TX TX - Joshua Davis, 18 months, New Braunfels, 4 Feb 2011 - # 4

[panthera]

I just wanted to apologize for dropping the ball on that transcription. I have been in the hospital (low blood pressure and threatened miscarriage).

I see from discussion that SB had the baby. Must be so bittersweet for her. Not how she pictured his meeting his family.

:hug: for you......

And yes, how sad that little Joshua couldn't be around to welcome his baby brother into the world.

 

[not_my_kids]

Well, you guys will get to put up with me a lot over the next few months. My physical activity is very limited for right now. So far, so good, as far as baby is concerned.

I was hoping for good news when I came home. Lots of good news. I should have expected this, but it's a bit crushing all over again. I guess at this point, the fact that no one (except the family friend, I think) has been cleared is just as bad as the fact that they haven't found him yet. It's hard to know whose statements to take with a grain of salt and whose statements we should be clinging to. Although with public suspicion, the fact that there aren't suspects and that there haven't been many people announced to be cleared speaks for itself.

 

[Rhyme & Reason]

I just wanted to apologize for dropping the ball on that transcription. I have been in the hospital (low blood pressure and threatened miscarriage).

I see from discussion that SB had the baby. Must be so bittersweet for her. Not how she pictured his meeting his family.

((( Hugs ))) not_my_kids

 

[panthera]

Well, you guys will get to put up with me a lot over the next few months. My physical activity is very limited for right now. So far, so good, as far as baby is concerned.

I was hoping for good news when I came home. Lots of good news. I should have expected this, but it's a bit crushing all over again. I guess at this point, the fact that no one (except the family friend, I think) has been cleared is just as bad as the fact that they haven't found him yet. It's hard to know whose statements to take with a grain of salt and whose statements we should be clinging to. Although with public suspicion, the fact that there aren't suspects and that there haven't been many people announced to be cleared speaks for itself.

I agree, what you have stated, as well as the options LE appears to have ruled out. MOO

 

[jessicat]

I just wanted to apologize for dropping the ball on that transcription. I have been in the hospital (low blood pressure and threatened miscarriage).

I see from discussion that SB had the baby. Must be so bittersweet for her. Not how she pictured his meeting his family.

(((hugs)))...stay off your feet and get some rest. I have a 4 yr old and was on bedrest with him at my 5th month into it. I go on bedrest every now and then because I have a really bad back and I spend it reading up on these threads. Rest and relax!

 

[Ives]

Crazy idea/thought, any one know how the ice cream man runs in new nraunfuls?? In s.a. They run year round. Even when it snowed. And they run late. Like 9:30 late. Maybe one seen something and didnt realize what they were seeing? It's thier job to driver slow and keep an eye out for kiddos.

 

[katydid23]

Originally Posted by katydid23
So I am confused. Did the family give this picture to LE and tell them it was taken earlier that day? Or did they say use this one because he has the same outfit on?
http://www.kens5.com/news/Family-ste...116032244.html

Quote:
Authorities released a new picture Friday of 18-month-old Joshua Davis Jr. They said it was taken hours before he was reported missing last Friday.
======================================================

So, IF the family told LE that this picture was taken that same day, and it wasn't --that would be huge, imo.
Has it been confirmed that it was actually posted online days earlier?

 

[not_my_kids]

Unless the picture was uploaded before the 4th, what does it matter? If it was taken the 4th, then no one is lying. If it was taken before the 4th, then obviously some one has lied, but as I see it right now, it was just officially released by LE later than the unofficial release by family and then press.

 

[Tuffy]

Originally Posted by katydid23
So I am confused. Did the family give this picture to LE and tell them it was taken earlier that day? Or did they say use this one because he has the same outfit on?
http://www.kens5.com/news/Family-ste...116032244.html

Quote:
Authorities released a new picture Friday of 18-month-old Joshua Davis Jr. They said it was taken hours before he was reported missing last Friday.
======================================================

So, IF the family told LE that this picture was taken that same day, and it wasn't --that would be huge, imo.
Has it been confirmed that it was actually posted online days earlier?

I saw it posted on Facebook as early as Feb. 6th. He went missing on the 4th, right? I think the fact that the police released it saying that it was taken just hours before he disappeared means they have verified the accuracy.

If they knew that it wasn't, or that it possibly could be an older photo, I don't think they would mislead us. I don't know how that would help them.

If they knew that the parents were lying to them, I believe they would have arrested her/him/them right away a la Casey Anthony. I think they would charge them with child endangerment and obstruction.

I think the picture must be legit.

 

[my_tee_mouse]

I just wanted to apologize for dropping the ball on that transcription. I have been in the hospital (low blood pressure and threatened miscarriage).

I see from discussion that SB had the baby. Must be so bittersweet for her. Not how she pictured his meeting his family.

Oh my goodness! Please do not worry about a thing but the babe and yourself!!! Prayers for you and the munchkin.

 

[mommy23]

Were you traveling to another country, by chance? I know that when my son wanted to fly with his aunt to Mexico, they required either notarized permission from both parents or the death certificate of a deceased parent.

ETA: After posting this I came across HiHater's post about an international flight. I'm pretty sure that's the difference...within the U.S. or outside the U.S. I remember thinking at the time how glad I was that someone was making it difficult for anyone to take my son out of the country without my permission.

I am behind, but wanted to answer this, it was not international, I flew from Oregon, to Denver, to Albuquerque, to Tennessee, then back to Oregon So I don't know why I had to provide so much, but I guess its not the norm :waitasec:

 

[Noway]

As of right now, I think they pulled their camera out and the picture was already on it taken on another day.IMO They changed the date.

If it was taken on a phone, and it's a newer one ... I don't know if they could change the date. I couldn't do it on my new phone. (Sorry, thought I had posted my experiment results way back but apparently it went into cybersapce.)

eta
My hubby said I'd have to disconnect from the satellite that determines the date/time ... but gave no indication whether that was even possible or how to do it.

eta2
Since on my old phone the real date was indicated in the properies, I think the same would be true ... that somehow my phone would indicate I'd disconnected and set the date as mm/dd/yyyy. LE would not be fooled.

 

[lillys]

If it was taken on a phone, and it's a newer one ... I don't know if they could change the date. I couldn't do it on my new phone. (Sorry, thought I had posted my experiment results way back but apparently it went into cybersapce.)

eta
My hubby said I'd have to disconnect from the satellite that determines the date/time ... but gave no indication whether that was even possible or how to do it.

eta2
Since on my old phone the real date was indicated in the properies, I think the same would be true ... that somehow my phone would indicate I'd disconnected and set the date as mm/dd/yyyy. LE would not be fooled.

I knew someone here did an experiment with the day but I was too lazy to read back through 100s of pages. :crazy:

Thank you so much NoWay for your information.
So now I have to rethink the timeline. I don't really know if there is a timeline.

 

[Tuffy]

If it was taken on a phone, and it's a newer one ... I don't know if they could change the date. I couldn't do it on my new phone. (Sorry, thought I had posted my experiment results way back but apparently it went into cybersapce.)

eta
My hubby said I'd have to disconnect from the satellite that determines the date/time ... but gave no indication whether that was even possible or how to do it.

eta2
Since on my old phone the real date was indicated in the properies, I think the same would be true ... that somehow my phone would indicate I'd disconnected and set the date as mm/dd/yyyy. LE would not be fooled.

BBM

The date is also embedded in the image itself, also. Merely changing what date is indicated in the properties, doesn't change the meta tag.

To change the meta tag data you usually would need special software to access it.

Photoshop and many other software packages let you edit certain parts of the EXIF data. You can add a caption, for example, or copyright information if you're a professional photographer. Other metadata—like the original time stamp, for example—is "read-only," which means you can't modify it with standard software. Even if you try to fiddle with the binary code using a hex editor, it may not be obvious how to change the date and time without corrupting the file.

http://www.slate.com/id/2140303/

 

[MsFacetious]

So, IF the family told LE that this picture was taken that same day, and it wasn't --that would be huge, imo.
Has it been confirmed that it was actually posted online days earlier?

The picture was originally posted on the Find Joshua Davis Facebook on February 6th.

2 days after Joshua went missing.

It was not anywhere else before that, as far as I know. I have looked through numerous families facebooks as well as other places. I never saw this picture posted anywhere before February 6th.

 

[MsFacetious]

I really don't think these parents would realize they needed to do anything more than change the regular date. I am married to an IT guy or I wouldn't know.

I am also quite sure that since it does NOT overwrite the original image files, it WOULD be detectable as being modified. Just like you can pull up deleted pictures from a memory card, or deleted files from a computer. Unless they are written over multiple times.

They can actually do far more than simply tell when the picture was taken. That is only the beginning. They could confirm all aspects of their story about this picture... if they had someone who knew what they were doing on the case.

I also think this is a cell phone picture. I don't believe it was taken with a camera. For what it's worth.

There are some programs (some free even) for removing or editing meta tag information from pictures. This one won't work for all files, but most cameras now use EXIF.

http://www.tothepc.com/archives/remove-exif-com-iptc-meta-tags-from-images/

Features of Meta Stripper tags remover

1. Specially remove EXIF, COM or IPTC image tags.
2. It is completely lossless, no decompression of image happens.
3. It does not overwrite your original image files.
4. It assigns unique name to all modified files with removed meta tags.
5. Process large number of files by selecting folder containing images.

I don't know if it would show that the file has been modified, or not.

 

[katydid23]

So IF the picture was taken that day, and it appears to be so, then that takes us back into
something happening in the house that day. How could they hide a baby without the dogs picking up the scent?

 

[katydid23]

So IF the picture was taken that day, and it appears to be so, then that takes us back into
something happening in the house that day. How could they hide a baby without the dogs picking up the scent?

The only way I can think of is moving him by car. So I wonder if the cops had a solid list of ALL of the vehicles at the property that day?

 

[Tuffy]

The only way I can think of is moving him by car. So I wonder if the cops had a solid list of ALL of the vehicles at the property that day?

For this to be the case there must be someone who was there that we don't know about. That person left with Joshua in a car that the police don't know about, right?

 

[YellowSubmarine]

NMK -- Take care of yourself!!! :cheerup:

For those who can't imagine how a house full of people could be involved in a cover-up, it's entirely possible if any of them were engaged in or are otherwise involved in *other* illegal activities. Very possible.

Another possible scenario is that Josh hadn't been at the house that night. Whatever happened could have happened earlier in the evening/afternoon. We never have heard if the others verified that they'd even seen Josh. What we've heard is that when SB asked if Josh was in with them, they said they "hadn't seen him". Not, "he was just here" or "Yeah, a few minutes ago" (especially since the beanie pulling supposedly just had happened). SB stated nobody had seen him. To me, that says a lot. They easily could've been placing him elsewhere in the house and explained nobody seeing him because he was running around and nobody was paying attention - watching the game and all. We also have that other baby. I found it very curious that when SB began searching for Josh, she had to go into the living area first (where the other adults were) and instead of asking them or scanning the room, she went into Gpa's room. Maybe they had told people Josh was in there (they could hear a baby) and that explains why SB went in there first.

I don't get the feeling they harmed him or even that it was an accident. I do feel there is some truth behind their words that a "friend" may have left with him.