TX TX - Joshua Davis, 18 months, New Braunfels, 4 Feb 2011 - # 5

[HiHater]

I totally agree they focused on him early ..

With just a little looking the "sightings" of Joshua on the other side of town is when I believe they started focusing on the friend...

The friend angle can't be overlooked by any rational person...IMO

 

[Kat]

From what I can see all of the information is orginating with the Davis family about this young man.

Again, I can't say if he did or didn't have anything to do with what has happened to Joshua, but then again I can't say with certainty that an adult in that house that was related to him didn't do something to Joshua. I just can't say for sure.

Here is where I do have a problem. Speculation---speculation---

If LE is not investigating someone because of their ethnicity or because of the Grandmother's status in the community why in the world would the Texas Rangers and the FBI oblige as well? IIRC both the Rangers and FBI were involved? (Am I confusing this case with another, if so please forgive!). I just can't imagine that the FBI and the Rangers would both ignore a possible suspect for any reason. That's just me though. JMHO.

I'm more confused today than I was the day this baby boy went missing. <sigh>

 

[pamlet]

Well all I can figure is the Police DO know what they're doing .. They haven't named a POI at ALL ... they've just made VERY vague but IMHO telling comments..

 

[Kat]

I hope your right pamlet! I am worried and anxious that they really don't know what happened and have no clue who did what to this child. I hope that that's not the case, sincerely hoping! JMHO

 

[HiHater]

From what I can see all of the information is orginating with the Davis family about this young man.

Again, I can't say if he did or didn't have anything to do with what has happened to Joshua, but then again I can't say with certainty that an adult in that house that was related to him didn't do something to Joshua. I just can't say for sure.

Here is where I do have a problem. Speculation---speculation---

If LE is not investigating someone because of their ethnicity or because of the Grandmother's status in the community why in the world would the Texas Rangers and the FBI oblige as well? IIRC both the Rangers and FBI were involved? (Am I confusing this case with another, if so please forgive!). I just can't imagine that the FBI and the Rangers would both ignore a possible suspect for any reason. That's just me though. JMHO.

I'm more confused today than I was the day this baby boy went missing. <sigh>

I don't think anyone has alleged that the young man is not being INVESTIGATED because of his race, socio-economic status, or the status of his grandparents. What I have heard, what I understand, is that the police have in a sense protected him from the public. I tend to believe the family was asked not to mention his name---because if not, the family would have done what they are doing now from the beginning and told Nancy Grace about him right? Besides the Davis family, where should we expect any information about the friend to come----seeing as how the police simply say "a friend" as well?

IMO, the way the case was handled thus far made it seem like the focus was on the family. This could very well be what LE wanted; to lull the young man into a sense of security. Who knows.

 

[Kat]

I don't think anyone has alleged that the young man is not being INVESTIGATED because of his race, socio-economic status, or the status of his grandparents. What I have heard, what I understand, is that the police have in a sense protected him from the public. I tend to believe the family was asked not to mention his name---because if not, the family would have done what they are doing now from the beginning and told Nancy Grace about him right? Besides the Davis family, where should we expect any information about the friend to come----seeing as how the police simply say "a friend" as well?

IMO, the way the case was handled thus far made it seem like the focus was on the family. This could very well be what LE wanted; to lull the young man into a sense of security. Who knows.

I do understand how you see this Hihater. But I don't see it the same way and that's okay. We dont' have to look at the same info and come away with the same impression or opinion. That is what makes websleuths interesting to me and why I keep coming back everyday.

I am a bit jaded in that I only take what LE has to say about a case as unbiased and accurate. Even if later on it is proven that a family member had nothing to do with a missing child the relating of facts by that family member can be unintentionally skewed or biased to reflect what it is that they think or believe happened to the child.

Meaning, that the Davis family is pointing the finger at this friend. If we look back on statements that the family has made they pointed a finger at this friend from basically a couple of days after Joshua went missing.

Is the Davis family correct in their assumption that this person did something to Joshua?

Is the Davis family correct in their assumption that LE has not investigated this person?

Could LE have a suspect or POI that they are not naming while they investigate and it is neither this young man or any of the Davis'?

I've not seen the Davis' sleuthed here. It's against TOS to sleuth the family of a missing person if that family member has not been named a POI or suspect. We have to alert on violations of TOS if we see them because the mods are volunteers and can't read every thread. By all means please alert if you see someone sleuthing against the rules.

The bottom line IMHO and only IMHO we don't have enough facts. We just don't. I can't take what the Davis family has to say as fact. Not because they would lie, but because of the excruciating anxiety of having a missing child can color perception. I question their perceptions is all. JMHO

 

[LCoastMom]

I didn't post the rumors to start trouble... The young man was named on FB 2 weeks ago and all anyone was complaining about was why he "lawyered up' immediately. The same has been posted all over the web blogs.

If his GM is a lawyer (I haven't tried to look) I can see why she or any attorney, would have recommended he not take a poly. Can't say it would have stopped me, but IDK what was going on in that house and no one is saying!

Nothing we have heard from anyone in this case makes any sense. Not LE. Not the family and not the rumors. Nothing adds up to what happened to baby Josh.

 

[HiHater]

I didn't post the rumors to start trouble... The young man was named on FB 2 weeks ago and all anyone was complaining about was why he "lawyered up' immediately. The same has been posted all over the web blogs.

If his GM is a lawyer (I haven't tried to look) I can see why she or any attorney, would have recommended he not take a poly. Can't say it would have stopped me, but IDK what was going on in that house and no one is saying!

Nothing we have heard from anyone in this case makes any sense. Not LE. Not the family and not the rumors. Nothing adds up to what happened to baby Josh.

I look at the flip side, if ANYONE else had lawyered up, suspicion would be pointed there way. Even if the grandpas girlfriend just went out and got a lawyer eyebrows would be raised.

You're right though, no one knows for sure if he got a lawyer or not, just webulation...

 

[Salem]

Remember the rules!

Social Networks

Regarding Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, and other social networking or blog websites: Links may be used to direct posters to view something on a social networking page. But postings on social networking sites are not considered fact; they are rumor. Copying and pasting, or taking screen caps, directly from these pages is not allowed. Paraphrasing is okay. (Exception: If the Twitter or Facebook post belongs to a verified news station, it may be copied. But a link should still be provided.)

Also, social networking pages may only be linked if they are directly related to a case, i.e. the victim or suspect. We don't want to post to someone's mother, brother, employer, milkman, or postal carrier just because they know the main player. We also NEVER link to minor's pages (unless they are the victim). And be sure that the page actually belongs to the person being discussed. Do not link to someone if you are not 100% sure it is the correct person. And if a social networking is set to private and you get in the back way, you may not post what you find. Private means private!

Salem

 

[justthinkin]

The New Braunfels police chief or his spokesperson publicly announced within the first 3 weeks that everyone, everyone who had been in the house the night Joshua went missing had submitted to a polygraph except for the expectant mother. This includes the said friend.

They also announced later that the friend had been cleared. I don't believe they would publicly lie about that. So yes, if they have been protecting this man it is with good reason.

Then the question to ask is why are certain persons still defaming the friend, and holding him responsible for Josh's disappearance, if he has already been cleared? That's a very good question with more than one answer. Take your pick.

It is no wonder the friend has lawyered up. He's being defamed in a public manner when he has been cleared by interrogation and polygraph.

He now has the right to sue for defamation of character, not that it would be worth his while time wise or financially, but he has every right to try to make the responsible parties cease and desist. He has to live in that community too, and his rights are being violated.

Anyone who has been cleared by LE in any criminal case would be distressed if they were still being accused of kidnapping. Try putting yourself in his shoes.

I'm not saying that necessarily makes that person a saint by any means, but he's been cleared, his residence and vehicle/s checked, and as far as I'm concerned, he's not responsible until I hear otherwise from LE. LE also stated he had been very cooperative with their investigation.

 

[LCoastMom]

The New Braunfels police chief or his spokesperson publicly announced within the first 3 weeks that everyone, everyone who had been in the house the night Joshua went missing had submitted to a polygraph except for the expectant mother. This includes the said friend.

They also announced later that the friend had been cleared. I don't believe they would publicly lie about that. So yes, if they have been protecting this man it is with good reason.

Then the question to ask is why are certain persons still defaming the friend, and holding him responsible for Josh's disappearance, if he has already been cleared? That's a very good question with more than one answer. Take your pick.

It is no wonder the friend has lawyered up. He's being defamed in a public manner when he has been cleared by interrogation and polygraph.

He now has the right to sue for defamation of character, not that it would be worth his while time wise or financially, but he has every right to try to make the responsible parties cease and desist. He has to live in that community too, and his rights are being violated.

Anyone who has been cleared by LE in any criminal case would be distressed if they were still being accused of kidnapping. Try putting yourself in his shoes.

I'm not saying that necessarily makes that person a saint by any means, but he's been cleared, his residence and vehicle/s checked, and as far as I'm concerned, he's not responsible until I hear otherwise from LE. LE also stated he had been very cooperative with their investigation.

Re BBM - do you recall where you heard anyone had been cleared or had cooperated?

I get what you are saying... but I'm not convinced anyone has been cleared - just like no one has been accused, yet...

I wish LE would come forward with anything factual that we could work with because even their statements are contradictory - unless this was an alien abduction. He didn't wander away, he wasn't abducted, no scent in the yard, the house was searched...

He was/is a flesh and blood child, he didn't just vanish IYKWIM.

They've just put up a bunch of new billboards with Josh's photo and a new $20,000 reward - why if he isn't out-there?

 

[wfgodot]

I'm having trouble finding in MSM any news of the results of the polygraphs, or even of who was asked to take them and who did take them. Links? All of this may have been reported in the Herald-Zeitung, but unfortunately it's a pay site.

 

[HiHater]

I'm having trouble finding in MSM any news of the results of the polygraphs, or even of who was asked to take them and who did take them. Links? All of this may have been reported in the Herald-Zeitung, but unfortunately it's a pay site.

I pay for the Herald Zeitung, and NEVER have I read that anyone was cleared. I think I have read that everyone was polygraphed, but I'd have to check on that. As a matter of fact, I think LE has specifically said that situations such as abduction and wandering off have been eliminated as scenarios---but NEVER have they said anyone was cleared.

 

[HiHater]

The New Braunfels police chief or his spokesperson publicly announced within the first 3 weeks that everyone, everyone who had been in the house the night Joshua went missing had submitted to a polygraph except for the expectant mother. This includes the said friend.

They also announced later that the friend had been cleared. I don't believe they would publicly lie about that. So yes, if they have been protecting this man it is with good reason.

Then the question to ask is why are certain persons still defaming the friend, and holding him responsible for Josh's disappearance, if he has already been cleared? That's a very good question with more than one answer. Take your pick.

It is no wonder the friend has lawyered up. He's being defamed in a public manner when he has been cleared by interrogation and polygraph.

He now has the right to sue for defamation of character, not that it would be worth his while time wise or financially, but he has every right to try to make the responsible parties cease and desist. He has to live in that community too, and his rights are being violated.

Anyone who has been cleared by LE in any criminal case would be distressed if they were still being accused of kidnapping. Try putting yourself in his shoes.

I'm not saying that necessarily makes that person a saint by any means, but he's been cleared, his residence and vehicle/s checked, and as far as I'm concerned, he's not responsible until I hear otherwise from LE. LE also stated he had been very cooperative with their investigation.

Can I respectfully ask that you provide a link to update and help the rest of us understand the info you posted?

 

[cluciano63]

I never heard where anyone was cleared, it is very unusual for LE to state that anyone is cleared when they also state they have no idea what happened to the person.

 

[Kat]

I vaguely remember a "sort of" comment being made by LE about the friend that left the trailer that evening.

It was on video. I don't remember the comment. It was very brief. I don't know if the guy referenced earlier and the one LE made a comment about are the same.

HTH if someone is looking for links.

 

[HiHater]

I never heard where anyone was cleared, it is very unusual for LE to state that anyone is cleared when they also state they have no idea what happened to the person.

I have to correct myself actually...the one person who police have "cleared" is the sex offender who lived across the street. I came across that while searching for the aforementioned links...

 

[Noway]

&#8220;The sex offender has been interviewed, and we have also conducted searches on his residence and vehicle. As of right now, we have nothing to believe he&#8217;s involved in this case,&#8221; Penshorn said.


http://herald-zeitung.com/news/community_alert/article_f3907074-3188-11e0-a507-001cc4c03286.html


FWIW.

 

[HiHater]

"Benitez insisted that her son had been abducted, however, police believe the child wandered off."

I think this could be a very helpful statement in the future. Policemen and women are know for tunnel vision...hmmm


http://www.centraltexasnow.com/Global/story.asp?S=13985430

 

[cluciano63]

"Benitez insisted that her son had been abducted, however, police believe the child wandered off."

I think this could be a very helpful statement in the future. Policemen and women are know for tunnel vision...hmmm


http://www.centraltexasnow.com/Global/story.asp?S=13985430

Was this from early on? Surely LE does not believe he wandered off by now...

For some reason, LE is programmed to disbelieve in abductions if they are not witnessed in action...regardless of the age of the person. Since searches are necessary either way, why not be pro-active and assume that anything may have happened until clues point one way or another? It is still a lot of work, interviews still have to be done, etc...what good does it do to put it out there that the person wandered away or ran away? It makes it seem as though LE is lazy or uncaring. The only good reason to say that would be a ploy, to prevent a suspect from knowing they are a suspect, in my opinion.