Monday, October 28, 2013

Statement Analysis: Email #2

Shawn Adkins Email #2 Analysis by Statement Analyst Kaaren Gough who continues her brilliant work below:  

1. “Im gonna try to sum this whole thing up for you...”
a.    The first sentence in a statement is a very important one.  It is the point where the subject decided to start the statement. In many cases, the first sentence might include the reason for the events that follow. A subject includes what is important in the order of importance. Here, the most important information is “to sum this whole thing up” for the recipient. The inclusion of ellipses tells us the subject is omitting information here but that the second part of the sentence is part of the first part. The second part of the sentence deals with the subject’s cooperation
b.   Im gonna try…”—“try” –is not “doing”. The subject does not say he’s going to sum up the whole thing, he’s only going to “try” which means he anticipates he may not succeed.
c.    Im gonna try to sum this whole thing up for you...”—not “sum up this whole thing”. The subject separates the “sum” from the “up” with the words “this whole thing”. A “sum” represents the result of combining elements together (adding). “sum up” speaks more to “summarizing” (encapsulating) rather than “adding”. By separating the “sum” from “up”, this suggests the subject will be placing points in front of the reader with the goal of finding their “sum” or their “answer”.
d.   Im gonna try to sum this whole thing up for you...”—“this”= closeness
e.    Im gonna try to sum this whole thing up for you...”—“whole thing” speaks to one “thing” comprised of parts.
f.      Im gonna try to sum this whole thing up for you...”—As noted in (1c.) the subject has taken the phrase “sum up” and separated the words with “this whole thing”. “up” stands on its own in this sentence. “up” speaks to rising/raising.
g.    Im gonna try to sum this whole thing up for you...”—the use of ellipses tells us the subject is omitting words (information) at this point in the story.
2. “…From the very beginning I was cooperative with Law Enforcement.”
a.    ­ “From the beginning”. –this is the most important information for the subject. It is possible the subject is responding to an accusation that he was not cooperative from the very beginning which would make the time frame more important to the subject than his involvement.
b.   –not, “I was cooperative with Law enforcement from the very beginning.” Although the subject does use the pronoun “I” indicating he is committing to what he is saying, the subject has placed himself (the “I”) in the middle of the sentence making it less important than “From the beginning…”
c.    “…I was cooperative…”—“was” is past tense meaning, ‘no longer’. One should wonder why the subject is no longer cooperative.
d.   “…cooperative with Law Enforcement.”—not, “police” or “police and FBI”.
e.    “…cooperative with Law Enforcement.”—initial caps suggests the subject may consider this to be a title. It also suggests the subject may consider them to be important and worthy of capitalization.
3. “They(F.B.I and Local LE) have done extensive forensic testing at Billie's house which I was living at the time..even brought cadaver dogs in her house and covered the outside extensively as well.”
a.    “They(F.B.I and Local LE)…”— placing words in parenthesis tells the reader that the subject is very aware of the reader at this point. The subject is moving outside of telling “what happened” and is, in effect, having a private conversation with the reader. “They(F.B.I and Local LE)…”—It is natural and expected for the subject to shorten “law Enforcement” to “they”. However, the subject feels he must define who the “They” are suggesting “They”” in this sentence and “Law Enforcement” in the previous sentence are different somehow.
Question: What other law enforcement groups/persons have been involved that did not participate in the forensic testing at Billie’s house?
b.   “They(F.B.I and Local LE) have done extensive forensic testing at Billie's house…”—not “did”. “have done” suggests the forensic testing as done over a period of time, perhaps even several different times.
c.    “…have done extensive forensic testing at Billie's house…”—not, “have done forensic testing…”. “extensive” is a qualifier and means both ‘thorough’  as well as ‘wide-ranging’ (geographically). One should wonder:
                                 i.          What is his definition of “extensive”?
                                ii.         Was this told to him by someone else?
                              iii.          Was he present to witness the process and therefore is able to label it as “extensive”?
                              iv.          Is this his opinion?
d.   “…have done extensive forensic testing at Billie's house…”—the subject does not include whether a “search” was done. Two things to consider:
                                 i.         No action of “searching” was done at Billie’s house.
                                ii.         The “forensic testing” is the most important information for the subject.
e.    “…at Billie's house which I was living at the time..”—not “which is where”. The use of  only “which” speaks more to a ‘state of living’ rather than a ‘location’. Example, “When I was twenty years old, many friends talked about the “dorm life” which I was living at the time.”
f.     “…at Billie's house which I was living at the time..”— The subject is distinguishing the event using time but does not include which time is the reference point--The time the extensive forensic testing was done or the time of Hailey’s disappearance.
Question: Why does the subject omit this information from the story?
g.    …which I was living at the time..even brought cadaver dogs in her house…”—The use of ellipses (…) indicates the subject has intentionally omitted words (information) at this point of the story. Since the first sentence was not concluded and the next sentence begins with a lowercase “even”, this suggests the subject links the two.
Question: What information has been omitted between “at the time” and “even brought cadaver dogs” that would link the two thoughts?
h.    “…even brought cadaver dogs in her house…”—no pronoun “they”. Who brought in cadaver dogs?  Why didn’t the subject include this information?
i.     “…even brought cadaver dogs in her house…”—“even” provides emphasis and suggests what follows is additional and, to a certain extent, unexpected or beyond what is considered routine. This information is important to the subject.
j.     “…even brought cadaver dogs in her house…”—Note the subject does not include what the dogs did. They were only brought into her house. Did they search?
k.    “…even brought cadaver dogs in her house and covered the outside extensively as well.”—not, “and they covered the outside…” The subject does not include who covered the outside. Law Enforcement? The cadaver dogs?
l.     “…even brought cadaver dogs in her house and covered the outside extensively as well.”—not, “searched”. “covered” does not tell us what was done. It’s focus is on the “area” as opposed to the “action” that was done in the area.
m.  “…even brought cadaver dogs in her house and covered the outside extensively as well.”—“extensively”—again, was the subject told this, witnessed it or is this his opinion?
n.   “…even brought cadaver dogs in her house and covered the outside extensively as well.”—“as well” is often used to add information that connects two things without repeating the information. Example: “I went to London for my birthday. My sister did as well.” I could have written it, “I went to London for my birthday. My sister went to London for her birthday.” but this would be redundant and would not follow the rules of efficiency in language. What should be noted here is the subject has reversed the order and incudes the event in the second part of the sentence rather than the first part. This suggests the subject would like the reader to believe that “in her house” was covered as extensively  as the outside without having to say it directly.
Question: Does the subject feel/know/believe that the level of thoroughness in her house was different from the level of thoroughness outside?
o.   They also did testing on the car…”—not “extensive testing” as before. The subject considers the level of testing done “on the car” to be less than the level of testing done “at Billie’s house”.
p.    They also did testing on the car me and Billie shared at the time…”—the subject places himself first. He is more important of the two.
q.   They also did testing on the car me and Billie shared at the time…”—The subject does not identify who owns the car. Was it a rental? Did it belong to Billie? Did it belong to the subject? Was it jointly owned?
Question: Why is the subject reluctant to identify the car’s owner?
Compare the two sentences where the subject talks about the house and the car.
                                 i.         “…have done extensive forensic testing at Billie’s house which I was living at the time…”
                                ii.         “…the car me and Billie shared at the time…”
The subject distances himself in both cases. If the car belongs to Billie, then the subject does not wish to distance himself from the car in the same way he does with the house.
r.    “They also did testing on the car me and Billie shared at the time(which we offered to let them do so they could rule us out).”—“at the time” same language as the subject uses in “which I was living at the time” The subject does not include which time is his point of reference—the time the forensic testing was done or the time Hailey disappeared. The subject and Billie no longer “share” the car.
s.    “They also did testing on the car me and Billie shared at the time(which we offered to let them do so they could rule us out).”—placing words in parenthesis tells the reader that the subject is very aware of the reader at this point. The subject is moving outside of telling “what happened” and is, in effect, having a private conversation with the reader.
t.     “They also did testing on the car me and Billie shared at the time(which we offered to let them do so they could rule us out).”—the subject connects the voluntary offer with only the car. The subject does not say he  and Billie offered to let them do the extensive forensic testing at Billie’s house or the coverage outside in the same way.
Question: If the subject and Billie offered to let them test the car, then why didn’t the subject say they also offered to let them do the forensic testing at Billie’s house.
u.  “(…which we offered to let them do so they could rule us out…)”—“offered” suggests the subject and Billie initiated the action to do the testing.
v.  “(…which we offered to let them do so they could rule us out…)”—“let them do” the subject considers them (himself and Billie) to have control over whether testing was done.

Note: Since forensic testing and searches are usually done after a warrant has been issued the subject and Billie would have no need to “offer” or “let them do” testing. By including this information, this indicates this is very important for the subject. Two things to consider:
1.     The subject may feel he needs to convince others he and Billie were cooperative in the testing of the car.
2.     The subject may feel he needs to demonstrate he was in control of the testing of the car.

w.  “They also did testing on the car me and Billie shared at the time(which we offered to let them do so they could rule us out).”—“suggests only the test results from the car would rule them out. This would suggest that the test results from everything else (inside/outside the house) would not rule them out.
Note: The subject has differentiated the car from the house and outside areas. While it is possible the separation occurs because the testing of the car was done at a different time and place than the testing of Billie’s house, it should be noted that the testing done at Billie’s house and outside may not necessarily rule them out.

x.    “…which we offered to let them do so they could rule us out…”—“we” and “us” demonstrates togetherness/a bond.
y.   “…which we offered to let them do so they could rule us out…”—Explaining why. Sensitive area.
4. "They turned up no evidence that any crime took place there which supports my innocence."
a.    “turned up”—not “found”. “turned up” relates to “digging” as in the turning up of earth.
b.   "They turned up no evidence…”—not, “They didn’t turn up any evidence…”. As it is written, “They turned up no evidence…” this suggests they “turned up” something but the subject did not consider it evidence.
c.    "They turned up no evidence that any crime took place there…”—“any” speaks to a general term of (all crime) rather than a specific (Hailey’s disappearance). This suggests the subject does not wish or cannot speak to the specific at this point of the statement.
d.   "They turned up no evidence that any crime took place there…”—the subject considers a crime to have been committed at the time of the writing of this statement. If Hailey has only disappeared at this point and it has not yet been determined if she ran away or whether she was abducted, the subject’s use of “crime” at this point is very important.
Question: When was this email written?
e.    "They turned up no evidence that any crime took place there…”— “crime” is a general term and could speak to any number of illegal activities.
Question: What constitutes “crime” for the subject?
Question: Why does the subject avoid speaking to the specific –Hailey’s disappearance.
f.     "They turned up no evidence that any crime took place there…”—not, “took place in any of these places (the house, outside the house, the car). This sentence immediately follows the sentence about the testing of the car and suggests “turned up no evidence that any crime took place” refers only to the car and does not include Billie’s house or the outside.
g.    “…which supports my innocence.”supports” as in “props up”. Something needs to be propped up because it cannot stand on its own.
h.   “…which supports my innocence.”—not, “which supports the fact I am innocent of any involvement in Hailey’s disappearance.” This would be a natural place for the subject to issue a reliable denial. But he does not. Why?
i.     “…which supports my innocence.”—“innocence” speaks more to personal experience with violence. Often, “innocence” is used in conjunction with a girl’s virginity and personal experience/knowledge in sexual matters that occur before the age of consent.
5. “My Grandmother also let them search her house as well as her entire property(yes that includes the cellar, garage, garden, the woods behind her house).”
a.    My Grandmother”—this is a proper social introduction and indicates there is a good relationship between the subject and his grandmother. Note the capital “G” an indication of importance and respect.
b.   My Grandmother”—the subject does not consider the recipient (Casey Adkins) to share the same grandmother. otherwise, he would have written, “our Grandmother”.
c.    “My Grandmother also let them search her house as well…”—suggests the grandmother let them do other things beyond ‘searching’ her house.
d.    “My Grandmother also let them search her house
e.    “My Grandmother also let them search her house as well…”—not “offered to let them” as said previously. Since there was no ‘offer’, this suggests the grandmother did not initiated this and most likely, LE appeared on her doorstep and she gave them uncontested access to her home. Again, it is likely a search warrant was issued to perform this search and that no permission was required.  
f.     “My Grandmother also let them search her house as well…”—not “have done/did testing” as was done “at Billie’s house” or “on the car”. Change of language. Earlier, the subject did not say they “searched” Billie’s house, the outside or the car they shared. It appears “search” and “testing” are two different things for the subject. If, in fact, LE’s actions at Billie’s house, the outside and on the car are different from what they did at the grandmother’s house, then this could explain the change in language, making this a justified change in language. However, if LE performed the same activities at all places (Billie’s house, outside, the car they shared and the grandmother’s house), then the change should be explored further.
g.     “… as well as her entire property(yes that includes the cellar, garage, garden, the woods behind her house).”—not, “”the outside” as said regarding Billie’s house.
h.   “… as well as her entire property(yes that includes the cellar, garage, garden, the woods behind her house).”—the use of parenthesis here indicates the subject is very aware of the reader and moving outside telling “what happened” and is, in effect, having a private conversation with the reader.
i.     “… as well as her entire property(yes that includes the cellar, garage, garden, the woods behind her house).”—“yes” indicates the subject knows that the reader knows what constitutes his grandmother’s “entire property”. By saying, “yes” the subject knows that the reader will automatically think of the cellar, garage, etc. and the subject is confirming this for the reader.
j.     “… as well as her entire property(yes that includes the cellar, garage, garden, the woods behind her house).”—not, “included”, which is the appropriate tense since the search took place in the past. The use of the present tense indicates this may not be coming from memory or that the search of the grandmother’s house is still ongoing for the subject.
k.   “… as well as her entire property(yes that includes the cellar, garage, garden, the woods behind her house).”—note the order of listing. The cellar is the most important for the subject.
l.     (yes that includes the cellar, garage,…”—the subject lists ‘cellar” as being a separate place from the house. If the cellar is separate from the house or is only accessible from outside the house, this may explain why the subject did not consider the cellar to be part of the house. If, however, the cellar is accessible from inside the house, then the subject is intentionally separating the cellar from other areas of the grandmother’s house.
Question: Does the subject use the space or store personal belongings there?

6.  Here is something that struck me odd tho..they never did search my Mother's house even tho we offered to let them do.”
a.    “Here is something that struck me odd tho…”—The subject is outside of telling “what happened” and demonstrates he is very aware of the reader at this point. He’s providing the reader with a moment of personal perception.
b.   “Here is something that struck me odd tho…”—not, “strikes”. The  use of past tense suggests it no longer strikes him as odd.
c.    “…they never did search my Mother's house even tho we offered to let them do.”—not “they didn’t search my Mother’s house…””. “never did search” suggests the subject fully expected this to happen.
d.   “…even tho we offered to let them do.”—not “she”, meaning the mother offered to let them. “we” suggests the subject believes he has some control/ownership over his mother’s house enough that he includes himself in the granting of permission to search the house.
7. “They took alot of my belongings(cell phone,clothes, shoes, my mask collection, posters, my tools etc), I suppose to test that too..”
a.    —the subject does not identify where the items were located prior to being taken. Given the sentence immediately follows the sentence about the mother’s house, it is possible these items were located at the mother’s house. However, if the items were not located at the mother’s house, then the subject does not wish the reader to know where these items were located at the time they were taken. Why?
b.   “They took alot of my belongings(cell phone,clothes, shoes, my mask collection, posters, my tools etc)…”—the use of parenthesis indicates the subject is very aware of the reader at this point in his statement and is engaging in a private conversation.
c.    “(cell phone,clothes, shoes, my mask collection, posters, my tools etc)”—“my mask collection” suggests the subject knows the reader is familiar with his “mask collection”. Otherwise, the subject would have provided more of a description such as the type of mask collection. (African mask collection, Halloween mask collection?)
d.   “They took alot of my belongings(cell phone,clothes, shoes, my mask collection, posters, my tools etc), I suppose to test that too..”—note the order of listing of items. “cell phone” is first making it the most important.
e.    “They took alot of my belongings(cell phone,clothes, shoes, my mask collection, posters, my tools etc), I suppose to test that too..”—not “them”. “that” speaks to only one item.
Question: Was only one item tested? If all items were tested, one should wonder which of the items listed is the most important to the subject.
f.      “They took alot of my belongings...”—“belongings” appears in email #1 in reference to the items he left in his locker at work after having quit. Given the items he left in his locker were “belongings” and these are “belongings” one should wonder if the subject considers the items in his locker and the items listed here to be the same or similar.
8.  I have taken ONE polygraph and I was told by L.E. I failed it and I never seen the results for myself and neither has my lawyer.”
a.    —“ONE” ­–the subject is shouting.
b.   “I was told by L.E. I failed it…”—“L.E.” not “Law Enforcement” /“F.B.I.” or “Local LE”. Change of language. If the “L.E.” that told the subject he failed the test is different from previous ones mentioned, then this would constitute a “justified” change in language because they are different persons/groups. However, if the “L.E.” that told the subject he failed is the same as ones mentioned previously, then the change in language would need to be explored further. It is possible by being told he “failed” the polygraph,  this would cause the subject to view Law Enforcement/Local LE/F.B.I. differently
9. “They have searched thoroughly all the places I went the day she went missing...”
a.    “They have searched thoroughly —is similar to what the subject said earlier “have done extensive forensic testing at Billie’s house”  
Note the similarities:
                                 i.         The subject felt it was important to include “have” rather than saying, “they did extensive forensic testing” and “they searched thoroughly”.
                                ii.         The subject felt it was important to include the degree, “extensive” and “thoroughly” at these two points. (“Billie’s house” and “all the places I went the day she went missing”).
These are the only places where the subject uses language of degrees. One should wonder if the subject feels it is important to try and convince the reader that further forensic testing at Billie’s house is not necessary because it was “extensive” to start with and that further searches of all the places he went the day Hailey went missing are not necessary because they had searched “thoroughly” already.

Note the differences:
                              iii.         “extensive” comes before “forensic testing” indicating the degree to which it was done is more important for the subject than the action that was taken.
                              iv.         “searched”  comes before the “thoroughly” indicating the action is more important for the subject than the degree to which it was done.

10.       “They still didn't turn up any evidence.”
a.    “still”—not, “They didn’t turn up any evidence.” The inclusion of “still” suggests the subject is aware that this situation is different from what is expected and is emphasizing what didn’t happen that might have been expected..
Consider the following example, “I ran ten miles and still didn’t work up a sweat.” The “still” indicates that despite what is expected that didn’t happen and I am emphasizing this fact.
b.   “They still didn't turn up any evidence.”—Again, “turn up” not, “find”. This suggests the evidence is buried.
******
11. “That didn't happen either. Um...They have searched alot of the surrounding Landfills as well. The lied about finding child porn on my mothers computer as well as my grandmothers computer oh and a memory stick found at Billies.”—“Um” and “oh” are oral interjections. One does not write “um” when they are thinking. It is found only in spoken statements. “oh” is also unusual to interject in a written statement. This suggests the subject was speaking at these points in the story.
Note: One should wonder if this is a transcript from a spoken statement.

“There was never any on there..LE was using that as leverage or scare tactic to get a confession out of me so…”—“leverage” One cannot leverage with or against something that does not exist. In other words, both the "child porn" and "a confession" exist for the subject.

114 comments:

elf said...

'They still didn't turn up any evidence'
Since that sentence was stated in a negative does that make it sensitive? And the last part(11) 'that didn't happen either ' what didn't happen? Cause it goes from sentance (10) 'they still didn't turn up any evidence ' to sentence (11) 'that didn't happen either.' Unless there is a portion missing, its like he jumped over a topic or lost his train of thought.

Anonymous said...

2. …From the very beginning I was cooperative with Law Enforcement.”
a. ­ “From the beginning”.

----------

very, is a qualifier, does the use of the word "very" give any hints or mean anything?
does "very" indicate it wasn't till a few days later, after being found out that he had not been truthful about a few things, that he became "cooperative". in this case i know "very" is a timestamp of the beginning. it was not plain and simply the "beginning", which means his beginning is not the same as our beginning. the word "very" allows for slack in when the beginning was established. he knows it wasnt since the beginning, so he had to give himself some leeway with the word very.

Anonymous said...

d. —the subject does not include whether a “search” was done.
i. No action of “searching” was done at Billie’s house.
ii. The “forensic testing” is the most important information for the subject.
--------------

isnt this the same likeness as , i washed my hands, i dried my hands off, when just saying i washed my hands would assume you also dried them off as the task off washing your hands includes drying them off. there is lack of detail, because the searching would have been a part of gathering items to be tested, therefor this is not sensitive to the subject. and “forensic testing” sums it up.

Anonymous said...

3 e. “…at Billie's house which I was living at the time..”
Question: Why does the subject omit this information from the story?
---------
nice catch,
not only did shawn move, but billie had also moved from the house. so in order to be specific of the location in reference, he pointed out that is was not the second residence where they had lived later, but it was the home he lived in at the time that warranted the forensics. the reference point is "at the time", which also includes from when Hailey went missing, during and after, again and again.
it could be assumed the party receiving the email knew the "where" of it.

Anonymous said...

3 g. Question: What information has been omitted between “at the time” and “even brought cadaver dogs” that would link the two thoughts?

-------------
the link is, as an after thought, specific detail, the extensive forensic testing included cadaver dogs. in order to cover all the bases of ongoing harassment on facebook.

Anonymous said...

3 j. “…even brought cadaver dogs in her house…”—Note the subject does not include what the dogs did. They were only brought into her house. Did they search?
---------
what the dogs did would be assumed, because he does not detail this subject, it is not sensitive to him.

Anonymous said...

3 n. Example: “I went to London for my birthday. My sister did as well.” I could have written it, “I went to London for my birthday. My sister went to London for her birthday.”

---------------

now dammit, that what im talkin about, are you sure your sister didnt go to london for YOUR birthday? were you born on the same day, did you go at the same time?
this has been one reason i have had such a hard time squaring away the details in this case. it is also why i ask the same questions over and over. i need specific clear detail. per your first statement, i cannot assume your sister went on her birthday, but i cannot be sure if she went on yours. i need to know, it would be important to know if i was understanding correctly as to when each of you went to london and why.

Anonymous said...

3 q. “They also did testing on the car me and Billie shared at the time…”—The subject does not identify who owns the car. Was it a rental? Did it belong to Billie? Did it belong to the subject? Was it jointly owned?
Question: Why is the subject reluctant to identify the car’s owner?
-----------

nice catch, interesting question.
is shawn sharing the responsibility of what ever incriminating evidence that may have been found in the car testing, or is he also including billie being as innocent/cleared as he is? the over-all theme of the email is to portray his innocence, so do we conclude he is vouching for billie's innocence also?
house = living at the time / car = shared, ... as a nomad, and having only lived in the home for a short time, but having shared the car for a longer time period, would this language be correct?

at the time of this conversation, billie no longer had the car, nor did they share it.

Anonymous said...

4 f. "They turned up no evidence that any crime took place there…”
g. “…which supports my innocence.”
innocence was reflective language of his accusers. his innocence was in question over multiple possible crimes. the lack of evidence supports his claim that he is innocent. he assumes the recipient has prior knowledge that he has given his word of denial.
note: "my innocence." changes from prior inclusion of billie's innocence too. does it not support billie's innocence in the same manner of his?

Anonymous said...

5 (yes that includes the cellar, garage, garden, the woods behind her house).
---------
specific, clear, i think he is mokking the accusers. we are not left wondering if the search included these places that were sensitive to the accusers. he is forth with and shows no fear or sensitivity to any evidence that may have been collected in those places.

Anonymous said...

7 e. “They took alot of my belongings(cell phone,clothes, shoes, my mask collection, posters, my tools etc), I suppose to test that too..”—not “them”. “that” speaks to only one item.
Question: Was only one item tested? If all items were tested, one should wonder which of the items listed is the most important to the subject.

-----------
coveralls??
they never searched his mom's property.

Anonymous said...

6. “Here is something that struck me odd tho..they never did search my Mother's house"

9. “They have searched thoroughly all the places I went the day she went missing...

------------

he was at his mothers on saturday and monday. not sunday and tuesday.
so did Hailey go missing on sunday or tuesday?

Anonymous said...

11. “That didn't happen either. Um...They have searched alot of the surrounding Landfills as well. The lied about finding child porn on my mothers computer as well as my grandmothers computer oh and a memory stick found at Billies.”—“Um” and “oh” are oral interjections. One does not write “um” when they are thinking. It is found only in spoken statements. “oh” is also unusual to interject in a written statement. This suggests the subject was speaking at these points in the story.
Note: One should wonder if this is a transcript from a spoken statement.
------------
mokking again, arrogant.

Anonymous said...

I'd believe low-down dirty blood-lust dopehead Shawn before I'd ever believe beastiality pervert dope seller and porn queen sicko Billie Jean.

However, what I really wanted to say, is; don't you all think you've already beat this dead horse to death several times already?

Did it accomplish anything?

Anonymous said...

10. b. “They still didn't turn up any evidence.”

“leverage” One cannot leverage with or against something that does not exist.

--------------
maybe that is why he has not confessed.
he knows there is nothing.
child porn accusations didnt work because he knew it didnt exist. the same as he knows nothing else will ever be found because it does not exist. and there is only one way he would know that it does not exist. even if he had destroyed many things, he knows with forensics, they would have found something, but he knows there is nothing.

Anonymous said...

with this that and the other, he leaves us to assume his denial.

check your work, 2+2=4 therefor 4-2=2
so a denial in the negative = guilty
does a non-denial in the positive = guilty

Anonymous said...

i believe at the time this was written, shawn was aware of billie calling him out about where he was tuesday "driving the back roads of Dunn". he is also aware LE does not know what he was doing then or there. so he knows LE did not "searched thoroughly all the places I went" the back roads of Dunn, which rules out tuesday as the day Hailey went missing in his mind.
that leaves sunday.

sunday they were all home, it has been searched but he refers to thoroughly searched places as "the places I WENT", so sunday at home is not included in his mind under the category of "places" the day Hailey went missing. where did he "went" on sunday?

Anonymous said...

It actually doesn't much matter what was searched several days later since no active search of the premises or anything else was made until LE finally decided that maybe Hailey didn't run away after all. It was only after this that LE decided to do a little searching, dog sniffing and wringing their hands.

Meanwhile, Shawn, Billie Jean, her brother, her son (a possibility?) and anyone else who participated in the cover up of Haileys' disposal, and/or demise, had plenty of time to forever conceal their evidence, leaving nothing for LE to find, so technically Shawn would be alluding to shades of truth by this time. See?

Anonymous said...

leaving nothing for LE to find..... if it's there, it can be found even after a few days later. i do see your point though, that in his speech, knowing what he knows now, he can refer to things that were not known then.
----------------

the shades of truth:
in matters that shawn felt would pertain to Hailey missing, he was quickly forth with.
when shawn last saw her, what she was wearing, when she left, where she intended to go.
wearing shorts, left around 1:15, to her dad's then on to friend's house.

clint also told LE of when he last saw her, what she was wearing, when she left, ....... but not where she intended to go?
why?
around 1:30, sweatpants and a tshirt.
if he understood she was going to stay the night at a friends, why would he think it was too cold at her friends house to only wear shorts and made her put pants on? was he under the impression that she was going somewhere else other than her friend's house? if he knew she was going somewhere else, why did he not look for her there or even tell everyone who was looking for her? did he tell LE where he thought she was going?

the two girls on manuel st, came forward on their own accord and told LE they had seen her and what time they had seen her. but not what she was wearing? and not where she intended to go? possibly they did tell LE what she was wearing at the time, but we weren't told. and possibly they did not know where she was intending to go from there.

was the two girls the last to see her or was clint?
where did she go from that point?

LE then fubbared the "shades of truth" from this point on.


Sus said...

OT
Peter,
You put up a post on analyzing Devin Barnes's letter. There is no analysis of the letter, though. Is it an error? Is my phone not catching it?

I am interested in seeing your analysis of that letter.

Thanks.

elf said...

Shawn and Billie are cut from the same cloth, so to speak, hence their initial attraction to eachother. They are both confirmed liars. Hell, Billie is a convicted liar if I remember correctly.
My opinion is that peter didn't post this analysis to beat a dead horse. He did it to provide a sample of statement analysis. I find your analogy regarding the dead horse disturbing since the subject being discussed is a murdered teenage girl. :/

elf said...

Plus you can't beat a dead horse to death several times. Unless its a zombie horse.

Anonymous said...

How is Shawn saying "my innocence" reflexive language?
The only way this could be reflexive language is if this email is in response to a question posed to him such as "Can you tell us some facts that support your innocence?"

How come when OJ writes the phrase "my guilt" it means he is admitting guilt?
But in this instance, it is different. Please explain.

Anonymous said...

It is the "subject" matter that is being beat to death over and over, making it the dead horse, not Hailey.

You knew what I meant!

As for Hailey being seen or described as wearing this and that and so on, how does this even pertain as having any credibility when according to SA Hailey was already dead at the time she was reported as being a run-away, and could not have been seen walking the streets or heading towards Clints' or any gf's house.

Why continue to attempt to analyze these particular lies that are known by SA to be lies?

Lemon said...

Bonus points on "zombie horse".

Anonymous said...

Can't the cops get Sean on circumstantial evidence that he lied about her going to a sleepover since her friend said Hailey was not invited to a sleepover. Has he ever commented on this in interviews?

Anonymous said...

he does the work for us - by showing us all the "places" we should look.

Anonymous said...

Off Topic: Could someone be kind enough to explain to me about statements with the words "so" being sensitive? And which part of the statement is sensitive--the part of the statement that comes before "so" or after "so"?
An example would be "I am coming there in December SO I will see you then."

Local anon said...

I find it hard to believe there is no evidence. Very hard to believe. There is more to the story. There has to be.

Anonymous said...

I haven't completed the article yet, and I also haven't read the comments thoroughly yet, but wanted to offer one note of consideration:

I frequently utilize ellipses in typed statements, and rarely do I use them to route my statement quickly to the point without having to include details. I nearly always use (probably incorrectly, I'll admit!) ellipses as one might use a semi-colon or a dash mark. Of course, since the idea was raised here that ellipses indicate missing info, I was curious to find out if I'm the rare person who does that, or if it's pretty common, and thus worth the analyst's consideration as likely NOT necessarily being a point of missing info.

Using the presupposition here (that the use of ellipses indicates missing information), I browsed through my email conversations with family, friends, and fellow teachers. I did find a few instances where, judging from the context of conversation that followed, ellipses were utilized to "skip to the point." However, I found that the vast majority of times the notation was used, it was simply used incorrectly in place of what should have been a semi-colon or a dash mark.

This is neither here nor there as to the accuracy of the entire analysis of this letter. It's simply a point of consideration that I wanted to throw out there. (:

Buckley said...

Someone else could explain it better. my understanding is: When the subject explains why something happened is sensitive, especially in a narrative. When in The middle of telling WHAT happened, someone explains why, or their reasoning, we see it as unnecessary so we question why it was introduced.

Your example of "so" is more of a "therefore" than a "why".

Anonymous said...


As for Hailey being seen or described as wearing this and that and so on, how does this even pertain as having any credibility when according to SA Hailey was already dead at the time she was reported as being a run-away, and could not have been seen walking the streets or heading towards Clints' or any gf's house.

>>>SA told someone Hailey was already dead when Billie reported her missing??? That is new to me.

Anonymous said...

As for Hailey being seen or described as wearing this and that and so on, how does this even pertain as having any credibility when according to SA Hailey was already dead at the time she was reported as being a run-away, and could not have been seen walking the streets or heading towards Clints' or any gf's house.
-------------

real slow, shawn saw her with shorts, clint saw her with pants, she was found with pants, shawn wasnt the last to see her.

Anonymous said...

One thing that freaks me out about Clint: I read he was a self-taught karate black belt. That seems strange and shows a fascination with violence. Just as Sean also has a fascination with violence.

Jen said...

I do the same thing. I use them a lot (probably incorrectly) to continue a thought, or add a related comment to a sentence. Like you said, a semicolon or even starting a new sentence is probably correct. Oh well...old habits die hard ;-)

Anonymous said...

Real slow back atcha Anon @ 10:42p.m; how do you propose that Shawn wasn't the last to see Hailey just because he claimed she was wearing shorts the last time he saw her but she was found wearing pants?

Obviously Shawn lied when he said Hailey was last seen by him wearing shorts the day he claimed she disappeared, (or ran away or was kidnapped); when her remains were found with pants according to the CO who stumbled upon her remains. You are believing this lie told by Shawn just because her body was discovered with pants? Shawn WAS the last one (and likely Billie) to see Hailey alive according to Statement Analysis.

Just because Clint described Hailey as wearing pants the last time he saw her does not mean he saw Hailey that afternoon after she had already gone missing the previous night, (he couldn't have if she was already dead), it would have had to be the afternoon BEFORE the night she was murdered when Clint saw her, not the next afternoon; likely wearing the same pants that Clint saw her wearing the afternoon BEFORE she was killed.

Clint couldn't have seen her that next afternoon if Statement Analysis is correct in its' previous analysis that Hailey never left the house alive the night/morning before she was reported missing by Billie Jean.

elf said...

I must have missed something. Where can I find the information or a link stating what clothing was found with haileys remains?

elf said...

Self taught karate black belt? Maybe Clint studied karate independently but I doubt he was a black belt. Isn't a black belt status given through an instructor?
I may be wrong but your trying to compare apples and oranges. Shawn is a fan of horror movies/death metal. Gratuitous violence and sexual content often combined, the purpose to frighten. Its aggressive. Karate is used for self defense, discipline, and to achieve inner balance and peace.
Apples and oranges.
Dark and light.
nice try.

Anonymous said...

what hailey was wearing sunday morning, established by photos from the purple camera.
sunday 11:30?1:30 by store security cam.
monday 1:15 by shawn eye witness.
monday 1:30 by clint and 2 girls on manuel st. proven by what clothing was missing.
monday brother and friend arrive at 3 or 4. 1 1/2 to 2 1/2 window of opportunity but no evidence supporting anything happened then.

clothing found by pointhunter(curtis lloyd), who on this blog, and if i recall correctly, on tv news, said he found a piece of the sweatpants, which to him, is why he just knew it was Hailey he had found.

statement analysis is only 50/50, a flip of a coin. as this email shows, the lack of evidence tips the scales toward innocent. also the facts tip towards innocent(cell pings). and to begin with, it wasn't shawn's first statements that were analyzed to come up with guilt verdict, it was his later statements, after LE and others influenced what he believed. yes they have lied at times, but pertaining to Hailey missing, the supporting evidence proves they were truthful.

Anonymous said...

Elf, I have read that Clint was a self-taught black belt in Karate and I'm pretty sure I read it here. Karate certainly can be used to find inner peace, balance, discipline (pot-smoking and getting arrested repeatedly would not be considered discipline); however, in the wrong hands karate could be used to severely injure or kill someone. If you are interested, research psychopaths: a fascination with weapons and/or karate is a common trait. I am just pointing out a fact about sociopaths and karate.
To me, I find this fact (karate in the hands of someone who obviously doesnt respect karate values like sobriety and discipline) very disturbing. A fascination with horror movies is disturbing as well and extremely immature. BOTH are disturbing in the context of this case.

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 10:28, hate to say it but I think you might have some of those lose marbles rattling around in your head that Karen described in an earlier article. Even a little dense perhaps, if you honestly believe that "supporting evidence proves they were truthful." HOWEVER, your opinion is just as meaningful a mine so have at it, 'cause obviously none of it is ever going anywhere.

Blitz said...

When I read this blog and a few of the comments, I tend to think of the time when the "justice system" was based solely on what people wondered, thought and believed. The time when hundreds of men, women and yes, even children were burned or hanged or beheaded or tortured or drowned in high tide or stretched or put into gibbets. Etc. Etc. Etc. That's the gruesome reality of it, based on documented history. "Justice" is so awesome when it's based on personal thoughts and beliefs, so awesome (sarcasm detected: critical level).

Think about it, don't just read this and go 'eh, history, phbbt, can't learn anything from history'. Think about it. Is that the justice system you want to have? It's not the justice system -I- want. This is why I tend to jaw-drop in galled silence when people say things like "the circumstantial evidence is enough to push for prosecution." From a historical perspective, humanity has come very far and yet not far enough so it would seem.

john said...

OT..

Shades of Hannah Anderson ?

Emily Nicole Lalinsky, 15, Runs Away With 37-Year-Old Family Friend, Robert Louis Messer.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/29/emily-nicole-lalinsky_n_4173456.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009



Anonymous said...

Another thing, well actually 2 things that trouble me about Clint
1). Why was he living across the street from his ex-wife? This may, in some ways, be the most bizarre part of the case as I literally have never heard of someone moving right across the street from their ex-wife. (I have heard of horror movie fans and people who learn karate).
2). Since Clint had a birds-eye view of Hailey's home life and could see Sean running around in his horror movie masks, why did he allow Hailey to continue living there? Why did he initially defend Sean saying he didnt believe Sean would harm Hailey? Would not ANY father object to their daughter having to live with someone whose hobby is horror movies?

john said...

From above.

“We are going today, SHE and I, BECAUSE we have to -- NOT BECAUSE we want to leave you,” Messer wrote. "We are in love and cannot be apart from each other. This is sad to us but our love, though we’ve had to keep it a secret, has been the best part of both our lives. Please be happy for us.”

"She and I". We see here that he puts Emily before himself yet there is distancing language with the use of the word "SHE". Why is it he can't say her name ?.

BECAUSE we have to -- NOT BECAUSE we want to leave you,” Messer wrote.

When there is a need to explain, Because,so etc, we highlight it in blue the highest form of sensitivity in SA along with the word "LEFT". We have the word "BECAUSE" used twice in close proximity and also said in the negative making it very sensitive.

I hope this all ends well and she comes home safely.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/29/emily-nicole-lalinsky_n_4173456.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009

Anonymous said...

These two were probably out of money before the day ran out, John. Probably by the time they bought five dollars worth of gasoline and a can of pork n beans. Idiots. Didn't even take their clothes and cell phones. Meanwhile, it gets cold sleeping under the stars with insects swarming and you're stinking by now and you have no warm bedroll.

I don't think they've gone very far, do you? The thumb will only gitcha so far when you're an older disholved man traveling with a teenage girl. I can't see anyone putting them up in a motel room either, can you? he he...

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 12:26, I couldn't agree with you more. I've always had an eagle eye out for Clint Dunn and his BS; contrary to many here who still proclaim him "poor ole Clint". Poor Clint my ass! (What this does is causes me to wonder how many here l.o.v.e. their pot!)

Stupid doped up pothead poor Clint deliberately ignored and neglected his beautiful daughter! He also allowed his woman he was shacking with to mistreat Hailey by treating her like she despised her, when all she wanted to do was play with the baby and sleep on their couch. He had no room and no warmth to give Hailey in his free loading HUD abode. Poor sweet Hailey had no place to go or anyone who wanted her.

None, not even with her granny Connie Jones (Clint's mother), that Hailey cried too and pleaded with to let her stay with her. Hell, she wouldn't even go out of her way just a few miles to pick up Hailey and take her on her vacation trip to Fl with her over those c'mas holidays, with Hailey telling her how scared of Shawn she was. Then Clint would dare say he didn't know Hailey was scared of Shawn. That is a fat lie if ever I've heard one. He just flat didn't care.

There are no excuses for Clint Dunn and the abuse he allowed to continue by Billie Jean and Shawn Adkins right under his nose and his blind eyes that weren't so blind after all. Also, most of his 'pathetic' searching for Hailey was just to keep the money coming in to supply him and Naomi with his pot and their personal needs. I hope the b'stard pays for the rest of his sorry life for what HE allowed to happen to this beautiful and special young lady.

Anonymous said...

Why do you keep beating this dead horse? Nothing is going to happen to Shawn Atkins or Billie they murdered her and will get away with it just like all the other high profile cases its okay to kill your kid and lie about it in America

john said...

OT. From Above.

Emily Nicole Lalinsky:

From anther Article.

“Mom, I love you so very, very much,” Lalinsky wrote in the note, her mother said. “Please don’t ever doubt or forget that you are an amazing and wonderful mother and person. I am so sorry I hurt you and if there was any other way, we would have done it.”

http://www.freep.com/article/20131028/NEWS02/310280110/man-37-teen-run-away

Buckley said...

Bet she's preggers.

Anonymous said...

john, imo, that is fake. look for signs of duress in her statements.

C5H11ONO said...

“They(F.B.I and Local LE) have done extensive forensic testing at Billie's house which I was living at the time..even brought cadaver dogs in her house and covered the outside extensively as well.”

He says they did extensive forensic testing. I think he is trying to convince the reader that because of the extensive forensic testing that was done, no evidence was uncovered, therefore he has to be innocent. What he was unable to say was what was found with the forensic testing. He couldn't say it because he doesn't know it. He is assuming that nothing was "uncovered" because he hasn't been arrested yet, therefore, they found nothing.

I noticed that he didn't take ownership of the flash drive that was taken at Billie's house. I don't think he will and will claim it is Billie's, should they have "uncovered" anything illegal in it. I wonder how Billie would be able to prove it's his. Looks like she's got some 'splaining to do.

Anonymous said...

Ha ha. That's the point I've been trying to make all day, Anon @ 1:54. Only, the subject of this dead horse is not Shawn Adkins and his interview, or Billie Jean and their many lies; the subject for the moment is Clint Dunn and as far as I'm concerned, he is no dead horse. He is a live baboon.

However, I do agree, Shawn & Billie have gotten away with murdering and dumping sweet Hailey and lying about it. And lying and lying and lying and lying some more. I don't always agree with SA on every little misused word or sideways glance, but this is one case where I do.

You're right, it seems that's all a parent has to do to get away with killing their child in America; just lie about it and never back down. Eventually people will get confused and start thinking, 'well maybe they didn't do it after all' 'maybe there was some truth to the things they said' when they already know damned well the parent and whoever else they were involved with did it and are lying.

All the while, LE just turns the other cheek and keeps shuffling along ignoring it all. Unbelievable, when there is so much crucial evidence, even if circumstantial, staring them in their ignorant faces. They seem to go out of their way to avoid prosecuting these parents who are killing their children!

Anonymous said...

You could be right Buckley. All they had to do was wait another year until she is sixteen then she could have left with him legally had he gotten a divorce, or even filed for one, so the pregnancy idea sounds like a good one.

I can't imagine how this ner'do-well unemployed cook thinks he can take care of a pregnant girl and a baby. Such a fool. It takes money just to rent an efficiency for them to stay in and this dummy doesn't have any greenbacks that we know of.

Even if he can find some little cooking job in a diner and is able to hide her out in some back street efficiency from week-to-week, paycheck to paycheck, how's he gonna pay for a delivery and purchase all the necessities required to care for an infant?

IMO, as soon as she misses a few meals, she'll be danged glad to get back home to mommy as fast as she can, any way she can and let the chips fall wherever they may.

Anonymous said...

Hmmm...so noone's answered my question about why Clint was living across the street from his ex-wife. It's very odd, and I probably don't need to explain how this would create all kinds of strange dynamics. If I had an ex-husband and he moved right across the street from me, I would feel STALKED. I wonder if Clint's new wife was fond of living directly across the street from Clint's ex-wife.
I am not so sure Clint is innocent. His behavior is bizarre.
And yes I agree w the poster who blames Clint for failing to protect Hailey. I dont care if he was stoned out of his mind 24/7, it's a father's job to protect his daughter.
Also, was Clint employed or unemployed when Hailey went missing?

Hobnob said...

Another fantastic analysis Kaaryn.
I love when you post here, it shows me how much i have missed when i do an analysis and shows how far i have to go to be even remotely as good as you and Peter.

Your analyses are so different yet reach the same conclusions, thus educating both me and all who read here on the subtlties of language.

What stands out to one person may not have as much meaning to another and vice versa.

Language is both simple and complicated, so much can be conveyed with one small or single word.

Thankyou for taking the time to post and teach us.

Please keep posting, i know i have so much more to learn, keep it coming and i will get there eventually :)

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 4:08, the answers to your simple questions are really quite simple. Firstly, Clint was never married to Naomi. He was still legally married to Billie Jean, and still is as far as we know. I don't know what her status was but Naomi was Clints' shack up woman whom he had a baby with. Obviously they didn't care whether anything was legal or not, including the birth of their baby.

As far as how he wound up living across the street from Billie; simple, Naomi had a HUD apartment across the street (not directly, but nearly across the street and separated by a vacant lot/field). At some point Clint hooks up with Naomi and moves his low-life ass into her apartment, which was also illegal for Clint to be squatting there unapproved by HUD, and there you have their sleazy living arrangement.

As far as Clint stalking Billie, I don't think Billie gave a flying fig one way or the other. Billie lived as she pleased and to hell with Clint; Billie already had Shawn shacking up with her long before Hailey went missing.

Naomi didn't have any legal rights or otherwise to be jacked out of shape with Billie living just across the street when she and Clint weren't married anyhow, and when it was Naomi who took Clint into her bed and violated Federal Laws when she did so, allowing him to live free illegally off HUD.

No, Clint was not gainfully employed when Hailey went missing. I don't think he'd held a bona fide job in several years; all he did was go around cutting grass just to pull in enough money to support his non-stop pot habit, claiming his back hurt too much for him to hold down a real job.

Hailey tried so hard to live a normal life and to excel in school, which she did, even while going hungry and without lunch money many days. These four adults lived like, and were, the lowest of low white-trash and Hailey paid the ultimate price for them all.

It just sickens me that they are all getting away with the degrading and disgusting life they exposed this beautiful, sweet and intelligent girl too, and now her debased mother and psychopathic b/f are getting away with her violent murder.

As for any possible involvement by Clint, I have never been able to quite clear my mind of that possibility, especially after he made excuses for Billie & Shawn, even denying that he believed they had anything to do with it. OH? Is that so!?

Buckley said...

Study the verbs- very interesting changes in tense in both notes. Recall Peter's lesson on hurt.

Buckley said...

For example, in his note he says they "are" in love, but later says this "*has been* the best part of both our lives."

Hers:

"I'm so sorry I hurt you" Why not "have" hurt you? Especially since she says "don't ever forget..." and "everything that you do and have done."

If there was any other way we would've..." vs. "nothing could be done" Why does one imply there's one possibility and the other imply there are no possibilities?

A few other things: "You *are* an amazing mother" In some sentences she sounds like she will never see her mother again, but here she doesn't say you "have been" an amazing mother...

Order: wonderful mother and person

Also, doesn't the handwritten note (click on my name for pic link) look like she was writing "amazing and "woma"" but the she changes letters to make the word "wonderful"?

There seems to be an event that will no longer allow their relationship to be kept secret.

Also, the more I aee the varied verb tenses, I wonder if they are considering suicide.

sidewalk super said...

ah, say, Buckley,
so many more degrading disgusting low life illegal things to do, what are you talking about?

Anonymous said...

Buckley, I clicked on the article and photos posted on your name. Apparently this turkey is already divorced from his wife so I stand corrected on my error. IMO, she doesn't even look fifteen, but if her mothers says so, okay.

Here's another one of these mothers who allows her teenage daughter to go off on pleasure trips with her older-man-friend and best-bud-brother type. I just don't get it!

Don't these silly women realize that sexual attraction is a normal thing when two people of the opposite sex are frequently thrown together alone, particularly when the older experienced man is putting the sly moves on the young inexperienced vulnerable girl? Good heavens, this relationship could have started when she was only 13 or 14.

I'm believing your train of thought, that she could be pregnant and also that they both could be considering suicide, believing that they have no way out. I just hope they are found soon, before something terrible happens to either one or both of them.

sidewalk super said...

oops, what was I reading?
I was referencing billy and her masked creep.
Never mind!

Buckley said...

Yeah, my bad, too, I thought I was posting under John's comment.

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 6:01--Thank you for answering my questions. The info you gave is very helpful.
What seems to be emerging is pretty much what I expected. Clint moves in with a woman who just "happens" to live across the street from his wife (who I am assuming is the one who ended it and had him leave). Despite the "ex-husband" living across the street, Billie does as she pleases and Sean becomes her new boyfriend and moves in.
Clint during this time is unemployed, prob home most of the day, smoking lots of pot and studying karate at home, and all the while even after deliberately situating himself RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET from his wife and family, is just fine with the other guy Shawn moving in. He moved across the street so he could keep a close eye on her, but somewhere along the line, things changed--the pot and karate mellowed him out, calmed his jealousy, gave him that inner balance.
One reason he may have defended Sean initially if he, Clint, was actually involved, was to throw investigators off. In other words to say to them "oh no, we're all innocent in this bizarre family set-up. Look out there--it must be a stranger that did this ie. to get the heat off himself.

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 7:24, I don't think Clint moved in right across the street so he could keep an eye on Hailey or his wife and family. Clint, being the low-life pig that he is, moved in across the street because it was free rent, free sex and free board.

Now that everything is all covered for him, all Clint had to do was provide for his pot, and a little grass cutting here and there would take care of that quite nicely, thank you!

The free loading b'stard was so giddy with his free-for-all set up that he didn't even bother to ask or give his daughter lunch money when she had none.

Clint wasn't jealous. He didn't give a crap about Shawn moving in on his family or what kind of atmosphere his children were exposed too, since he wasn't paying on the mortgage, taxes and insurance anyhow. To my knowledge Clint never even paid any child support.

If anyone got any benefit out of Clint living across the street, IT WAS CLINT, and Hailey & David who at least got to see their father while he 'played' at being a daddy, certainly not for any monetary support he gave them.

Anonymous said...

UPDATE: 5:30 p.m. -- Emily Nicole Lalinsky, a 15-year-old girl who ran away with a recently-divorced family friend, age 37, was found Tuesday afternoon, according to WXYZ-Detroit.

Lalinsky and Messer were both discovered in a field in Northville, Mich., near the town they left together on Sunday. Messer was arrested, according to WJBK Fox 2. WXYZ said both Messer and Lalinsky were transported to separate hospitals to be treated for "self-inflicted 'superficial' wounds to the wrist," the TV station said.


Mindy

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 7:43--I believe you if you say he wasn't jealous, but this in itself is strange given that even a non-jealous type person would normally have jealousy to be in that close proximity to his wife shacking up with a new guy. It makes me wonder if he was on something stronger than pot and if his supplier was Shawn or Billie. I wonder if Hailey was ever made to deliver drugs over to him.
From what you describe, Clint was living a very parasitic lifestyle.
Perhaps he was also getting something from Shawn and Billie--drugs maybe? I am wondering if he could have ever made Hailey "swipe" some drugs from their supply to bring over to him.

Anonymous said...

Clint's "bad back" story suggests a fondness for opiates and possible underlying heroine use.

Anonymous said...

Really people? Are you really stirring up this whole Clint is guilty stuff again? He was cleared by LE unlike Billie and Shawn.

No, he does not deserve father of the year BUT he didn't hurt Hailey, Shawn Adkins and Billie Dunn did.

Anonymous said...

Anon at 2:34
john, imo, that is fake.

--------------
i was right, it was about as fake as their
"self-inflicted 'superficial' wounds to the wrist,"

john said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
john said...

Anon at 2:34
john, imo, that is fake.

--------------
i was right, it was about as fake as their
"self-inflicted 'superficial' wounds to the wrist,"

..............................


How was it fake ?
.....................

Thanks for the update Mindy..

Anonymous said...

It wasn't fake, John. The fact that they were found with self-inflicted superficial wounds to their wrists doesn't make a future suicide possibility unlikely. In fact, it makes it very likely.

They would have succeeded in time. Many who have committed suicide have dabbled at suicide attempts prior to taking the final plunge. Suicide was just a matter of time for them.

Somebody wants to project being a mind reader calling their initial failed suicide attempts a fake.

Buckley was right in sensing they could be planning to commit suicide, also likely correct that she is preggers (remains to be seen); and I was right in saying they wouldn't get very far taking no clothes, no bedroll, not even their cell phones, and having no money.

Face it, with no concrete plans for a destination, broke, and no one to take them in, only an old 1991 truck that was likely worth all of $300 and needed $3,000 worth of work done on it, they could only land up nearby, hungry, cold and dead by suicide.

john said...

Anon 6:10, i couldn't have put it better. Thanks.

I read somewhere that one of them had mental health problems. I will see if i can find the link.

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 9:32, there are a lot of men out there who live a parasitic lifestyle; living off a woman as long as they can get away with it, including some who live off their mother. Many are husbands and some are just shack up jobs; always claiming to be looking for a job. All in the name of "love" and "stick by me", "I'll do better" "I'm trying" and on and on. They'll say anything and make any excuse for the free ride.

They will do it as long as a woman will tolerate it, and when she finally sees how she's being used up and was all along, is exhausted and gets p'ssed enough, he will move onto another woman. She of course, is glad to wash her hands of the heavy load and doesn't give a rats' butt anymore where he goes, just hit the road and good riddance. It's amazing how quickly they can find another one.

Clint was living off Billie before he landed across the street with Naomi. It was Billie who had the full time job and was keeping up the home, paying the mortgage and supporting the children, not Clint. Clint lived in la la land.

Men like Clint don't care who the next shack job is as long as they have one keeping them up. Having a baby with his support woman only cements his free-loading place while she supports them all. There are a lot of stupid women being used up by men like Clint Dunn.

As for Clint using other narcotics in addition to his pot addiction, why wouldn't he? I think he would use anything he could get his lazy conniving hands on as long as it wasn't costing him anything or he could figure out a way in his dead mind to barter for it.

However, I've thought about it a lot and I don't think he had anything to do with killing Hailey, but I wouldn't put it past him to lie about it a little and help Billie & Shawn cover it up because they were his dope buddies and dope buddies stick together thicker than thieves.

john said...

OT Update Hannah Anderson:

Jim DiMaggio was not justifiably shot to death!

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/15850620-jim-dimaggio-was-not-justifiably-shot-to-death

Anonymous said...

Your welcome John. There would be nothing left for them to do, John, BUT commit suicide.

I wouldn't be surprised if both of them had mental problems to one degree or another, especially him. Nobody but a mental case would take a young girl 22 yrs his junior and run off with her illegally to parts unknown and with no way to even feed her.

I'd like to read the link if you can find it. Thank you.

(Congrats Buckley. You were right on).

Anonymous said...

Wow John. That's interesting. I never did think James DiMaggio was justifiably shot to death. 250 (+-) armed LE agents against one man with a lone gun? Ain't no way!

I'm just glad to see there are others who disagree with the way he was shot dead like a rabid dog, then swept what they did under the rug never to be spoken of again.

I hope his sister Lori Robinson succeeds in her investigation and the real facts of the case can be brought to the light of day; that being, IMO, that Hannah baby was herself involved in the murders of her mother and brother.

Anonymous said...

wooops! I meant to say "you're" welcome, John!

Blitz said...

I was curious and did a two minute Google search to locate the most recent article on the child pornography (something that triggered my own 'hinky feeings' and 'rage' against both Adkins and Dunn). Then I calmed down and began asking questions - one of the biggest ones that have been on my mind is why haven't they been charged. Well, in my two minute search, I found something interesting and leaves me with more questions - like why has it been largely ignored. If you know of a more recent article, please let me know and share it so I may read it myself.

Here's what I found: October 11, 2011 http://www.bigcountryhomepage.com/story/investigators-still-waiting-on-child-porn-results-in-hailey-dunn-case/d/story/Wm9k_NOo3UKjrZYNvGRCSA

A few interesting quotes as follows.

"Mitchell County Sheriff Patrick Toombs says his department still hasn't received results on whether child pornography was discovered on computers seized during the investigation into Hailey Dunn's disappearance."

and

"Toombs says child porn was not discovered in the home of Hailey's mother Billie Dunn. He says computers and electronics taken from relatives of Billie's boyfriend Shawn Adkins were sent off for testing and still have not yet been returned." Read that again. Here, I'll even make it easy for you (emphasis is mine): "Child porn was NOT discovered in the home of Hailey's mother, Billie Dunn."

Now compare that with this article dated March 18, 2011 (8 months prior) found here: http://www.ktxs.com/news/KTXS-EXCLUSIVE-Affidavit-Shows-More-Child-Porn-In-Hailey-Dunn-Case/-/14769632/14680886/-/is154tz/-/index.html

"The affidavit confirms earlier reports by KTXS that child pornography was found on a computer at the home of Adkins' mother, where Adkins had access to the computer, and on a memory stick in the home of Hailey Dunn in Colorado City." Still can't see the problem? Look closer and again, I'll make it easier for you. "Child pornography was found ... on a memory stick in the home of Hailey Dunn in Colorado City."

Confusing, no? Sheriff (8 months later) says 'no child porn was found in the home of Hailey Dunn'. I find it very odd that people continually cite that it was. Perhaps someone can explain it for me.

Anonymous said...

dont be hate'n on clint so much, .....

Clint said the couple had plans for Hailey to move in with him in the future yet had no comment as to why. “I had to work hard to get to be a half a block away so I could see her from my back door,” he said. “I tried to stay as close to her as I could.”

Anonymous said...

Yeah right. Clint had plans for Hailey to move in with him but meanwhile wouldn't even allow her to sleep over night on his couch, or make his woman treat her with respect, or make Hailey feel welcome, instead of Naomi making Hailey feel like cast away garbage by openly despising her.

Clint had made actual plans for Hailey to live with him and his shack up woman, her son and their baby? I doubt that. Where's the job it takes for Clint to obtain a decent credit rating and employment affordability proof so that he might become approved for a rental or lease? And why should he, when he was already hunkered down at Naomis' HUD apt and living free off the fat of the land?

"Hate on Clint"? The facts speak for themselves. Nah, Hailey wasn't important enough for him to do such a dastardly deed as go to work and give up his free loading source of allowing him to be a kept man. Why would he do something as stupid as all that?

Clint Dunn wouldn't hit a lick at a snake unless it were about to bite him; he wouldn't even cut enough grass consistently to give Hailey lunch money for school. He was satisfied as long as he had a few dollars for pot and could keep his lawn mower running so he could pull in a few more dollars for pot.

YOU actually believe he 'intended' to provide a place for Hailey to live? Do I hear more marbles rolling around?

Puddin Pie said...

Anon, what proof do you have that Naomi made Hailey feel like cast away garbage? What proof do you have that Naomi openly despised Hailey? Post it, I'm interested.

Randie said...

Excellent article Kaaren!! Thank you for posting this Peter!

Wow! It doesn't take much to draw out Billie!!! Ha! Lol!!

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 10:32--I read a little of a Nancy Grace transcript, and I thought it was odd that when Nancy asked Clint to say what happened the day Hailey went missing, he said "She just disappeared."
(This is concerning. Very similar statements made by others in other cases ie. DiPietros have been pointed out as concerning by SA when it is said of victim "They just disappeared".
I am not convinced Clint directly harmed Hailey. One thing I wonder about is why bloodhounds tracked to a nearby hotel (and then lost the scent). It makes me wonder could Shawn or Clint (or both) have been using her a drug mule to transport drugs or pick up drugs and someone harmed her.

Anonymous said...

because it was said that Hailey had at one time asking around for pot, i doubt she was a mule, at least not knowingly.
and unless people she knew just wouldnt break down and share, she had no reason to go out looking for it.
because she rode to church with a cop, i have often wondered if she thought she was going make a difference and get people busted because she didnt like her dad getting high.
or was it a lure, many girls will ask to get high, knowing they will be then be seduced.

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 11.47; I am positively not going back into the archives to find old posts (or links) about the way Naomi despised Hailey, or treated her, or anything else.

As I recall, this was mostly info that was given in interviews with Haileys' little friends that she had talked too and in some interviews with her granny Connie Jones.

Sorry. If you want to know anything from these past old interviews, go find it yourself.

Anonymous said...

Hailey was not on drugs. NOT. If she had been she would not have been able to excel in her classes, cheer leading and sports the way she did.

From all indications, she was not into being seduced. Hailey was scared to death of being seduced, and in particularly scared to death of Shawn Adkins.

She was just a normal girl, a preteen and very bright, just trying to live a normal life. And a good girl. She not only rode to church sometimes with the cop, she also had her granny Connie pick her up and take her to church.

Just stop it. Sicko Shawn already tried to defame her good character, calling her boy crazy. She was just a normal, sweet little girl with an above average intelligence, who tried to excel in every way, and did. No thanks to her dirty low-down parents.

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 4:22--I'm curious what you are referencing when you say that Hailey rode to the church with a cop?

Anonymous said...

I am very curious what people are talking about as far as Hailey being driven to church by a cop?

The bloodhounds tracking to the hotel and then losing the scent: What do people think about this info? She must have gone there on foot. Maybe someone tricked her into meeting them there??
I'm having trouble matching up this evidence of the bloodhounds tracking to the hotel with Shawn harming her. I'm just trying to understand what people think happened cause I don't get it?

Anonymous said...

There was nothing mysterious or underhanded about the local cop giving Hailey a ride to church now and then. According to earlier interviews, he was just someone who attended the same church and graciously gave her a ride occasionally and not the only one who did.

I don't know what the eventual outcome was of the reputed scent the bloodhounds tracked that led to the motel. That too seems to have fallen along the wayside like everything else in this case.

I guess had we all been the ones in charge of this case we would have tied it all up neatly a long time ago, right?

Randie said...

"he was just someone who attended the same church and graciously gave her a ride occasionally and not the only one who did."

Well well well...too bad her deadbeat mom couldn't have given her a ride. Or better yet why didn't she go WITH her?!

Anonymous said...

Anon said "There was nothing mysterious or underhanded about the local cop giving Hailey a ride to church now and then. According to earlier interviews, he was just someone who attended the same church and graciously gave her a ride occasionally and not the only one who did."

I wasn't saying that there was anything mysterious or underhanded, but I am curious how you can know with 100% certainty that this particular cop was just a kindhearted churchgoer.

As far as the bloodhounds go, this is definitely not info that should have fallen by the wayside. If I was investigating, I'd say that's THE MOST IMPORTANT CLUE THEY HAVE RIGHT NOW.

Next question I'd ask:
1) Who tricked her into going to the hotel?

Anonymous said...

OK, here is one possible scenario: Could Shawn have either been A) getting progressively scarier towards Hailey or B) have actually done something terrible to her like raping her or violating her and since people here are saying she had been reaching out to Clint and to her grandmother previously seeing if she could stay w them bc she was scared of Shawn and they were not willing to help her could she also have been reaching out to anyone else in the community and maybe whoever that person was offered to "help" her and if Shawn did something to her she maybe contacted the person and they told her they would pay for her to stay at the motel to get away from Shawn and so let's say she walks down to the motel, and since the bloodhounds lost the scent there maybe this indicates she got into said person's vehicle and that person killed her???

Turtle said...

The scent at the hotel has thrown me off, because they did not find anything on the cameras of her being there. A possible scenario is that they left the house with Hailey in the vehicle and whatever evidence they had. They stopped at the motel and threw it in the dumpster OR in one of those push carts that house keeping uses. Then the dump trucks come and take whatever it was to the landfill. Police then went and searched the landfill. They were not clear on what was found. If you look at the map, the motel is along the route out to the lake from her house.

A possibility??

Evidence was disposed of at the hotel.

Turtle said...

Billie Dunn comments on the motel


GRACE: I want to go back to Billie Dunn. Billie, you`re Hailey`s mother, and tonight you are making a public plea for her return. What can you tell me about these bloodhounds? We are learning police have brought bloodhounds out to your home, and they went from your home to a local motel?

BILLIE DUNN: Yes. I kind of don`t know what to say now since I heard police were being tight-lipped about it,

but I`ll go ahead and say they started toward her dad`s house.

They didn`t go there.

They stopped, turned around, went to her friend`s,

went to that motel, where they told me they`re reviewing video surveillance.

There was video surveillance there.

But didn`t have much luck there.


One sentence she says "they're reviewing video surveillance" present tense

" There was video surveillance their. But didn't have much luck their." Switched to past tense.

I'm not an expert at statement analysis, but that seems strange to me.

turtle said...

Putting it all together, but still a missing piece.

Friday or so- Billie is mad at Hailey. Hailey called aunt crying and upset said she was scared to go home.

Saturday-Christmas Billie said Hailey didn't really want to be at Shawn's moms house,cause she was ready to go see her family.

Stays with her dad that night.

Sunday- goes back to her moms for a late x-mas dinner. Hailey is seen in video surveillance at the store that day.

Shawn sends out nude pics to Cindy. Hailey tells Cindy it was indeed Shawn's phone. Cindy asks to talk to Billie, she wasn't there. Billie later texts Cindy back saying Shawn meant to send them to her phone (even though Hailey has been on it all day, and they live in the same house).

David leaves sometime while this is going on to stay at the anonymous friends house. Says Hailey is playing the xbox.

Billie's brother Del and Eric visit

Although her brother is there Billie claims to had gone to bed at 10.

Between "10"pm and 6am have to be filled in for an arrest. What happened to Hailey??

Before Shawn shows up at work Shawn and Billie stop by the motel get rid of evidence.

Drive out to lake area, dispose of the body.

Shawn goes to work then leaves.

Drops Billie off at work or nearby.

Shawn goes back to house while calling Billie.

Travels to Big Spring.

One of them had the cell phone to place the text, or maybe David had it.

Then the wild goise chase begins the next day.







Anonymous said...

or maybe Hailey's puppy followed naomi's neighbor to work.

Anonymous said...

Can bloodhounds follow a scent from a person riding in a car? I don't believe they can. I've read cases where the cops speculate that where the scent ends the person probably entered a vehicle.
It seems Hailey would have had to have been on foot before the bloodhounds lose the scent.
Why she was not seen on surveillance at motel: Do these cameras cover the whole parking lot and area around the hotel.
It sounds like there prob would have been a BIG fight within Billie and Shawn's house that night regarding Shawn sending the picture, probably Shawn lashing out at Hailey also.
Maybe she just wanted to get out of there and contacted someone within the community she may have asked for help. I mean, if various people are giving her rides to church, all it takes is one predator who can see she's got nobody looking out for her and that she is vulnerable bc of her home life.
If the bloodhounds tracked her down to the motel, this cant be ignored and in all likelihood means she was on foot till they lose the scent.

Turtle said...

They didn't track her there. The police took the dogs to the motel and made a hit in the patking lot and ended up outside a room door. If she wasn't on camera then it had to be something to with her scent on it.

Randie said...

Good Job Turtle!

"
Anonymous Turtle said...

They didn't track her there. The police took the dogs to the motel and made a hit in the patking lot and ended up outside a room door. If she wasn't on camera then it had to be something to with her scent on it."

Anonymous said...

Randie and Turtle--That's not what I am reading about the bloodhounds. It says they tracked her scent through her neighborhood and into the vicinity of the hotel. It sounds to me like she was on foot and then got into a vehicle near the hotel.

turtle said...


On Friday, bloodhounds were taken to the six motels in Colorado City. At Western Suites, which is located at 2233 Vine Street and is adjacent to Interstate 20 and near the Dunn home, the dogs picked up on Dunn’s scent in the parking lot, City Manager Pete Kampfer said Tuesday night.
The scent led to a door of a ground-floor room at the two-level motel that opened in July, he said, but there the trail stopped. A search of the 24 suites produced no other evidence, he said.

Cristie Roye, manager of Western Suites, said police studied surveillance tapes but did not see the missing teen. Motel staff, she said, did not recall seeing the teenager, either.

http://www.reporternews.com/news/2011/jan/04/hed-help-herey-hed-help-herey/?print=1

Turtle said...

The tracking comment came from Billie.
Nancy Grace: I want to go back to Billie Dunn. Billie, you’re Hailey’s mother, and tonight you are making a public plea for her return. What can you tell me about these bloodhounds? We are learning police have brought bloodhounds out to your home, and they went from your home to a local motel?

Billie Dunn: Yes, um. I kind of don’t know what to say now since I heard police were being tight-lipped about it, but I’ll go ahead and say they started toward her dad’s house. They didn’t go there. They stopped, turned around, went to her friend’s, went to that motel, where they told me they’re viewing, reviewing video surveillance. There was video surveillance there. But didn’t have much luck there.

Nancy Grace: And what motel is it Billie? What is the name of the motel?

Billie Dunn: Western Inn or Western Suites. It’s a new motel close to my house.

Nancy Grace: How far away is it?

Billie Dunn: Three to four blocks.

Nancy Grace: Just three to four blocks.

Billie Dunn: Right.
http://haileydunnresource.wordpress.com/category/clint-dunn/

Anonymous said...

Thank you two for the info. It sounds to me now like she was in a vehicle that drove to the motel, she gets out for whatever reason and goes to the door of the room where the scent was tracked to, knocks on door, either noone answers so she gets back in the vehicle or someone does answer the door, comes out of the room and gets in the vehicle also.

Anonymous said...

Maybe the individual went into the vehicle just for a short while. Maybe whoever drove her there went to the motel to buy or attempt to buy drugs, the individual gets in car, sells the drugs, gets out, goes back into motel. I am not implicating Hailey here, only pointing out w her being vulnerable from her home life situation, some perv predator could have taken advantage of this under the guise of befriending or helping her.

turtle said...

Yea cause her scent could have came from someone who was around her, or someone who had something on that belonged to her. She wasn't seen on camera so that means she never entered the building around that time.

So someone else had to track her scent inside, I'm sure police know who was in that room at the time.

But I still think they threw evidence away at the motel.

Anonymous said...

The police dogs and Hailey's scent -

What if Billie intentionally provided the police with an item that did NOT contain Hailey's scent?

An item she or Shawn grabbed from the hotel vicinity knowing it would lead the police away from the crime scene (the house) and on a wild goose chase?

Turtle said...

Good point!So many things thatcould have caused that hit.

Anonymous said...

or maybe, one of the officers that had been in Hailey's bedroom walking all over the place, then went with the dogs to the hotel, went in looking for an employee to verify that they were gonna bring the dogs in, and when she did that, she tracked Hailey's scent in the the desk, nobody there, so went to the first room that the maid cart was by and found an employee...... then the dog followed the cop.

Anonymous said...

Keep it simple. Hailey prob did walk to the doir of the hotel room and then turn around.. Are there cameras focused on every square inch if the motel?

Anonymous said...

They were just part of one of those "serial killing" drug and extortion rings operating throughout the states. The proof:
1)Same town as the hysteria surrounding Kelley Dae Wilson was trailed to-porn was involved but not discovered until a decade later.
2)His "Halloween" git-up.
3)Their drug habit
4)The CIA??? was looking? WTH?!
5)Media mention of missing earing...whoops!

Anonymous said...

To save time let's just ask Billie and Shawn, they know why her scent was there, and I'm sure they are reading what people post.


Billie and Shawn what happened at the motel? I know you know, you can keep playing innocent, but you have the answers.

Anonymous said...


Hmm never heard that Billie went looking for her, and told her to get in the car?? I wonder did the guy who said he almost hit her with his car get the days mixed up, and it was really Sunday night, after her fight with Billie.

Justice for Hailey 2013
Okay so of Hailey and Her mom had a fight and she went to go look for Hailey after she ran off n told her get in the car n after that is when she went missing? Wake up people there she has some thing to do with her girls muder she did not bring the body out until the age picture was dun. She knew she did not have to pay for it. What do you guys think did she have some thing to do with it?