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

[concernedmother]

She also said that Hailey had had a boyfriend for a few weeks several weeks back and that Billie had not known about him until after the fact. He was also 13, FWIW.

I dont think BD knew much about her daughter at all. Seems like she had no supervision, no one to check up on her , this was a disaster waiting to happen.

 

[LisaB]

Here ya go grandma -
(edited for space, quote by MBGs mom)

“My daughter, I let her visit her and spend the night,” she said. “And the last time I did, I didn’t like it, because I heard they were walking the street with other kids”

Garcia said she never let her daughter spend the night at the home again.

This (BBM) sounds to me like MB had stayed at Hailey's MORE than once.

 

[Ada]

But if someone said to him what day were you walking with gram down by the park? He might have trouble pin pointing the day. He'd probably remember if it was within 2 days. But if he was not asked for several days I don't think he could say oh yes that was Monday.

He might not be able to say 'oh yes that was Monday', but, he could probably say, 'it was the same day we went to Chucky Cheeze' or 'the day we went to the Library', etc.

 

[LisaB]

You know, some mothers get very jealous and upset when a child of theirs says they want to live with the other parent. I remember my own stepdaughter saying this to her mom, and her mom would be in tears and lay the guilt-trip on her. (Years later and now at 13, she moved in with us last June.)

If BD is part responsible for the disappearance of Hailey, could it be that she didn't want CD to have her? Perhaps she was very mad at Hailey for wanting to move in with CD? Perhaps very jealous?

Heck, men whose wives leave them do this very act of making them disappear because if they can't have them, no one else will.

I do think this altercation at Christmastime holds the key here. And Hailey would definitely have told MB everything as they were best friends. Hailey had no one else who would listen to her. IMO

Was MB her best friend? I didn't get that at all. More that she was her most geographically convenient friend.

 

[BeanE]

Thank you for the video (hadn't seen it). Curious though - why on earth would tips go to him personally? Why was his cell phone number splashed on the screen. ermmmm....isn't this what detectives are for?

Not that I mind it, just bothered, dazed, and confoosed.

MOO

Mel

Sometimes people feel stupid calling LE with something they think is small or probably nothing. So they don't call - don't want to bother LE who they know are busy.

They will, however, call someone else, and Clint is a good person to call. He can turn over all his tips to LE for assessment, and he's catching all those little ones - among which just may be the one little tip that turns out to crack the case.

Hats off to Clint for a great idea, and doing it even though he's probably being inundated at a very difficult time.

 

[TxLady2]

I think that we aren't getting many answers from LE because they would have to state "who, what, when, where and how". That would mean they would have to point out each "untruth" what was "untrue" and who spoke the "untruth".
Did anyone find where LE backed up BD's claim that she had spent 12 hours at the PD being questioned. Is that data not available because it was not true?
Perhaps LE isn't ready yet to brand any statements made by BD and SA as outright lies. If both are proven to be outright liars, isn't that a criminal act? Attempting to interfere in a criminal investigation is not something to be taken lightly.

JMO, but I don't think we're going to get any confirmation from LE of how long they questioned Billie. It's possible they would say, if asked, but they certainly don't have to.
If by "attempting to interfere in a criminal investigation" you mean they won't incriminate themselves, that's their right. No one can be coerced into incriminating themselves or anyone else.
No, lying is not a criminal act, unless it's in a court, under oath.

 

[bessie]

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.

Well, ya see red, that's your problem. You're too logical.

Here, have some of my dots....... I can't seem to connect them. Maybe you can. :waiting:


It's called baiting. :fish: Tricia doesn't allow it here at WS, and we'd all do well to make it a personal TOS violation, as well. IMO

 

[LisaB]

While I realize the quote is third-hand info, it does concern me that the age of the child was specifically mentioned as a reason why he couldn't be believed. Which makes me think the child may have said this, but it was discounted by LE.

If what the child says is correct, this does not prove that SA didn't do anything to Hailey (based on when he said he last saw her). But, it would show that BD was not involved with the disappearance of her daughter, since she was at work during this time.

Jean alone is not considered credible, it would seem, although I believe that is ONLY because there is no one to corroborate her sighting. The boy (if he did, in fact, say that he was with Hailey on Monday) is considered unreliable because of his age. But if each of them independently recalls the same thing, I'd expect LE to give the COMBINED reports more credence.

Perhaps it is a simple matter of the two witnesses disagreeing on something as basic as what Hailey had on.

Just ruminating...

 

[Zephyr]

She may have noted the appointment, but if she did not make a note of seeing Hailey, or doesn't recall writing herself that note, it's of no use. And she would probably not have made a note since Hailey was not missing yet, so seeing her was insignificant.

I believe that Jean had said she had just finished someone's hair, in which case the customer may have departed the shop prior to Hailey passing by.

BBM

That's what I remember, too. If she had said she saw Hailey DURING her work, rather than after, that would be make the report of the sighting much more credible, imo.

JMO

ETA: Or, I should say, somewhat more credible.

 

[Lanie]

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.

I don't think I fall into either catagory.

There are three "Monday witnesses", not two. Male neighbor claiming Hailey was in her backyard on the phone about noon, female hairdresser claiming she saw Hailey go past her shop with a young AA child, and a female witness claiming she saw Hailey outside a store, and has a receipt to show date.

At this time, IMO, the only info we have on the mystery man has come from Billie, and Billie claims this info came from LE.

 

[concernedmother]

I don't think I fall into either catagory.

There are three "Monday witnesses", not two. Male neighbor claiming Hailey was in her backyard on the phone about noon, female hairdresser claiming she saw Hailey go past her shop with a young AA child, and a female witness claiming she saw Hailey outside a store, and has a receipt to show date.

At this time, IMO, the only info we have on the mystery man has come from Billie, and Billie claims this info came from LE.

Where did that person come from? I never heard about her.

 

[gypsyblue]

hmmmm..... and again

Kampfer said that the Colorado City Police Department and others worked from a similar checklist as they were attempting to run down leads, though law enforcement were initially frustrated at stories found to be "contradictory" from certain initial interviewees.

http://www.reporternews.com/news/2011/jan/29/the-road-ahead/?print=1

 

[TxLady2]

Sounds normal to me. I'm sure LE put MB and her mother through the wringer since the finger was pointed straight at them. It would be terrifying to be 13 and have LE grilling you over your missing friend. I'd cry to if that was my kid going through that.

Why would LE have to "grill" her? Questioning her whether Hailey showed up at her house, possibly prompting her to try to remember if she spoke to Hailey that day... that's not grilling, it's just part of the investigation. I see no reason for either one of them to be crying unless they had something to hide. It's normal procedure to question anyone who may have seen the missing person and I highly doubt that she was treated any differently than anyone else they questioned.
This mother is being overly dramatic, IMO.

 

[concernedmother]

hmmmm..... and again

Kampfer said that the Colorado City Police Department and others worked from a similar checklist as they were attempting to run down leads, though law enforcement were initially frustrated at stories found to be "contradictory" from certain initial interviewees.

http://www.reporternews.com/news/2011/jan/29/the-road-ahead/?print=1

LE will probably love BD statement about the time line tomorrow. See how much it varies from her initial interview.
Alot of questions arose here on WS and thru BD friend BD has come up with an answer to everything. In the end, what she has told LE is what is going to matter and if the story changes well............

 

[Lanie]

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.

I can see this from both sides, however, I think if I was the one making the decisions, I would go on the side of, "Hey, person X, we know who you are, and things will go easier on you if you don't commit murder."

It also seems the cat is now out of the bag, so keeping this a secret doesn't seem to make sense anymore. Just my :twocents:.

 

[LisaB]

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

Unnamed Person Could Have Information On Missing Teen

KTXS waiting on confirmation from LE about this unnamed person

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

(edited for space)

It would certainly add to Billie's credibility if LE would at least confirm SOME of the things she has said. I happen to be one of the people she has "fooled" into believing she is innocent, but for people on the fence, this might make a difference.

 

[gypsyblue]

Where did that person come from? I never heard about her.

iirc this is one of billies newest via cz.....
curious as to why billie is soooo focused on digging up a monday witness that LE has stated none exist.....

 

[concernedmother]

(edited for space)

It would certainly add to Billie's credibility if LE would at least confirm SOME of the things she has said. I happen to be one of the people she has "fooled" into believing she is innocent, but for people on the fence, this might make a difference.

I would love for something to be confirmed to point to her having no knowlege about any of this. The last thing I want is for a family member involved and I hate not being able to support a grieving mother. I really hope when all is said and done she isnt covering or had an involvement but there are so many questions right now its really hard not to question them.

 

[LisaB]

Sounds normal to me. I'm sure LE put MB and her mother through the wringer since the finger was pointed straight at them. It would be terrifying to be 13 and have LE grilling you over your missing friend. I'd cry to if that was my kid going through that.

I don't imagine they waterboarded the poor kid. I'd think that the fact her friend was missing, and had disappeared on the way to her house would be terrifying, and that, unless she/they had something to hide, it would not be terrifying to be helping the authorities find Hailey, it would make her feel good that she was doing something that might lead to the recovery of her friend. moo

 

[TxLady2]

BBM: Apparently, BD is either entirely clueless that releasing this information would possibly have dire consequences for her daughter, if in fact this mystery person has Hailey. If he did the worse possible thing to Hailey, killing her, then her announcing to the world is only going to drive him deeper under the rock he is apparently under, since LE or anyone else for that matter can't seem to locate Mr. Mystery Man.

My opinion is that if LE can't seem to locate Mr. Mysterious Threat Man, they would be advising the public of his very existence. LE would be releasing a description, name, make of vehicle, or something. And they would also be advising the general public if Mr. Mysterious posed a threat to the public in general.

I think this is a ploy by BD to get people looking at Mr. Mysterious Threat Man to deflect attention away from SA and quite possibly herself. I think something is about to be released that will have a negative impact on SA and maybe BD. So, by having the general public focused on Mr. Mysterious Threat Man, maybe we won't notice the action focused on SA and possibly BD.

JMO, MOO, IMO, and all other disclaimers.

Since LE told her about this threat and she knew nothing about it until 2 weeks into the investigation... how is it a ploy by Billie?? She didn't come up with this herself... she was informed about it by LE.

I think it's quite a leap to suggest that this man would be a danger to society and LE should make a public announcement about him or put out a BOLO on him. I think there are certain criteria that have to be met before they can put out a BOLO, with a description of the person and/or a vehicle. Merely making a verbal threat to another person about another person would not meet that criteria, IMO.

Actually, when Billie mentioned this to the reporter, I doubt that she had any idea it might turn into a major news story. One article said she told the reporter off camera. Sounds to me like it was an offhand remark.