Re: #2 - Hailey Dunn Missing from Colorado City, TX/ Hailey's disappearance now a criminal matter/ Shawn Adkins primary suspect/ Billie Dunn: Unnamed Person Could Have Information

by pepperann Sun Feb 13, 2011 3:07 pm

Two Peppers, that's so funny to me. Dancing

I don't know all the ends and outs about groups like TES but common sense tells me that LE has told them something to keep them from participating in the search. What that might be, I haven't a clue. Perhaps they feel if all parties in the case had been honest and truthful from the get-go, that a group such as TES would be helpful but considering that LE has maintained that there is information being withheld by those close to Hailey's, then the need for TES is not warranted at this time. I just don't know enough about how that works to make an informed opinion. It seems strange that they were committed to coming only to stop cold.

by pepperacho Sun Feb 13, 2011 3:17 pm

Wrapitup wrote:
Czgtz, I think that you are very wise to ignore those who just want to argue. It is not possible to reason with people like that.
I have not found one person on VH that "just wants to argue". I do NOT allow that here.

Sorry for the confusion , Wrapitup. I was referring to part of CZ's earlier post about her experiences since deciding to go online to get attention to Hailey. I think she was speaking in general terms of "posters on the internet".
Here it is:

I quickly saw that I was not able to sway many people's opinion of Billie, and nearly came to the conclusion that it was pointless for me to continue posting. I sometimes wondered if I was just 'fanning the flames', and causing people to be even more outrageous in their opinions and accusations when they knew I was online.... maybe just to see if they could get a rise out of me.

I finally decided that I would continue posting, but that I would try my hardest to ignore people who I thought were trying to bait me.

by Boston_Lady Sun Feb 13, 2011 3:20 pm

pepperacho wrote:

Czgtz, I think that you are very wise to ignore those who just want to argue. It is not possible to reason with people like that.
********

Well, sorry you feel that responding to czgtz's posts with facts is "just wanting to argue". I have not been rude and demanding. I merely presented the way I see things.

czgtz has put herself out here speaking as an authority on what BD feels, does, thinks. Are we supposed to just read the post and not comment? If she doesn't want to respond to questions or documented facts, that is certainly her choice. But I don't appreciate being targeted as "just wanting to argue".

Can someone tell me what TES is? I'm not from Texas and not sure what this agency does. Thanks!

by raine1953 Sun Feb 13, 2011 3:20 pm

sdillard wrote:
raine1953 wrote:[Do you know that the other LE agencies that were brought in to this case have not re-started this investigation and that it the case is in the hands of a new detective? If you do have this information, please provide a link and if this is in fact the case I find this very interesting. I have read that TES is 'on hold' because LE hasn't allowed them in yet and I just do not understand why.

This has got to be the second or third time that I have read right here in this very forum that TES was not allowed to come in. A few days ago , I posted a question, "Who wont let TES come in?" and I was asked to provide a link for that .....so could someone please please put up a link, as I would like to know myself....

You were absolutely correct sdillard, I should have provided a link. I started looking for it but it looks like CZ has answered the question. I do remember reading a few times what she is saying, I'll look for a link if Wrap tells me to. good post

by raine1953 Sun Feb 13, 2011 3:25 pm

Texas Equusearch, Mounted Search and Recovery Team
texasequysearch.org

by Boston_Lady Sun Feb 13, 2011 3:29 pm

And I apologize in advance if pepperacho wasn't directing that at me. Looks like we posted at the exact same time.

Thank you Raine for your response. So this is an outside agency who is state funded and works outside of the local LE?

by Boston_Lady Sun Feb 13, 2011 3:31 pm

The link above didn't work for TES. I found this:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by raine1953 Sun Feb 13, 2011 3:33 pm

Boston_Lady wrote:pepperacho wrote:

Czgtz, I think that you are very wise to ignore those who just want to argue. It is not possible to reason with people like that.
********

Well, sorry you feel that responding to czgtz's posts with facts is "just wanting to argue". I have not been rude and demanding. I merely presented the way I see things.

czgtz has put herself out here speaking as an authority on what BD feels, does, thinks. Are we supposed to just read the post and not comment? If she doesn't want to respond to questions or documented facts, that is certainly her choice. But I don't appreciate being targeted as "just wanting to argue".

Can someone tell me what TES is? I'm not from Texas and not sure what this agency does. Thanks!

I just posted the link for TES, sorry, I forget that everyone isn't familiar with them.

What makes VH special is that we agree to disagree here. This case has gotten to just about all of us and everyone has their own opinions. I didn't read CZ's post as pointed towards you at all, she's been all over the Internet and I did think she was talking in generalities.
Most of us here are just reading what is put out to the media and we are all posting out own opinions, that's why you will see others put JMOO after their posts.
I appreciate CZ's input, she's close to this situation and the rest of us are not.
No offense intended but I think we all need to be reminded that most of what we write is just our own opinions, I know I do.

by bringthemhome Sun Feb 13, 2011 3:36 pm

pepperann wrote:Two Peppers, that's so funny to me.

I don't know all the ends and outs about groups like TES but common sense tells me that LE has told them something to keep them from participating in the search. What that might be, I haven't a clue. Perhaps they feel if all parties in the case had been honest and truthful from the get-go, that a group such as TES would be helpful but considering that LE has maintained that there is information being withheld by those close to Hailey's, then the need for TES is not warranted at this time. I just don't know enough about how that works to make an informed opinion. It seems strange that they were committed to coming only to stop cold.

I am leaning that way, when I recall Caylee's search and the Haleigh Cummings and how TES came and wanted to search yet they knew in both cases that everyone wasn't telling what they knew and it was a real dilemna for them I believe, should they stay on a search when they are not getting all the info the need to do a thorough search or should resources be used where the family et al, is more upfront and forthright? Although, on the flip side someone in LE could have also told them something that made them stop from coming immediately. Remember all the bad press from those two cases, TES couldn't win for losing, kind of like "no goog deed goes unpunished". I know God forbid if my child were missing, after 911 I'd call Tim personally and beg for help and then cooperating with LE by takin a poly so they could move the focus elsewhere. Just another oddity in this case which is so tragic.

by raine1953 Sun Feb 13, 2011 3:36 pm

Boston_Lady wrote:The link above didn't work for TES. I found this:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I knew that! I have no idea why I posted that, sorry! :thanks:

by Boston_Lady Sun Feb 13, 2011 3:38 pm

On the TES page, I saw that they got involved with the missing case of the 18 month old from Texas. I wonder what the difference is between Hailey's case and theirs?

Missing: Joshua Davis, Jr., 18 Mos., New Braunfels, TX, 02/04/11

Posted on 08. Feb, 2011 by smckinney.
0

02/08/11 — Joshua Davis, Jr., age 18 mos., was last seen on Friday, February 4, 2011, in the 2600 block of Savannah Hill Circle. Joshua was last seen wearing a red and blue long-sleeve shirt, a gray long-sleeve t-shirt, a white and beige one piece, beige jeans and black and white socks. Please call the New Braunfels Police Department at (830) 221-4570 or Texas EquuSearch at (281) 309-9500 if you have any information.

by bringthemhome Sun Feb 13, 2011 3:41 pm

Boston_Lady wrote:And I apologize in advance if pepperacho wasn't directing that at me. Looks like we posted at the exact same time.

Thank you Raine for your response. So this is an outside agency who is state funded and works outside of the local LE?

They are an outside search organization totally funded by donations and works with volunteers, Tim (founder of TES) own daughter was murdered about 27 yrs ago. I remember it so well as we were the same age, and there were so many missing girls and murdered girls along the interstate that led to Galveston, I wasn't able to go for yrs. He begged the local LE to search and the LE thought she was a runaway, finally about 18 mos later she was found along with another Jane Doe in a field he had always wanted to search. You should read his story on trutv about Laura Miller and how TES came about. Very tragic story and I admire that man more than you can imagine, who else could do what he does everyday and still be sane? I don't think could

by raine1953 Sun Feb 13, 2011 3:47 pm

Bringthemhome - I so agree with everything you just said about Tim Miller and my respect for him is enormous.
I do hope that TES will come to CC.

by czgtz Sun Feb 13, 2011 3:50 pm

I just want to clear a couple of things up.

Boston lady, I am sorry if you felt targeted by my post as someone who 'justs wants to argue'. I was not referring to anyone in particular. I even went back and reread my post to make sure that I did not say anything that pointed at you, even indirectly.

Also, I have never tried to present myself as an 'authority on what BD feels, does, thinks.' I do not want anyone to think that I am Billie's 'official online spokesperson' - I am not. In fact, in one of my very first posts here, I addressed the fact that sometimes it was hard to post about things. I don't know how to bump it up, but I have quoted myself here:

"It is sometimes hard to answer questions - not because I am avoiding them (although there are some things I will not talk about), but because not only am I repeating what Billie has told me, but I am also going by what I have seen and heard firsthand... plus I have my own opinions also. I do try and differentiate between Billie said, I know, and I feel."

Yes, I will absolutely defend Billie, and I have on occasion called her while I was online to have her clear something up... but I am very clear when I do that, and I don't do it very often. Mostly though, I am posting my own thoughts and feelings about things, just as everyone else is.

by bringthemhome Sun Feb 13, 2011 3:51 pm

raine1953 wrote:Bringthemhome - I so agree with everything you just said about Tim Miller and my respect for him is enormous.
I do hope that TES will come to CC.

So do I, but I think there is a reason they are not there and I would love to know WHY?

by bringthemhome Sun Feb 13, 2011 3:57 pm

czgtz wrote:I just want to clear a couple of things up.

Boston lady, I am sorry if you felt targeted by my post as someone who 'justs wants to argue'. I was not referring to anyone in particular. I even went back and reread my post to make sure that I did not say anything that pointed at you, even indirectly.

Also, I have never tried to present myself as an 'authority on what BD feels, does, thinks.' I do not want anyone to think that I am Billie's 'official online spokesperson' - I am not. In fact, in one of my very first posts here, I addressed the fact that sometimes it was hard to post about things. I don't know how to bump it up, but I have quoted myself here:

"It is sometimes hard to answer questions - not because I am avoiding them (although there are some things I will not talk about), but because not only am I repeating what Billie has told me, but I am also going by what I have seen and heard firsthand... plus I have my own opinions also. I do try and differentiate between Billie said, I know, and I feel."

Yes, I will absolutely defend Billie, and I have on occasion called her while I was online to have her clear something up... but I am very clear when I do that, and I don't do it very often. Mostly though, I am posting my own thoughts and feelings about things, just as everyone else is.

Thanks CZ~I remember your first post and stating you were posting your feelings ad I also remember when you have called her while posting, and I remembered a questio I had. On WS IIRC you were on the phone with her, let me see if I can find it:

I am on the phone with Billie right now:

When Billie got home from work Monday, her BF told her that he came home early and that Hailey had left shortly after that.

but she also stated she was told while she was at work?

Shawn called me while I was at work that afternoon. I asked him about the kids. He told me that David wasn’t home yet, and that Hailey had left to go to Clint’s, and then was going to a friend’s to spend the night.

Were you ever able to determine which one is correct. TIA

by czgtz Sun Feb 13, 2011 4:00 pm

raine... I saw that you posted I had been all over the internet. Not in anyway calling you out or anything, but why do you think that? I am asking because I have seen that several times before (other places), and wonder where it is coming from.

When Hailey first disappeared, I did post her story on as many places as I could find - but mostly media sites, and only the initial blurb that she was missing, what she was wearing, to please watch for her, and the numbers to call if anyone had any info. Then I moved on to the next place, and never went back.

I have only posted on two forums, including this one. I do look around sometimes just to see what is being reported, but I don't post. I am hoping that no one has signed up in other places with a user name similar (or the same) as mine and is giving people the impression that they are me. A couple of months ago, that thought would have never crossed my mind, but I have seen so much craziness lately that it wouldn't surprise me at all.

by czgtz Sun Feb 13, 2011 4:16 pm

bringthemhome, I remember that particular call because I was trying to clear up why Hailey had first been reported as leaving home at 1pm and the time was later changed to 3pm. It was a rushed call, because Billie was about to go on Nancy Grace - I think it was the very first show that she did by phone.

I think that both are correct. Shawn called Billie at work that afternoon. I don't think that he told Billie that he left work early when he called her, and only mentioned that after he picked her up. He told her on the phone that David was not home yet and Hailey had left.

I do not think that Billie was trying to change her story. I was specifically asking her about the time change when I called her, and that is what she told me about. And she did not know that Shawn came home early until after he picked her up.

by Boston_Lady Sun Feb 13, 2011 4:18 pm

Just to clarify, I didn't think that czgtz had said anything to me about arguing. I thought pepperacho meant me as our posts crossed. It's ALL a big misunderstanding and I apologize for the confusion.

Whew! Hope that helped !!

I have a quick question totally off topic. How can I post an emoticon? I can see them when I click on the smiley face but I don't see any way to insert it into the text. Anyone? :)

flower3

by Boston_Lady Sun Feb 13, 2011 4:21 pm

Okay.. not sure how I did that ! As you can see I tried 4 times but I didn't see them. lol

its all good

by Guest Sun Feb 13, 2011 4:31 pm

I like that your all starting to use the emoticons. BJ I absolutely love the Klass Kids poster! Thanks for posting that. Even if TES is not coming help is on the way.

by Nama Sun Feb 13, 2011 4:51 pm

by czgtz Today at 3:34 pm I continue to believe that Hailey is alive, and do not like thinking about searches for a body. But I realize that, if nothing else, areas need to be ruled out.

I hope you're right and Hailey is alive and will come home one day. If you truly believe she's alive, where do you think she is? Do you think she ran away, that someone is hiding her or holding her against her will? You must have a reason for thinking that, or is it just wishful thinking?

by janie Sun Feb 13, 2011 4:55 pm

cz I hope you don't mind me asking but were David and Hailey close? This has to be so horrible for him too! Does he like SA?

by czgtz Sun Feb 13, 2011 5:24 pm

BJ, honestly I have absolutely no idea what might have happened to Hailey or where she might be. I am holding on to my belief that Hailey is alive simply because I cannot cope otherwise. I guess a part of it is just thinking postitive, and putting everything in God's hands, but another part is the fact that there is no evidence at all of foul play. Until I am shown irrefutable proof to the contrary, I can continue to believe that Hailey is alive and will be coming home.

janie, from what I have seen, David and Hailey were close. David is putting on a brave face, but I know that he is hurting, and he wants Hailey home just as bad as Billie and Clint do. David and Shawn seemed to get along fine, to the point of being friends.

by Nama Sun Feb 13, 2011 5:30 pm

czgtr, I understand. I don't want to believe that she's never coming home either. Without hope we have nothing so let's keep hoping.

by gnreed Sun Feb 13, 2011 5:33 pm

czgtz wrote:

gnreed, I do know why Billie does not want to take another poly, and it is because her faith in them is shattered. She has nothing to do with Hailey's disappearance, but was told that she indicated deception. When it was explained to her, she was told that everytime Hailey's name was mentioned, she went out of 'parameters' for truthfulness. She has said that she will consider taking another one if the FBI will administer it.

You know what though? I have given this a lot of thought... if it was me, and I knew that I was completely innocent, and had taken a poly to prove just that but had been told I failed (and told that everyone else who took a poly failed at least one) then I really don't think I would take another. What good would it do me? If I failed again, it would look bad. If I passed, how many people would say that I had just 'gotten lucky' on the second poly, and since I failed the first one, I was lying?

I tend to disagree with you on the polygraph issue. Mr.Klaas even encouraged BD to demand a polygraph administered by the FBI to clear herself. If she is innocent, this would make things alot easier for her and get people off her back. The longer this goes on, it is going to get worse. Alot worse.

by janie Sun Feb 13, 2011 5:35 pm

Thanks cz!!! I really appreciate you taking the time to answer all our questions!!!

by raine1953 Sun Feb 13, 2011 5:45 pm

czgtz wrote:raine... I saw that you posted I had been all over the internet. Not in anyway calling you out or anything, but why do you think that? I am asking because I have seen that several times before (other places), and wonder where it is coming from.

When Hailey first disappeared, I did post her story on as many places as I could find - but mostly media sites, and only the initial blurb that she was missing, what she was wearing, to please watch for her, and the numbers to call if anyone had any info. Then I moved on to the next place, and never went back.

I have only posted on two forums, including this one. I do look around sometimes just to see what is being reported, but I don't post. I am hoping that no one has signed up in other places with a user name similar (or the same) as mine and is giving people the impression that they are me. A couple of months ago, that thought would have never crossed my mind, but I have seen so much craziness lately that it wouldn't surprise me at all.

CZ, I apologize for my poor wording and I should have proofed my own post! I noticed you on the only other forum that I (occasionally) read, WS and was following your posts because you seemed to be the only one close to the Hailey case. I'm not sure when but I googled your user name but I did and found quite a few links and you're correct, many of them are media sites. If you're linked to any other forums, I don't know about it. I hope I cleared this up!

by sdillard Sun Feb 13, 2011 6:04 pm

I am wondering about something, maybe cz or someone can answer....
Was it accurate about the lady seeing Hailey walking with a dark boy? I believe it was though that it could have been Naomi's son? Wouldnt the little boy have had to ask his mom for permission to walk somewhere with Hailey? Surely Naomi would know if her son walked away from the house, right?

by czgtz Sun Feb 13, 2011 6:05 pm

Thanks raine... I saw someone added me, as czgtz, to a who's who of the case on a website, and when I clicked on my name, it googled me.... and there were some hits on other forums, but what I saw just looked like my posts that had been copied and pasted from the the other forum I had posted at. But I could not see all of the links, and after you said that, I really did start to wonder.

I don't care who knows that I am supporting Billie, but I don't want to be mixed up with anyone else.

by czgtz Sun Feb 13, 2011 6:12 pm

sdillard, the sighting was accurate, I talked with the woman myself. She is a hairdresser who has a shop behind her house, which is around the corner from Billie's house. I believe that she saw Hailey, and on Monday, for several reasons. First of all, she knows Hailey... her grandkids play with Hailey, and she has no reason to protect Billie or Shawn. Next, she is not open on Sundays, she keeps a log of her customers, and she remembers who's hair she was doing at the time she saw Hailey. And that customer's name is written in the book, on Monday, during the time she saw Hailey. Also, she saw Hailey not just once, but twice, walking with the boy.

As for your other questions... your guess is as good as mine.

by sdillard Sun Feb 13, 2011 6:14 pm

Thanks CZ....I have no doubt the woman saw her, it just seems like I read that the "sighting" wasnt credible or something.....I had just wondered if it was Naomis son. Thank you!!

by CritterFan1 Sun Feb 13, 2011 6:19 pm

To insert an Emoticon, you write what you want, push happy face w/mouse. When open, scroll down on the blue line on the right of the emoticon's. When you see one you like click it. If you want to add another one, click the happy face again, the one you just entered pops up, means you do not have to go down the same list again. Find one you like. Move mouse over t to the one you like and click. On it's on it ends up in ypur post. BlowKisses

by NosyNeighbor Sun Feb 13, 2011 7:50 pm

I saw earlier today about the analysis guy seamusoriley or something like that had posted something about czgtz. Does anyone know anything about it? I didn't have time to read but will if no one else has.

by NosyNeighbor Sun Feb 13, 2011 9:07 pm

Just now had time to go back and look and see what was specifically said referring to czgtz and the statement analysis dude..

When I was reading this thread earlier czgtz speaking about the comment of something to the effect of "being all over the internet"[not a direct quote.only paraphrasing:)]well I simply googled that and in the google entries that it pulled up the ninth one was the seamusoriley statement analysis with an excerpt speaking of czgtz.. as I said when I saw it earlier I did not have time at that moment to click on it and read what all was said.

Then later when I returned to this thread and was catching up it was then that I was reminded of what I had seen. Thus I posted asking if anyone hadd heard about it or read it and that if no one had that I would go back and read it.

So upon now having a moment to do so I went back thru my browser's history to find the google page where I had earlier seen this particular entry. I found it and clicked on it.

Here is the link and am sorry that what I found was not a statement analysis but rather in the comment section a discussion about czgtz.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Am sorry for any confusion this may/or may not have caused but I wanted to thoroughly explain as well as clarify exactly what it was that I saw and read :)

by raine1953 Sun Feb 13, 2011 9:08 pm

NosyNeighbor wrote:I saw earlier today about the analysis guy seamusoriley or something like that had posted something about czgtz. Does anyone know anything about it? I didn't have time to read but will if no one else has.

Personally, I don't put any stock in what Peter Hyatt says and don't usually finish reading what he's written, but I do remember czgtz being mentioned in it. Do you have a link to it? If not, it's posted up thread and you should probably read it for yourself.

by raine1953 Sun Feb 13, 2011 9:10 pm

czgtz wrote:sdillard, the sighting was accurate, I talked with the woman myself. She is a hairdresser who has a shop behind her house, which is around the corner from Billie's house. I believe that she saw Hailey, and on Monday, for several reasons. First of all, she knows Hailey... her grandkids play with Hailey, and she has no reason to protect Billie or Shawn. Next, she is not open on Sundays, she keeps a log of her customers, and she remembers who's hair she was doing at the time she saw Hailey. And that customer's name is written in the book, on Monday, during the time she saw Hailey. Also, she saw Hailey not just once, but twice, walking with the boy.

As for your other questions... your guess is as good as mine.

CZ, has LE spoken to the hairdresser? If I remember correctly she said she had seen Hailey walking with the little boy and the friend that Shawn had said Hailey was spending the night with, right?

by sdillard Sun Feb 13, 2011 9:16 pm

Raine, the hairdresser saw Hailey with the little boy. It was another lady who saw Hailey with the girl and another teenage boy in front of some store, and she had a recept to show what time it was when she saw them....it will take a little while to find that but will post in a few

Glad there is an edit button, lol

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

This is for the one who saw them at night with a teenage boy. The hairdresser saw her with a little boy.

by NosyNeighbor Sun Feb 13, 2011 9:18 pm

raine1953 wrote:
NosyNeighbor wrote:I saw earlier today about the analysis guy seamusoriley or something like that had posted something about czgtz. Does anyone know anything about it? I didn't have time to read but will if no one else has.

Personally, I don't put any stock in what Peter Hyatt says and don't usually finish reading what he's written, but I do remember czgtz being mentioned in it. Do you have a link to it? If not, it's posted up thread and you should probably read it for yourself.

Hi raine.. yea I'm with you on all the "statement analysis stuff"... To me it doesn't hold much weight at all.. I did have a moment to go back and click on the exact google entry that I had seen earlier that went to Peter's blog and I thoroughly explained it in a post above.

I just wanted to make clear what I had seen and did not want anyone to misconstrue my post as stating it was even an actual article.. Because the link that I came upon and went to ended up being nothing more than a discussion in the comment section.

Hopefully my post above clarifies everything wink

by Boston_Lady Sun Feb 13, 2011 9:21 pm

I actually like Peter Hyatt and his Statement Analysis. It makes a lot of sense. It is done objectively and is only an indication of deception, like the polygraph. It doesn't tell why or how, just that there is deception noted on certain aspects of speech. He did not invent Statement Analysis. It is there for anyone to try.

As for the sighting of Hailey by the hairdresser, the police have stated that they have not corroburated this person/incident. As the police have said, people can say anything, it doesn't mean it's true.

by raine1953 Sun Feb 13, 2011 10:01 pm

sdillard wrote:Raine, the hairdresser saw Hailey with the little boy. It was another lady who saw Hailey with the girl and another teenage boy in front of some store, and she had a recept to show what time it was when she saw them....it will take a little while to find that but will post in a few

Glad there is an edit button, lol

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

This is for the one who saw them at night with a teenage boy. The hairdresser saw her with a little boy.

Thank you sdillard, I'm straightened out now and thank you for providing a link. I really hope that LE will look at these seriously and hopefully it will be with the assistance of another agency as well as CC.

by raine1953 Sun Feb 13, 2011 10:03 pm

NosyNeighbor wrote:
raine1953 wrote:
NosyNeighbor wrote:I saw earlier today about the analysis guy seamusoriley or something like that had posted something about czgtz. Does anyone know anything about it? I didn't have time to read but will if no one else has.

Personally, I don't put any stock in what Peter Hyatt says and don't usually finish reading what he's written, but I do remember czgtz being mentioned in it. Do you have a link to it? If not, it's posted up thread and you should probably read it for yourself.

Hi raine.. yea I'm with you on all the "statement analysis stuff"... To me it doesn't hold much weight at all.. I did have a moment to go back and click on the exact google entry that I had seen earlier that went to Peter's blog and I thoroughly explained it in a post above.

I just wanted to make clear what I had seen and did not want anyone to misconstrue my post as stating it was even an actual article.. Because the link that I came upon and went to ended up being nothing more than a discussion in the comment section.

Hopefully my post above clarifies everything

Nosy Neighbor - Thank you for your clarification. its all good

by raine1953 Sun Feb 13, 2011 10:14 pm

Boston_Lady wrote:I actually like Peter Hyatt and his Statement Analysis. It makes a lot of sense. It is done objectively and is only an indication of deception, like the polygraph. It doesn't tell why or how, just that there is deception noted on certain aspects of speech. He did not invent Statement Analysis. It is there for anyone to try.

As for the sighting of Hailey by the hairdresser, the police have stated that they have not corroburated this person/incident. As the police have said, people can say anything, it doesn't mean it's true.

Boston_Lady, We'll just have to agree to disagree on the subject of Peter Hyatt. I didn't mean to say that I don't believe in statement analysis because I have read some (by other people) that had some very good points. I object to what I read that Hyatt has written because I do NOT believe it's objective, IMOO I think that it's based on very little fact.
I hope that LE is taking every single Hailey sighting as fact until they are able to completely rule it out. I'd feel more comfortable if it wasn't CC doing this verification. MOO.

by czgtz Mon Feb 14, 2011 12:18 am

raine - LE seems to be doing just the opposite.... ruling out every single sighting of Hailey, based on 'evidence' that they refuse to release. And it is all CC at this point, althought I don't believe it was when the sightings were discounted. I will admit that some of the sightings might be wrong. But not all of them. And IMO, the one from the hairdresser (who is a business owner, longstanding member of the community, and a non-interested party) should not be ruled out - especially since she has a record of who her customer was and on what day. I also feel that the evening sighting by the woman returning the movie should not be ruled out at this point, for the same reason - she was returning a movie, and has a receipt of the day and time it was returned.

I really do hope that I am wrong, but sometimes it seems like everything that doesn't fit with the theory that Shawn did something nefarious Monday morning is discounted.... just because it doesn't fit. I realize that LE has things that they have not released to the public - but who knows how much of it is concrete and how much is circumstancial? It seems to me that if LE is so sure about Shawn, and has such damning evidence against him, that they should have acted upon it by now. It has been what, seven weeks now?

If, God forbid, Shawn is responsible for Hailey's disappearance, and has harmed her, then I hope he rots in hell. I will be the first in line to say that by his own actions, he has made himself look pretty guilty. But, the more time that goes by, and the more I learn, the less inclined I am to believe that he actually did anything to Hailey. Don't get me wrong, I am not defending him - I don't even know him that well. But I am starting to believe that after the case was bumbled in the first few days, LE was desperate to name a suspect to seem 'on top of it', and he was the most convenient suspect available. I find it very hard to believe that he is some kind of mastermind who could fool 11 LE agencies for so long and pull off such a crime without leaving any physical evidence - even by dumb luck.

If someone has hurt Hailey, then I want the guilty person punished - not the most convenient suspect.

And about the statement analysis.... I might be able to think there was some credibility to it if he had even gotten the statements right. For instance (and I am paraphrasing from memory, because I do not want to go back and read it again) he talked about Billie wanting people to call in and report anything, even if 'LE did not think it was relevant'. What she said was that she wanted people to call in any little thing, even if they (the people calling the informatinon in) did not think it was relevant or had already been reported. I have no idea if he truly misunderstood, or if it just fit his purpose to 'misunderstand'. I did not read the whole article, but just skimmed over it, and this in particular stood out to me. I am sure that if I looked I could find something else. So I agree with you about Peter Hyatt. At best, he is a sensationalist. At worst, he is an a**hole, lol. All just MOO, of course.

by Wrapitup Mon Feb 14, 2011 12:27 am

Hi czgtz. This is what I cannot figure out. I am ASSuming that the ONLY way LE could call SA a suspect would be if the FBI had poly'd him and it showed deception. Maybe they have poly'd him for all we know and LE is keeping that close to the vest. However, if Billie and Shawn are "friendly" again (were they ever NOT friendly and if so, how long did that last?) I would think Billie would know and by extension, you.

That being said, I am still unclear on how many poly's both Billie and Shawn have taken. Has it been just one? And didn't both take Ativan the night before they were supposed to be poly'd? Also, whose RX was it?

These are just some questions that keep rolling around and I have not seen a direct answer to them. Thanks!

p.s. I don't mean I have not seen a direct answer to the questions by you. I mean by anyone. I am very happy you are here and you have the patience of a saint, I must say!!!!

by czgtz Mon Feb 14, 2011 12:50 am

wrap, from what I understand, Shawn went in for 3 polys. He had taken Ativan before the first two, and it was only the last time (#3) that he was 'clean' and could take it. IIRC, he did start #1, but it was not finished because of the Ativan. And then #2 was not even started because he had taken Ativan again.

Billie went in twice, and had taken Ativan before the first one (which was at the same time as Shawn's first one), so it was not even started, then took her second one the same day that Shawn took his 3rd scheduled one (which is the one that showed deception).

The Ativan was Billie's. She got a prescription after Hailey disappeared.

You know, now that I am thinking about it, maybe Billie went in 3 times too..... because I do remember that LE only told her not to take the Ativan, and that the pain medication and antibiotics that she was taking for her tooth would not matter as far as the test was concerned - but then it seems like there was something about her taking those that came up. Honestly, I don't know right now (or I do and just can't remember). I have answered this question before elsewhere, but all of this happened weeks ago, and everything does start to run together after a while. I will try to remember to ask Billie tomorrow, because now it is going to bug me that I can't remember.

by Conniehu Mon Feb 14, 2011 1:11 am

I have a question that maybe someone has already answered or has the answer to. There were 3 people that were given polys BD, SA and BD brother. What led the LE to poly BD brother right off the bat?? I dont remember seeing why there was a focus on him..any ideas?

by Wrapitup Mon Feb 14, 2011 1:14 am

OK, so here is what gets me. Shawn took Ativan not once, but twice..knowing BOTH times he was not suppose to. I can see that maybe he didn't know not to take it the first time. But, when they went ahead and scheduled his 2nd poly, he was told in no uncertain terms to not take any Ativan or probably anything. AND HE DOES IT ANYWAY. WHY? Maybe because he knows it will show deception? And, if Billie had the rx and gave him the pills, she is breaking the law. Especially if she gave him an Ativan the night before his Second Poly..and why would she do that? Or, did he freely go into his gf's medicine cabinet or purse?

Then, on his 3rd poly, it shows deception and he walks out as well, correct? Were all 3 poly's given by the same person? If so, who was it? If not, who was it?

I am sorry, but this is so frustrating and no, you are not on trial here and I hope I don't sound cross but Shawn and Billie know the answers to these questions and here you sit..defending Billie. I know I have said this before but you are truly a wonderful friend. I sincerely hope you don't get burned.

And, I swear I am really trying hard NOT to sound sarcastic, but could the above be WHY SA is a suspect?

by Guest Mon Feb 14, 2011 7:02 am

Well wrap I was thinking the same thing about the Ativan. Did SA have a script for that? Did he take some of Billies medication with out her knowing it? Or did she give it to him? That really raises red flags as both of them knew they should not take anything that would affect the polygraphs.

by Wrapitup Mon Feb 14, 2011 7:27 am

LM, that is a very good point. I can completely understand wanting to take something if my child were missing. Hell, I would probably have to be sedated. But if I were going to take a poly and they told me I cannot have benzo's in my system at the time of the poly, I would just have to suck it up, put on my big girl panties and take that poly ASAP to clear my name. I am sure the polygrapher is used to people being nervous, scared, worried. Just MOO.

by Guest Mon Feb 14, 2011 8:00 am

I am sure the polygrapher is used to people being nervous, scared, worried. Just MOO.

by Sponsored content