, just an afterthought after the camera was turned off? Thankfully, KTXS wasn't manipulated into reporting this as fact, yet. I wonder if they will be shunned now by Billie for daring to confirm something she uttered?

Billie did an on camera interview with KTAB about this, which was aired. She did not do an on camera interview with KTXS that day.

 

[OneLove]

Told KTXS off camera?? Like, she didn't think it would be reported? Or, just an afterthought after the camera was turned off? Thankfully, KTXS wasn't manipulated into reporting this as fact, yet. I wonder if they will be shunned now by Billie for daring to confirm something she uttered?

Isn't it so nice to see even the media exercise rational thinking and caring consideration in what they decide to air?

ETA: I bet they want to see Hailey come home.

 

[Amster]

Is Clint still in El Paso? I really don't want him to stand by Billie when she does her media event on Mon. I suppose she would love for him to be there, though. Lend some credibility to whatever she's going to say.

 

[Amster]

Billie did an on camera interview with KTAB about this, which was aired. She did not do an on camera interview with KTXS that day.

OIC....hopefully, KTAB is also trying to get this info confirmed.

 

[bessie]

This very dynamic seems to have been a HUGE obstruction in solving this case: unraveling the meaning of the words used is often a very difficult puzzle. What is actually SAID turns out oftentimes to not BE what is MEANT. I've had to learn the last few weeks to interpret statements differently than the ordinary. This could be innocent 'mis-statements', or it could be intentionally misleading/ manipulative. There is no way we can know which until this case is solved. God Bless Hailey

ETA: I can certainly understand the frustration of LE. Heck, I'm even beginning to understand the frustration of the man who complained last February via 'radio device' about the "going at it all day".

You'd think after two years of following poor little Haleigh Cummings' case I'd get it by now. I'd swear obfuscation was invented in Putnam County, Florida. That hasn't happened on this thread tonight, but it has been the order of the day elsewhere and otherwise throughout this tragedy. Lord, please let this child be found soon.

As for the guy on the "radio device", he's always had my sympathy.

 

[Curious Me]

Billie is not trying to deflect any attention away from SA. Although it has upset her that SA was named a suspect (and why wouldn't it... the man you love accused of doing something to your child - and every emotion that would come with that) she realizes that, by his own actions, he has put himself in the hot seat. She does however want every single avenue investigated.

The threat by someone in the past was brought to her attention by LE - she didn't just pull it out of thin air. And she is meeting with PK in the morning to go over what all she can discuss and to what detail she can go into when she makes her statement Monday. She is not doing this without LE's blessing.

Thank You. Some of us are wondering if this would cause danger if Hailey is being held captive by this person or connected to this person. So, this was brought to her attention by LE. Yes, all avenues should be checked out for Hailey's sake.

 

[czgtz]

BBM

So she will NOT be telling him what she is going to say, and will NOT be gaining approval? (don't think they really "stamp", its just another one of those emotion-laden words really)

Okay.

So that also answers the question about COOPERATION. Thanks.

Yes, Billie and PK are going to talk about what information can be released to the media. I was only trying to clarify that he is not going to actually have her written statement in hand to see word for word verbatim what she is planning on saying. She knows what she is going to say, and all she is planning to discuss is the events of 12/26 - 12/28. There shouldn't be a problem....

And they are also going to discuss his involvement for Monday also.

 

[grandmaj]

Do not continue in this vein. Posts were moderated last night. We are not going back there it was against TOS then and is now. You all know what I'm talking about.

Let's find our manners. I'm seeing too much snark, it is the wee hours of the morning and I'm tired and cranky. Don't make the list to be sent on a little vacation.

 

[sherryk]

In regards to the mystery person who made a report that BD and HD had been threats made to them. I can see where LE wouldnt want to release that information in regards to the case if they can not locate them.. why give him or her a heads up.

I do not understand why they didnt alert BD and HD to the threat when it happened or perhaps they blew it off as just another problem in the household or just not really credible in LE eyes (imagine that)

could the report had come from CD regarding some friend of associate of SA? Could it of been a oarent of a teenage friend who heard somthing that they felt needed to be reported just incase.

I have a strong suspision that the report or accusation has somthing to do with a friend or associate of SA. Perhaps that person has skipped town becuase he is an active possivle suspect and he or she knows it...

I think the mystery person may be a strong lead IF it is an associate of SA.
Why did LE blow it off at the time...perhaps the mentality of the "Oh God not them again.. and taking the initial report of hailey missing as a runaway.

 

[Curious Me]

I'm not going on a vacation, but it is time for bed. Good Night to You All.

Tomorrow is another day. :spring:

 

[SmoothOperator]

Here's the thing that keeps me shaking my head about yesterday's mystery man bombshell. Why on God's green earth would Billie release this to the press if not to deflect attention away from SA and/or herself? Doesn't appear that LE approved that information to be released. So, if you really believe that mystery man may have taken your daughter, wouldn't you avoid doing anything to tip him off that he was being pursued? Hailey could still be alive. Wouldn't you be afraid that he would kill your daughter and hide her remains if he knew LE was on his tail?

With LE's search area narrowing in on SA's stomping grounds, wouldn't be surprised if more unbelievable jaw-dropping developments are released via Ms. Billie Jean. For more details, stay tuned for the upcoming press conference. :dance:

Thank you..yllek{and by-the-way I have an off-topic..nosey question for u}..lol..Is by chance your name kelly[and just for clarification I am in no way attempting to "sleuth" another member..lol.]so..I'll re-word my question..scratch the is that your name question..and instead my question is Did you pick your username as the name kelly backwards?..kelly=yllek..lol..pretty nifty..YLLEK!..Main reason I am even OT asking you is all this time whenever I see your username for some reason I thought a Russian name..lol.:crazy:..I know :crazy:..but just about 2 minutes ago when I hit the reply to your post it came across clear as bell that it easily could just be kelly spelled backward yllek..

Anyway sorry for being nosey and sorry to everyone for quickly going OT..I'm quickly getting right back on now:innocent:..

So.. back to what were posting about above..the "mystery man" that suddenly has entered the picture..with a threat directed specifically
toward Hailey.. I immediately called BS and posted that I thought it was not only a complete amateur move..but even more imoortantly I felt its origin was nefarious to begin with{i.e. desperate attempt to get the "heat off" of SA..

Someone then shared with me that czgtz had logged on and posted several statements explaining it..that it wasn't what it looked and sounded like..:waitasec: so I did a search through the forum for czgtz's comments in past 24hrs to locate the posts regarding how this "mystery man" came about.. and as I always appreciate czgtz's posts and her going out of her way to share things with us that otherwise we'd not know.. just as I appreciated these posts about the man who threatened Hailey..

But there are aspects that clearly and simply do not add up..

Billie knows that she is not to be releasing this info they got from LE{made obvious by the "Eeek I shouldn't say this" face}..Not only is it a slim to none chance of LE NOT TELLING her to NOT GO PUBLIC WITH "MYSTERY MAN" INFO but most importantly even the slightest of intelligence person full well knows that going public with info such as this[even without actually giving a name..I mean no one else knows who "he is"..but "he" certainly would know who "he is"]..therefor being tipped off that LE was onto him...

Therefor in the scenario of Hailey possibly alive..Billie wouldve just put Haileys life in dire jeopardy..

Just makes no sense any way you go with it..KWIM?

 

[impatientredhead]

With no snarkiness intended at all, can someone give me an example of the "norm" of withholding the name and description of a possible person of interest in a missing child's case "for the child's safety"?

Brittany Smith's mother was dead and she was gone with the possible killer, they released his name and photos.

Haylee Donathan was missing and believed to with a sex offender and they released his name and photo.

Jean Berlinghoff was considered to be in danger and his name and photo were released.

There are other cases that I can come up with if pushed where they even say this person is not a person of interest or a suspect but we would like to talk to them.

Perhaps I am dense but I do not understand how saying that there is someone out there that may have info, may have threatened the missing child, the police can't find him and haven't talked to him is okay, but releasing the name and photo would increase the odds of harm to her.

Don't you think if this person exists they are going to know they are the person being discussed and get nervous? I believe LE keeps some info sealed and internal, but this gray area thing does not make sense to me and does not sound like any standard operating procedure to me.

A three dimensional example would help me frame this in a way that makes sense to me.

 

[impatientredhead]

If I take the leap of faith that this mystery person exists and that the info came to BD when and how it reportedly did......

I think it is a huge leap to think LE withheld the info, disregarded it, minimized it, or any other set of circumstances. They are out talking to people who know Hailey and her family. It seems much more plausible to me that a person being interviewed was asked do you know anyone that has animosity towards __________________ and they said well I didn't think much of it at the time but ___________________ said such and such once upon a time.

LE asks BD if she is aware of this, she says it is news to her, and then tells a reporter.

That seems more likely to me than the police took a report a year ago, did no follow up with the threatened parties, and the witness who thought it was serious enough to report it to LE didn't think it was important to tell BD herself.

 

[Caligram]

I think there are two sides to this thread

Side A: who believe that SA is responsible for HD missing, and BD knows but tries to create diversions.

Side B: who believe that BD has always been completely, totally honest with what she has told LE and the media.

The arguments on Side A are that the only credible timeline starts at 9:00pm on 12/26 when DD left the house and HD was playing a game on his XBox. There has been no verification, corraboration, or whatever of any sitings of HD after that time.
For instance, Jean Burroughs claims she positively saw HD out walking on Monday because she was doing someone's hair in her home and looked out the window. She says she looked "hard" or something to that effect, because she didn't recognize the young boy. She is positive she saw HD sometime between 10:30am and 1:00pm. Two and 1/2 hours. That is certainly a long time to spend on one customer. Oh, and the customer has Alzheimers so she cannot corraborate.

Now Side B says that BD has a witness to seeing HD on Monday between 10:30am and 1:00pm, and the hairdresser knows what Hailey looks like, so this is proof that BD could not have been involved as BD was at werk.

It all depends on whose side you're on, but from Side B we keep hearing about the same two Monday 12/27 witnesses. The hairdresser, who is positive it was sometime during a two-and-a-half-hour time span on Monday. The other witness is not believed to be a credible source. BD claims her witness saw Hailey at noon on Monday in her yard, on the phone. He says she is always outside talking on the phone. This witness happened to be an alcoholic old gent in a wheelchair, who was known for his "confusions".

To add to the battered shattered timeline is a new report of a mystery man from a year ago. Do we have to start this over and keep hearing about the two Monday witnesses that LE discounted. Plus now add another year to start gathering evidence all over again. This is scary.

But I guess on Monday when BD reads her timeline statement, these things might fall into place. Hopefully.

 

[Tugela]

So with the latest development we know that BD thinks that a man who supposedly made threats against her and HD a year ago (or whenever it was) should be a suspect and that LE should question him, but SA who threatened both BD and HD (to kill them no less) should not be a suspect and that LE needs to be looking elsewhere. Does this strike anyone else as odd? And just how can BD explain that away? Why is the one man more of a suspect than SA?

It makes one wonder if LE got the 2010 911 incident and this other guy mixed up when they reported SA as having made threats against HD in the afidavit.

 

[Tugela]

I can remember a couple of cases where children like 5-6 gave testimony in criminal trials. I'm not sure if there is a hard, fast rule about the minimum age a child can testify. For a very young child, I think the judge would decide whether to allow the child's statement.

This case is only in the investigative stage, and it wasn't even considered a criminal case in the beginning. The child's information would only be used to build a timeline. I'm pretty certain that if the child had given a strong, clear answer when questioned about the day, LE would not have simply dismissed it. For instance, if he had said it was the day after Christmas, and he remembered because he couldn't wait to show Hailey his new bike, or his new skates, that would've made an impression on LE. But apparently, he was vague on the day and couldn't corroborate JB's account.

You ave to be really cautious about relying on evidence from very young children, or things they remembered from when they were very young.

There was an incident in my life that happened when I was about 5. My Mom allways used to tell the story about what happened, it was traumatic for her and i had a vivid recollection of it.

But it was only when I got older that I realized that what I remembered was highly improbable. The truth was that what I remembered was the story my mom told many times to people, and while it was traumatic for her it was unremarkable for me at the the time. I had heard the story so many times that my mind created a "memory" to match it, but it was made up, not real, and I didn't really remember anything.

 

[RoseRed]

It makes one wonder if LE got the 2010 911 incident and this other guy mixed up when they reported SA as having made threats against HD in the afidavit.

Just hitting the thanks button was not enough. This was the first thing that came to my mind. Most likely why LE told BD about this threat when trying to straighten out this mess of who threatened BD and HD.

 

[bessie]

You ave to be really cautious about relying on evidence from very young children, or things they remembered from when they were very young.

There was an incident in my life that happened when I was about 5. My Mom allways used to tell the story about what happened, it was traumatic for her and i had a vivid recollection of it.

But it was only when I got older that I realized that what I remembered was highly improbable. The truth was that what I remembered was the story my mom told many times to people, and while it was traumatic for her it was unremarkable for me at the the time. I had heard the story so many times that my mind created a "memory" to match it, but it was made up, not real, and I didn't really remember anything.

That's true, tugela. I had two similar experiences as a child. The events weren't tragic, but significant to our family. One was a cousin's wedding. Actually, I attended the wedding, but was only about a year old. My mother and aunts talked about the two events frequently and in great detail when I was very young. Later, I thought that I "remembered" them. But like you, I eventually realized that was not the case.

I agree with you that children are impressionable,and one has to be cautious when considering a young child's recollections. You certainly would not want to rely on the testimony of a 7 year old to convict a murder suspect (thought that has happened). But in this case, we're talking about a school aged child's memory of a recent day's event. The stakes are not as high because his statement would only be used to corroborate the statements of more reliable, adult witnesses, and would have no consequence except to possibly aid in locating Hailey.