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

[katydid23]

The LE did say they interviewed 20 people and we really don't know for sure who was in and out of that house that day and still conducting interviews.

But that is what confuses me most. My husband has had people over to watch games. We had some over for Super Bowl. If one of my kids had gone missing that day I could have immediately listed who was in our home and when. It should not take weeks to find out 'who was in and out of the house.' kwim?

 

[Inspector Gidget]

But even if the friend took him that is abduction, right?

Not abduction if he killed him,on purpose or accident

 

[Inspector Gidget]

Abduction:the act of taking someone away by force or cunning; kidnapping.So if it was an accident at the home that would not be an abduction.For example like hitting him with a vehicle

 

[gngr~snap]

Again, I'm baffled by the lack of information on the disappearance. Why would they say that they don't believe he wandered off, and they don't believe he was kidnapped, but say nothing else?

If he never left the house, he's still there, right? But then, they've searched the home and yard, and as far as we know nothing, right?

Are they saying that he died (by whatever means,) and then was taken from the home? That wouldn't technically be kidnapping.

Or are they saying that he was outside and taken by animals? Again, wouldn't be kidnapping, and technically he didn't wander off.

I'm at a loss then. I really, really don't think the family is involved. So what else could it be?

I don't understand the way LE word things!
They don't believe he wandered off. They don't believe he was kidnapped.

Why not just say we don't believe what we have been told?
am I crazy or is that not what they are saying?

I get what they are thinking, I caught a few red flags in the parents first interview.
I don't think Joshua is alive. I can see why they might have been sugar coating it, but now that the new baby is here the gloves may come off soon.
MOO

 

[cluciano63]

If he was killed away from the home by a non-family member, he would have had to have been abducted first.

 

[MsFacetious]

Sorry, Kimster. I'll stop. :blushing:

I actually don't think anyone in the family did anything wrong in this case.

I have a hard time believing the family did anything in this case.

But our options are limited. Maybe someone wiser than I can make better sense of it.


LE has said they have ruled out abduction or kidnapping.

LE has said they have ruled out him wandering off on his own. IF he was taken by an animal he would have first wandered outside. So I don't think this is it.


That would leave only a few options:

Accidental death in or around the home that was covered up

Intentional death in or around the home that was covered up

Accidental or intentional death in a completely different location which would also throw off the search area... and would mean no one saw him in that trailer that night.

Selling the child. If the child is sold, I suppose you could say that isn't kidnapping. Because if BOTH of the parents give someone permission to take the child, they aren't technically abducting them.

Even if police believe this was some sort of revenge situation... where someone was waiting for another person, then saw Joshua.... that would still be a kidnapping. Likely with Joshua wandering outside first.


I guess if someone PUT him outside and then he was taken by animals, that wouldn't count as wandering or abduction?

I can't think of a scenario that would exclude wandering off, kidnapping and abduction... without implicating someone in the trailer that night of some sort of crime.

If a non family member was involved then there pretty much had to be an abduction first... or the child wandering outside. Even accidentally hitting him in the driveway during the game, would require him wandering outside first. So it almost had to be a family member.

Or, a family member handing the child over. Either way a family member would be involved somehow to fit with LE's statements. Does that make sense?

Even being abducted by aliens, would still be an abduction.

They almost HAVE to be looking at a family member for something. Selling the child, hurting the child, covering something up, killing the child. Maybe someone else can come up with an alternative... but I can't.

I don't think the family is involved, but I also can't find another scenario with the information we are getting from LE. They are giving the impression that something happened within that family.

It would be much easier for a family member to get away with something in a house full of people. Them interacting with, or carrying a "sleeping" baby wouldn't be odd. But just a friend over there doing that would be a little bit more weird.

 

[Inspector Gidget]

I don't understand the way LE word things!
They don't believe he wandered off. They don't believe he was kidnapped.

Why not just say we don't believe what we have been told?
am I crazy or is that not what they are saying?

I get what they are thinking, I caught a few red flags in the parents first interview.
I don't think Joshua is alive. I can see why they might have been sugar coating it, but now that the new baby is here the gloves may come off soon.
MOO

Yes I think that is their way of telling us he is not alive and someone in that house did it without pointing a finger at them

 

[Redwood146]

If you sold the child would not be easier not to raise the alert that the baby has gone missing?

 

[gngr~snap]

Yes I think that is their way of telling us he is not alive and someone in that house did it without pointing a finger at them

I agree, and what we don't see behind the scene reveals a lot!
When you sit two parents down and ask them how their child got injured it becomes clear pretty quick. In my experience innocent parents blame themselves guilty ones blame the child or an outsider.
most of the time.

 

[wfgodot]

Not sure about this case, of course. I'm baffled.

But if the above - what the police believe did not happen, especially - were a given in a hypothetical case, the answer might involve the child accidentally ingesting an illegal substance, and dying from same. An autopsy would then incriminate at least one adult and, thus, would be something that person and others might seek to cover up, due to the probability of charges being filed not only for possession of the substance, but also for the death of the child.

 

[Inspector Gidget]

But that is what confuses me most. My husband has had people over to watch games. We had some over for Super Bowl. If one of my kids had gone missing that day I could have immediately listed who was in our home and when. It should not take weeks to find out 'who was in and out of the house.' kwim?

Then again we don't know what who they could be involved with.For example if a drug dealer came to my house I would not want to tell LE ,not only would it implicate them,it would implicate me,not implying anything here about them

 

[katydid23]

Then again we don't know what who they could be involved with.For example if a drug dealer came to my house I would not want to tell LE ,not only would it implicate them,it would implicate me,not implying anything here about them

Exactly. So that tells me something is up. Because if my child was missing then I could care less about admitting a drug dealer was watching the game at my home. it would be the least of my worries. It is not illegal to invite someone to watch the game, even if they do illegal things for a living. Unless of course I was doing illegal things with them.

So maybe the child accidentally ingested illegal things?

 

[lillys]

Exactly. So that tells me something is up. Because if my child was missing then I could care less about admitting a drug dealer was watching the game at my home. it would be the least of my worries. It is not illegal to invite someone to watch the game, even if they do illegal things for a living. Unless of course I was doing illegal things with them.

So maybe the child accidentally ingested illegal things?

bbm/Absolutely what I was thinking. Admitting a drug dealer was in my house would pale to my child disappearing.

I'm beginning to think the Joshua 'walking out the door-abduction story' was just that-a story. As I said last night, there's a reason LE made those statements too.

I think something very bad happened to this precious child at home and people are covering it up. imoo

 

[panthera]

Not sure about this case, of course. I'm baffled.

But if the above - what the police believe did not happen, especially - were a given in a hypothetical case, the answer might involve the child accidentally ingesting an illegal substance, and dying from same. An autopsy would then incriminate at least one adult and, thus, would be something that person and others might seek to cover up, due to the probability of charges being filed not only for possession of the substance, but also for the death of the child.

I agree. Hypothetically, it would be one reason for everyone involved to want and agree to cover something up. MOO

 

[Tuffy]

Yes I think that is their way of telling us he is not alive and someone in that house did it without pointing a finger at them

What I don't get is if he was killed at home, where is he? That house isn't that big. It's been searched. They wouldn't have had much time to hide him without anyone noticing.

Then we are back to a scenario where everyone in the house is in on it.

 

[Dee10]

I tripped over this Nancy G. transcript & video from Feb. 10th, it answers some questions in my mind anyway.

MICHAEL BOARD, WOAI NEWSRADIO: Who knows what happened. The only people who know what happened in this home are the people who were in there. We know that all of them except for one have given polygraph tests to police. The only person who has not been given a polygraph at this point is the mom because she`s pregnant. Pregnancy is a big problem with polygraph tests.

My Comment: I wonder what day/date the Dad said the friend didn't or refused to take one? Maybe they hadn't got to him if it was after this date, he wasn't told by the friend? Didn't he say the friend doesn't talk to him anymore? Or did he lie?

JEAN CASAREZ, "IN SESSION": Well, they have executed some search warrants in that home. They have taken out a bucket, a tarp, and items in black plastic. But Nancy, here`s what I think is critically important. Bloodhounds went to that home. They could not find a scent outside of that home of the little baby.

My comment: A search warrant was required???

GRACE: To Lieutenant Michael Penshorn, New Braunfels Police Department, joining us there in Texas. Lieutenant, thank you so much for being with us. I questioned the mother extensively myself, and she told me that she was watching, I think she said "Toy Story 3" on a DVD. that the baby, the toddler, 18-month-old Joshua, would come in and out of the room, that he then went to his father, who was in another room. He came up behind him and was pulling on his jacket or his cap or something.

And he was only gone for about 10 minutes, to her knowledge, when she jumped up and realized he hadn`t been in the room for a while, went out, and nobody could find him. You know, nine people -- eight, including Joshua -- in the home, and nobody saw him leave, Lieutenant?

LT. MICHAEL PENSHORN, NEW BRAUNFELS POLICE DEPARTMENT (VIA TELEPHONE): Exactly. I agree. When you have that many people in a residence, obviously, there are people that probably have information and for whatever reason are not necessarily sharing it with the police.

My comment: Well...I guess we know where he stands, six days into the disappearance.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1102/10/ng.02.html

Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjEIKlEdL1w&feature=related

 

[Kat]

Dee about the SW's.

IMHO, getting SW's before hand is pretty much Standard Operating Procedure for a lot of LE departments. JMHO.

It doesn't mean that the tenants of the home or the home owner refused a search, it might just be how they cross their t's and dot their i's in that town/county LE department. (I remember this being discussed in another missing child case).

 

[Dee10]

Dee about the SW's.

IMHO, getting SW's before hand is pretty much Standard Operating Procedure for a lot of LE departments. JMHO.

It doesn't mean that the tenants of the home or the home owner refused a search, it might just be how they cross their t's and dot their i's in that town/county LE department. (I remember this being discussed in another missing child case).

I didn't know that, I was going by Kaine giving LE full access, but I think automatically issuing a warrant would probably be good a idea legally. Thanks Kat, good to know.

 

[Tuffy]

I agree. Hypothetically, it would be one reason for everyone involved to want and agree to cover something up. MOO

I just don't get how all those people being questioned, and taking lie detector tests would get a away with it. Perhaps, they haven't. Maybe they are getting conflicting accounts of that night, but have not found a body.

 

[TxLady2]

Dee about the SW's.

IMHO, getting SW's before hand is pretty much Standard Operating Procedure for a lot of LE departments. JMHO.

It doesn't mean that the tenants of the home or the home owner refused a search, it might just be how they cross their t's and dot their i's in that town/county LE department. (I remember this being discussed in another missing child case).

Exactly... they don't want a defense lawyer trying to keep any evidence from being presented at trial due to not getting a SW. Judges are sometimes picky. LE has to ALWAYS keep in mind that the case may go to trial, and preserving evidence is one of the keys to a conviction.
Plus... say the baby does turn up, they want to be able to say that they searched the property thoroughly and were satisfied he was not hidden away in the home.