Thursday, October 17, 2013

Hailey Dunn Case Statement Analysis: Email Part One


If you were a suspect in a disappearance of a 13 year old girl (later found murdered), and were innocent, what would you write?

This is called "the expected."

Statement Analysis deals with the unexpected. 

An innocent person will say "I didn't ____" and directly address the issue at hand.  This is expected early, and if necessary, repeated.  

Yet, it is stressful to lie directly, which is why 90% (+) of all deception is via missing information.  It is easier  to deceive by editing out information, therefore:

Statement Analysis also deals with what one does not say.  The majority of the analysis here is by Kaaryn Gough who has an uncanny ability to lay out the "expected" carefully, in detail, including the use of prepositions.  In this, there is little that she will ever miss.  She is one of our nation's top analysts today. 

This is Part One.   
One of our top analysts in the country

I have also added commentary to the analysis.  This is because the case details are well known to most readers and Hailey's remains have been found.  She is a murder victim and the mother revealed to us that it was a sexual homicide.  Hailey may have died due to blunt force trauma to the skull, as well as being drugged (among other things) but she was also subjected to her mother, Billie Dunn, and Shawn Adkins' perverse lifestyle which included child pornography, bestiality, home made pornography, sexual violence, and drug abuse.  Hailey Dunn never had a chance.  She was never "missing" but  a victim of a sexual homicide.  The failed polygraphs and the public statements by Dunn and Adkins agree. We continue to await for justice for Hailey.  


Hi. When I worked at weaver I was issued two pair of coveralls. That morning I quit I brought a pair with me that I had taken home over the weekend and the other pair was in my locker at WSI along with my hard hat, H2s monitor etc..I put the pair of coveralls I had with me in my locker along with my other belongings. Then I took my lock off my locker and left WSI. Btw I did tell one of my supervisors I quit. I just didn't up and leave like everyone thinks. It shows me on camera carrying the coveralls to my locker..and as far as the belongings I left when I quit Im sure my co-workers helped themselves to them. I initialed my two pair of coveralls on the tag and somewhere else with a permanent marker. So, my coveralls were at weaver..they were never missing. Hope that Helps. Billie is just looking to stir up shit like always. As far as ppl being a threat to us..I dont know. I know there was a few ppl that didn't care for me and Billie too much. Clint, Naomi, Clints brother, Clint's Mom,Some of Clints friends..Plus there were alot of shady ppl living in and around that neighborhood we used to live in. Plus if you cant already tell Billie's family is known for using drugs, getting arrested and making enemies. All I can say is I'm innocent of the whole ordeal surrounding Hailey's disappearance. The Cop's have lied so much about me and I hope one day they will be held accountable for what they did to me and my families reputation. Anyways, I hope that helps. Take care.












The following is the same email with Statement Analysis by Kaaryn Gough and Peter Hyatt 


1.    Hi.”—
a.   Generally, in email exchanges, it is expected the first email initiating contact will contain some type of salutation that often includes the recipient’s name. Example—“Hi John”. The recipient’s first response back will likely be similar. Once the connection is made the salutation tends to get dropped in subsequent emails under the same Subject Line, making the exchanges more like a conversation. If there is a gap in time where one party is delayed in responding in the chain, that person may resume the contact with a simple “hi” at the beginning of their next email.
b.   The subject does not identify to whom the email is addressed. The lack of a name could indicate:
                        i.          the subject does not wish to identify the recipient by name to hide their identity; or
                       ii.          the subject does not wish to acknowledge them properly. This could be considered similar to an incomplete social introduction in an open statement, indicating the relationship is not good between the subject and the recipient; or
                     iii.         there was former communication, perhaps by phone or an earlier chain of emails and the subject is resuming contact.  
c.   The address is a casual and relaxed.

2.    When I worked at weaver I was issued two pair of coveralls.”

    The first sentence in a statement is always a very important one.  It is the point where the subject himself decided to start the statement. In many cases, the first sentence might even include the reason for the events that follow.

a.   When I worked at weaver…”—not “for weaver”. The use of “at” suggests the subject is more focused on the location of the company, rather than the company itself.
b.   weaver”—
                        i.         the titling of the company is casual and suggests the subject knows the recipient is familiar with the company and therefore does not need to include a complete title.
                       ii.         We should also note the name of the company does not contain an initial cap which could suggest the subject does not hold the company in high regard.
c.   “I was issued two pair of coveralls”—not “given” or “supplied with”. “issued” is more formal and suggests the subject may perceive the coveralls as a “uniform”.  It has a feel of distancing language; distance between the company (who issues coveralls) and the employee, or worker. 

Note: A uniform can have both positive as well as negative connotations. A uniform can be a symbol of honor and power such as in the military or in policing. But it can also be negative in the sense the wearer is being forced to conform to the identity of the issuing body/company.  This is a critical difference: 

Question: How did the subject respond to wearing the coveralls? Did he gripe about it or wear them with pride?

d.   I was issued two pair of coveralls—not “pairs”, which would correspond with the “two”. “pair” is singular.

4.    That morning I quit I brought a pair with me that I had taken home over the weekend and the other pair was in my locker at WSI along with my hard hat, H2s monitor etc..

a.    “That morning I quit I brought a pair with me that I had taken home over the weekend …Note the priority of importance for the subject:
                        i.         “That morning” –most important information
                       ii.         “I quit” –second most important information
                     iii.         “I brought a pair” –third most important information
                     iv.         “that I had taken home over the weekend” –least important information

b.   “That morning I quit…”—not “The day I quit…”. The subject is very specific about the time–“that morning”– which indicates the time of day he quit (morning vs afternoon) is very important to him.  Most people would say "the day I quit."  Why is "that" (distancing language) morning so important to the subject?

Commentary:  The cell phone pings of this date are critical to the case.  It is believed that Hailey Dunn's killer likely disposed of the body at this time.  That he refers to the "morning" rather than the "day" could correspond to this point that early morning was the time of the dumping of the body. .  Shawn Adkins' whereabouts that morning are vital to proving the case of murder.



c.   That morning I quit”—not “The morning I quit…”. “that” is specific and suggests the subject knows the recipient is aware of the details of his quitting.  

d.   That morning…”—“that” = distancing himself from the morning.  Why the need to distance himself from the morning?  See commentary above.  

e.   “…I brought a pair with me…”—not “I brought back a pair”. “brought” and “with me” suggests the subject considered “a pair” to be his.  To bring a pair "back" to the company would suggest that they belonged to the company.  Since the coveralls belonged to the company, what about this particular pair would cause the subject to take ownership of them?


f.    “…I brought a pair with me…”—not “I brought a pair of coveralls with me”. The subject does not identify what type of “pair” he brought with him.
g.   “…I brought a pair with me…”—not “one of the pair”. a pair” is unknown. One should wonder which pair the subject brought with him.

Question: Was the pair he brought back on the morning he quit one of the same pairs originally issued to the subject by Weaver? Or was the pair a different pair?

Question: Did he bring home a pair that had not been issued to him?

h.   “…that I had taken home over the weekend…”—not “brought home”. “taken home” suggests the subject considered them to be his property.

i.    “…that I had taken home over the weekend…”—not “taken home to wash”. The subject does not include why he took the pair home.

Questions: 

Were employees responsible for washing their own coveralls? 
Did they often take their coveralls home?

These are the types of questions that would be asked in an interview based upon the analysis of this email.




j.    “…that I had taken home over the weekend…”—not “for the weekend”. “over” suggests the taking home occurred sometime during the weekend.  It may suggest that there was a specific purpose in taking these coveralls home "over" the weekend.  

k.   “…that I had taken home over the weekend…”—not “one weekend”. “the” suggests it is either a known weekend by the subject and recipient collectively, or it’s referring to the most recent weekend to the time when the email was sent.

Question: Is it “the weekend” because it is a known weekend between the subject and recipient?

Or was the email sent within a few days of the subject quitting?

l.    “…and the other pair was in my locker at WSI along with my hard hat, H2s monitor etc…”—“the other” –the subject is distinguishing between two pairs in the same group (the ones issued by Weaver). This is expected language and suggests the subject is distinguishing this pair from the pair he took home. However, in item (4g.) I noted the first pair mentioned, (“a pair”) suggests that pair is an unknown pair, separating them from the ones issued by Weaver. This constitutes a logic conflict and the questions raised in (4g.) should be explored.

m. “…was in my locker at WSI along with my hard hat, H2s monitor etc— “WSI” is likely an acronym and it is common for company employees to use acronyms when talking to others who know or are familiar with the company. It would be good to know how the subject usually referred to his company in order to learn more about his relationship with the company at this point in his story.

n.   “WSI” –not “weaver”. The change in language indicates there is an emotional change for the subject in his story from when he first introduces “weaver” to now. Note, “weaver” is used in conjunction with “coveralls”, whereas, WSI is used in conjunction with “my locker, hard hat, H2s monitor etc.” The change in language may be attributed to the fact the coveralls carry the name “weaver” on them, therefore the subject relates to the coveralls using “weaver” while the equipment may only have the company initials, WSI. This should be checked out. If this is the case, this explains the change in language and it is therefore, justified.

We should also consider that  “weaver” changes to WSI after the subject introduces “quit” into the story. As an ex-employee, it is now “WSI”

5.    “I put the pair of coveralls I had with me in my locker along with my other belongings.”

a.   “I put the pair of coveralls I had with me…”—not “I put my coveralls in my locker…”. The subject does not take ownership of the coveralls at this point.
b.   “I put the pair of coveralls I had with me…”—not, “I put the coveralls in my locker”. The inclusion of “I had with me” is an unnecessary link which is only “unnecessary” for the us, the reader. By including this information, the subject is telling us this information is necessary for him to include and therefore, very important to him. He is differentiating between put the coveralls that he had with him and others. This would suggest there may be a pair of coveralls that he did not have with him.
c.   “…along with my other belongings.”—“belongings”–the subject considers the coveralls to be his.
d.   “…along with my other belongings.”—“other”—the subject is comparing his ownership of the coveralls to other items in his locker which he considers to be his.
6.    Then I took my lock off my locker and left WSI.”—“Then”–unnecessary connection indicating some sensitivity and that some information is missing at this point in the statement.

Question: What happened after he put the coveralls in his locker but before he removed his lock?

a.   “…and left WSI.”—sensitive area. The "leaving" of WSI is very sensitive to the subject.  The sensitivity of "leaving" a place (rather than going to another place) is:

70% likely due to rushing, traffic, time constraints, etc
30% likely critical missing information

7.    “Btw I did tell one of my supervisors I quit. I just didn't up and leave like everyone thinks.”

a.   Btw”=By the way. Indicating this thought interjected itself and the subject considered it very important to include at this point in his story.

b.   “Btw I did tell one of my supervisors I quit.”—not “told”. “did tell” brings emphasis to the action and suggests the subject believes this information is important and needs emphasizing. This also suggests the recipient may have questioned whether the subject told one of his supervisors that he had quit.

c.   “Btw I did tell one of my supervisors I quit.”—not “all”.

d.   “Btw I did tell one of my supervisors I quit.”—the subject had more than one supervisor.

e.   “I just didn't up and leave like everyone thinks.”—sentence in the negative=Sensitive. Leave = Sensitive. Two signals of sensitivity here indicate this is a very sensitive point for the subject.

f.    “I just didn't up and leave like everyone thinks.”—“just”—other options were present for the subject. “just’ serves to focus on what follows.

Question: What else did he do?

8.    It shows me on camera carrying the coveralls to my locker…”

a.   “It shows me on camera…”–Passive structure = sensitive area.
b.   “It shows me on camera…”—Note the perspective is from the other end of the camera such as the security room. Did someone from security tell the subject he had been on camera or did the subject go into the security room and view himself on camera?

Question: How did the subject know he was “shown on camera”?

Why is it so important for him to be seen on camera?

Does this suggest planning?  (premeditation)

c.   “It shows me on camera…”—not “showed”. “shows” is present tense suggesting that this information was still present for the subject at the time of the email. It is possible given security tapes are usually held for a certain period of time. If the tape was confiscated by police and still exists, this could account for his use of present tense.

d.   A person should relate a story according to how they experienced it. At this point in the story, the subject tells us he is aware that he is shown carrying coveralls on camera. We should wonder why this information was important to the subject at the time.

e.   “It shows me on camera carrying the coveralls to my locker…”—not “putting the coveralls into my locker.”. If the camera’s field shows the area including the subject’s locker, then the subject is restricting his actions to only “carrying” the coveralls. If the camera’s field does not show the area including the subject’s locker, but instead, shows the area on the way to the locker, then it is true, the camera would only show the subject “carrying” the coveralls.

f.    “It shows me on camera carrying the coveralls to my locker…”—not “the pair of coveralls”. Change of language from ealier where the subject said, “the pair of coveralls”. There is nothing inside the statement to explain why the subject changed his language at this part of the story. Two things to consider:

                        i.         the coveralls he is seen carrying on camera are not the same at the pair he was issued, the pair he had taken home and the pair he put in his locker. It is a different pair altogether.
                       ii.         the change in language is “unjustified” signaling that deception may be present at this point in the story.

9.    “…and as far as the belongings I left when I quit Im sure my co-workers helped themselves to them.”

a.   “…the belongings”—not “my belongings”. The subject does not consider the belongings to be his at this point in the story.

b.   “…the belongings”—not “the company’s items”. It is odd that the subject would consider them “belongings” if they had been issued by the company and they were considered returned to the company at this point. They should not be “belongings” unless they are items he considered to be his and he felt he was relinquishing them to the company.

c.   “…and as far as the belongings I left when I quit”—“left” = sensitive
d.   “…and as far as the belongings I left when I quit— This is unnecessary information= sensitive.

The two signals of sensitivity indicate this is a very sensitive area for the subject.

Question:  What plans did he have that began after leaving that  morning?

Note that this is the time period in which Hailey's remains were likely moved to their final destination, the "ugly field" where they were found. 

e.   “I initialed my two pair of coveralls on the tag and somewhere else with a permanent marker.”

                        i.         “I initialed my two pair of coveralls…”—a change in language. The coveralls are now his. Note this is introduced into the story after he quit.

Question: Is it possible the subject is talking about more than just the  two pairs of coveralls issued by Weaver?

                       ii.         “I initialed my two pair of coveralls on the tag and somewhere else…”—not “tags” “tag” is singular and speaks to only one.
Question: Did he mark only one pair?

It is possible the use of “pair” and “tag” (singular) may be attributed to the fact the subject considered both coveralls to be a single unit when they were issued and when he initialed them.

f.    So, my coveralls were at weaver..they were never missing.”—“so” = explaining ‘why’ = sensitive area.
g.   “So, my coveralls were at weaver…”—not, “my two pair of coveralls”. If the subject doesn’t say it we cannot say it for him.
h.   “weaver”—change of language from WSI. As stated in (4n.) The use of “weaver” may be because the name is written on the coveralls. The other possibility is that the subject considers the company to be “weaver” when he was an employee and “WSI” when he was not. Therefore, at this point in the story, the subject does not consider himself to be an ex-employee. This would suggest that while the subject was an employee, his coveralls were never missing.

end of part one...

                                                            Announcement:  


If you wish to receive announcements about new posts, or for justice, crime, statement analysis, etc, follow via Tweeter  at @PeterFHyatt

We will be using this for upcoming info



88 comments:

Jo said...

“When I worked at weaver I was issued two pair of coveralls.”

He doesn't tell us he only had two pair, only that he was issued two pair.

Jo said...

"I initialed my two pair of coveralls on the tag and somewhere else with a permanent marker."

Sounds like an action done at the same time as the rest of the actions in the story occurred. If the initials were already present in his coveralls, wouldn't he say "My initials were on the tag..."

Anonymous said...

"Coverlls"??? What about them???

Shelley said...

That photo again...The smiles!


Looks like 2 people going out for a fundraiser walk.... FOR FUN..


Not devestation that your daughter is missing.

SKEoD said...

omg, seriously? smh
i'll be back

Say what? said...

shawn said: Im sure my co-workers helped themselves to them.

I want to know how he is sure?

john said...

Doff's hat to Kaaryn..

Say what? said...

More from shawn:Then I took my lock off my locker and left WSI. Im sure my co-workers helped themselves to them.

wasn't it said Shawn returned the clothing so he would not be charged $ for them? Then why leave the lock off? If he was sure that coworkers would help themselves to them? defeats the argument of not wanting to be charged.

Skip said...

OT:

http://piersmorgan.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/17/vanessa-fontaine-mother-of-the-missing-avonte-oquendo-my-message-to-my-son-is-that-i-love-him-and-were-going-to-find-him/#comments

The comments have some info... IS she hiding her son?

Hobnob said...

Issued leads me to think he had to sign for it. When you start a new job you may be issued with certain items that have to be returned when you leave, Signing means you acknowledge receipt of said items and they become your responsibility, on termination you hand said items back sign off and all is cleared paperwork wise. he doesn't tell us he ONLY had 2 sets of coveralls, only that he was issued with two. It could be the same with boots etc, you sign for a pair and then use your own preferred type as long as they meet the requirements for the job such as steel toed etc.

That is distancing and for there to be a that there has to be a this, i wonder when this was written. It stands out he says that and not the morning. The morning becomes sensitive along with the coveralls i wonder if he wore the coveralls to dispose of the body (or even in role play and the murder) I note he introduces workmates raiding his locker thus if anything incriminating is found he can say the whole company had access to my open locker. He tells us he tagged them with pen again making it sensitive (did they not have sewn badges or tags?)

Jen said...

Great analysis!

“I initialed my two pair of coveralls on the tag and somewhere else..."

I also noticed that he felt it important to mention that he initialed his coveralls on the tag AND somewhere else, but he does not state where 'somewhere else' is. Why bring it up at all, unless it was significant to the story.

I would say the actual pair of coveralls that were issued to him ARE missing/disposed of, and the pair he brought in were a replacement. He includes this information about the initials as an attempt to persuade that the coveralls he claims to be seen on video carrying are THE coveralls in question, (so much so, that he includes this extra information AFTER he has ended his account of returning them).

As in...'See, my initials are even on them in PERMANENT marker, so they have to be the same ones'.

Lol...great cover story Adkins, clearly you could never duplicate your own initials on another pair of coveralls...case closed!

Anonymous said...

i bet the name he wrote on the tag was "Billy", that may have been the whole trouble with LE verifying he had left two pair in his locker.

GetThem said...

I'm scared to find out what is going on with those overalls.

My2cents said...

It occurred to me when I was reading the analysis that I mistakenly use pair when referring to multiple pairs and I noticed the anon above does also.

According to the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary:

"A plural verb is sometimes used with pair in the singular in senses 1 and 2. In informal North American English some people use pair as a plural form: three pair of shoes. This is not considered correct in written English."

Masquerade said...

I don't know the whole story here about the coveralls. He supposedly left them in his locker, unlocked, and his initials were on them. He brought one pair, so one pair was supposed to already be in there. He's blaiming co-workers for possibly helping themselves.

What was found in his locker?

Without knowing, I'd guess one pair of coveralls. He carried one in. A co-worker probably helped themselves to the other pair.

Really, there's probably one pair of his coveralls, with his initials on them, that he disposed of. There was probably no coveralls in his locker to begin with. He put one in then removed the lock, so he could claim the coveralls stolen, so when they are found, he can say those were the stolen ones.

Nice way to try to incriminate his co-workers. :/

Deejay said...

2 thoughts- Either he returned different overalls-

Or this was an elaborate stage- carry in coveralls obviously in front of the camera, hide them under his coat, and sneak them back out... Darn pesky coworkers must a' took em...

Anonymous said...

I initialed my two pair of coveralls on the tag and somewhere else with a permanent marker.
"two pair"
"coveralls tag"
he uses consistent grammar by not making "somewhere else" plural.

the sensitivity is because he said "initialed"
initialing would be a show of ownership, therefor he uses the word "my" where as other places he does not claim ownership of weaver issued coveralls.

initialed was his "lie", i believed he used his nickname, but didn't want to raise more questions and harassment from people then wanting to know his nickname.

when i am directed to initial here, here, and then to sign here, i put my "mark", but i will say i initialed as directed. but for "official" instances, i would feel i was not being fully honest knowing that i was referring to my "mark" as an set of initials.
the same with signing my nickname vs my given name.
and no, i am not Rachel Jeantel aka Deedee/Diamond

Anonymous said...

hmmmmmmm.

trying to see forest for trees----

Getting the idea that a pair of coveralls may have been covered with murder-blood- and were thus evidence he put a lot of thought into - to explain the disapearance of.

So this guy brought back a different pair (or the same pair folded to hide blood) and paraded them in front of security camera to make it look like he was bringing them back/leaving them in onlocked locker /letting them (surely) get stolen....

most likely he never left them there. or he "stole" them himself. or arranged for a buddy to do it. this is why he gives so much attention to this --- he worked too hard to make us never ask where those blood covered overalls are. in doing so he showed us they are a clue .

Anonymous said...

he explained on fb that the camera is not on the lockers but would have picked him up coming and going from wsi.
he came in the door with them and left the door without them.
the accusation was that LE did not recover them and that they had not been turned in, he speculates that because he did not secure them, that if LE did not have them, it may be due to his locker being raided.
as far as i know about company issued work gear, if you do not turn them in and get paperwork for them, they will deduct any missing items from you last paycheck. so shawn, did they deduct any issued gear from your pay, claiming it was not returned?

Jo said...

I believe the coveralls were used in the murder and/or disposal of Hailey. Shawn needs to convince others that he had two coveralls. He needed to make sure he was seen returning coveralls (or something that may have looked like coveralls on a grainy black and white security camera) He needs to establish that they were left in an unlocked locker and that others could have taken them.
I don't believe that someone who would quit his job without notice and without another job set up, would care if his last paycheck included a deduction for the cost of a pair of coveralls. He had a purpose of returning to work that morning and I believe it was to create an alibi for a missing pair of coveralls. He can claim video proof that he returned them and has already established that others most likely helped themselves to his belongings in his unlocked locker. Why drive that far to put coveralls in an unlocked locker? He could have quit over the phone but made a trip and spoke with a supervisor. Why not hand over the coveralls to the supervisor when giving his resignation?
It is interesting that Billie is the one that introduced "coveralls" into her story and now is trying to point the finger at Shawn saying the coveralls are missing. She knew they were missing from day one but was sure to help create his alibi for the coveralls early on.

Jo said...

Because he introduces "other belongings" leads me to believe he carried in something other than his coveralls. If he was there to turn in coveralls and remove his lock, why not collect his other belongings? Especially if they were items worthy of theft by other co-workers.

elf said...

'..and as far as the belongings I left when I quit I'm sure my co-workers helped themselves to them.'
Sounds like he's setting up an alibi. What other belongings did he leave in his locker at work?
Its been my experience that if a person is issued a uniform from an employer, you have to turn them in upon termination of employment or be responsible for the cost of replacement. Some employers will even garnish wages from the last pay check. So if both pairs of overalls was returned to his employer they still belong to the employer. Conversely, if the company received only one pair and garnished his last check the missing pair WOULD belong to him.

~mj said...

From this email he does not say that "weaver" or "WSI" issued any coveralls. He only states that he was issued 2 pair of coveralls at some point while being an employee with "weaver" or "WSI" -

I point out this difference because I worked for a company that many of the workers wanted coveralls and they petitioned for our company to allow a separate company to come in and supply coveralls to whomever wanted them. They were issued directly to the employee by the other company and if the employee wanted 2, they would have more than 2 in rotation, with their names on them, but the employee would only be issued 2 at any given time, but could have up to 4 in their locker.

This third-party company was responsible for collecting the coveralls weekly, washing, repairing and returning to each of the employees lockers. If an employee damaged a pair beyond repair, they were charged a pro-rated amount and the pair then became their personal property. (Which confused matters dramatically if they kept those shabby ones in their lockers along with the ones that were still in rotation)

A couple things with this experience. Many of the employees felt it was "their" property, even if they did not pay for them out-right, simply because it was a service they paid for monthly. They also would regularly mis-interpret how many pairs were their responsibility, not realizing there were more in rotation.

Even on that note, IF this was similar in Adkins case, he may be very much aware he had more than 2 pairs in rotation but leaves that information out because technically he signed up for and were "issued" 2 pairs.

The problem that comes with that arrangement for coveralls, is that when an employee quits, if they left wearing a pair (say on a Friday purely as an example), the third-party company would bring that employee's fresh set of 2 the following Monday, not knowing the employee has quit. And low-and-behold that third pair would be out in la-la land, and then good luck trying to get it back from them. I realize not every company handles coveralls the way the company I worked for did. But it is common enough of a practice, it would be worth looking into as I am sure LE did. Because after-all, if Shawn Adkins did not say Weaver issued those coveralls, we cannot say it for him. :)

I really enjoyed this analysis. It brought out points and presented them in a form of what direction to lead questions or where to gather more information. It was not opinionated, and I found that refreshing. Thank-you!

Anonymous said...

“So, my coveralls were at weaver…”—not, “my two pair of coveralls”. If the subject doesn’t say it we cannot say it for him.
i this case we can say it for him, coverallS is plural meaning more than one which would include two.

Anonymous said...

as for any other bs you come up with, consider that shawn more than likely was angry, upset, frustrated... and DRUNK when he wrote that.

dadgum said...

I have fallen victim to the mod.. we here (South) DO say 'two pair', we also say 'eight dollar and forty cent'. Don't ask me why.

Add to the confusion, he said 'were', as in plural. Would he have said 'was' for a single pair? Perhaps. Perhaps not. We can only look at what was said..

mod, I was not mocking Shawn, or Southern speech. It was an example of a common use of language here.

Turtle said...

These coveralls have become a major point in this whole mess, introduced by Billie and Shawn.

Were the coveralls found with her body? Then he claims his coworkers probably took them. So if they are found it won't connect back with him, but to someone else?

Billie said she washed them, Shawn said he turned them in, Billie said he was in them when David got home that afternoon. Which is it you two??

Anonymous said...

When I worked at weaver I was issued two pairs of coveralls. Guess I am guilty, that is exactly the words I would say. Lock me up and throw away the key. Just don't let wackjob near the facilities please.

Anonymous said...

"Weaver Construction
4668 Fm 1607
Snyder, TX 79549
(325) 573-3359

-uses ‘Cintas’ for their uniform supply.
Uniforms are picked up for laundering and fresh ones are replaced every Wednesday.
Each uniform is counted as to which employee has how many ‘checked out’ at a time, usually two at a time."

Buckley

A Voice for Hailey said...

If my memory serves me right, I believe Cintas provides or, did provide at the time of Hailey's disappearance, uniform services to WSI. Why then the need to initial or wash these "issued" coveralls?

What evidence may their very alibis, WSI and Cogdell, hold?

Masquerade said...

Who would wash their uniform if the company was going to do it for them? Is it common practice to initial a uniform that isn't actually yours; that belongs to the company?

Thank you to the anon above that explained the locker situation.

Local anon said...

The coveralls are the key and unfortunately I do not think they were taken as evidence. I do recall anything about them in the affidavits. LE was, as you will recall, slow to act because they thought Hailey was a runaway. So much crucial evidence was lost as a result. I am not slamming LE's initial lack of response, they were reacting to the many alarms and false alarms in that household. Surely there is evidence in this case. Local talk is that there is a theory that David killed Hailey in kickboxing play or the like and that Shawn and Billie covered it up and disposed of her body. I put as much stock in that as Caylee Anthony died in the pool and George covered it up. Just wanted you to be aware of the local rumors. For the lifr of me I can' t wrap my head around no arrests. We are talking FBI and Texas Rangers. Not just local LE.
But then, the same is true of so many cases. The Casey
Anthony syndrome.

Local anon said...

I meant do Not recall.... Sorry

Local anon said...

On another note, I have never heard anyone refer to WSI as Weaver. They are known as WSI here. So Peter, what do you think that indicates in terms of Shawn's relationship to them? Everyone here uses the initials and acronyms for companies.

Trigger said...

Why all the effort to "clarify" the account of the coveralls and the "taking" of them to the unsecured locker? The coveralls are important.

Not one word of concern about Hailey and her whereabouts.

Jen said...

That is not what he said though. He used 'pair' which is singular, when he was speaking of more than one. A single sentence doesn't determine guilt or deception, but his long-winded explanation draws attention to several sensitive areas such as the morning he 'quit', the mention of the security footage in an attempt to bolster his alibi, and of course the infamous disappearing/reappearing coveralls.

Also Anon a few comments up wrote that this is 'bs', and speculated that Adkins was likely angry, upset, frustrated and drunk when he wrote this, as if those things made the statement less reliable. The opposite is actually true. If Adkins were in fact angry or drunk, then his words would be considered an 'excited utterance'...a statement made without the benefit of forethought or reflection (which even the courts deem as more reliable). When a person is speaking out of anger, excitement or intoxication they are more likely to reveal things that they would likely keep to themselves in a more controlled situation.

Trigger said...

"All I can say is, I'm innocent of the whole ordeal surrounding Hailey's disappearance."

"All I can say is" He is withholding information

"I'm innocent" present tense. Not a denial. He is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

"of the whole ordeal" not specific but covers everything that he is not specific about. Withholding information.

"surrounding Hailley's disappearance." present tense. "disappearance" minimizing language. victim blaming.

This is not a reliable denial.

Lemon said...

I've wondered if the focus on "returning" the coveralls was a cover for "retrieving" something from his locker- a thumb drive perchance?

Anonymous said...

maybe he just forgot the S, or miss key stroked on the S.

i believe this rant was in response to much harassment from other parties. without having the harassing accusations included, we really can't analyze this email effectively.

Lemon said...

Anon @10:51
Who is "we"?

fb said...

2012 face-book
Shawn Casey Adkins This is the last statement I'm making and yes its 100% true..I have a feeling the reason Billie is lying like she is because back in late september of this year or maybe even early october Billie had been dumped by that married man she used to work for Ken Moncebiaz at K&M steam cleaning then hinted that she wanted to mess around with me again..wanted me to come to Austin..etc...FBI knows..that's all that matters. Bye.


Shawn Casey Adkins Oh...btw..I never went to Austin..Evidently Billie didn't take to kind of it...She wanted me to rent a hotel room so her son David wouldn't find out she was meeting up with me.

Lemon said...

OT
Mother pleads guilty in Shaniya Davis' death

http://www.wral.com/mother-pleads-guilty-in-shaniya-davis-death/13011614/

Jen said...

Anon 10:51

What makes you think this email is a rant? Do people start rants with a greeting? Why would you think this was written in response to 'much harassment'? Again..if it were in response to harassment would he begin it with a greeting? He also repeatedly states, 'hopes that helps', and ends the email by telling the recipient to 'take care'.

The email needs no context for analysis, it stands on it's own. The words contained in the email were chosen by Adkins to convey his story, regardless of supposed harassment or questions. You suggest that the lack of 's' on the word pair is a possible typo. Yet he makes the same 'typo' both times he uses the word to describe 'two pair'.

You seem to be going a long way to attempt to dismiss the validity of this analysis...first a typo, then a rant, and finally 'we' can't analyze without context. Why?

Shelley said...

He did not need to wash them. I've worked places where they wore uniforms and they no one washed them.

Clearly he needed to wash them.

And it seems that he only initialed one pair?

If so, since he claims someone would have taken the other pair since he didn't lock the locker....

So was only one pair left. Those were initialed. The ones that had no evidence.

The others were disposed of (or maybe with Hailey) and Shawn can claim he left them but they must have been "taken" by co-workers so are gone.

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

Did the coveralls have a work place logo on them (WSI/Weaver) ?. If not, is it possible he could have replaced them from the same supplier were his company purchased them.

Are these coveralls popular around were he lives ?. If they are, he could easily replaced them if he disposed of the ones he was issued with. Is there a shop were anyone can by them ?. It is easy to run them through the washing machine a few times, rough them up a little, rub a bit of oil into them, or whatever it is he works with or comes in contact with in his place of work..After all he did have all weekend to do this.

Anonymous said...

Coveralls is not stupid. It is correct. Dummy.

Anonymous said...

Shelley, Shawn was issued TWO pairs of coveralls, not one. I don't know how much clearer this could be; one was in his locker, he returned the other one to the locker that morning.

Who cares whether he had initialed them both or had initialed only one pair. Fact is, he was issued two sets of coveralls. Obviously, that is not enough uniforms that the company would be required to furnish cleaning for the coveralls; Weaver furnished coveralls for two days and the employee would be required to launder them themselves.

It seems pretty clear that Shawn washed the pair he had been wearing when he finished his last day at work and returned them clean, BEFORE he left to dispose of Haileys' body, IFF that is when he drove out to the ugly fields to disposed of her.

Was he wearing the company coveralls when Hailey was raped and murdered? Good question. Possibly, but doubtful, but we'll never know. Druggies generally don't wear their work clothes on a week-end dope party binge, while partying, raping and doping.

Anonymous said...

I agree with Lemon. IMO, Shawn was there early that morning to pick up something from his locker, very likely thumbnail porn or worse. There was 'something' he urgently wanted from his workplace that morning.

There would have been no need for him to rush out to Weaver just to return coveralls when he already knew he was quitting. What the flip would he have cared about a pair or two of coveralls that could have been returned later, if ever.

Turtles said...

I had thought about David being the guilty one also. He conviently leaves the night Hailey most likely dies. Billie has done EVERYTHING in her power to keep the focus anywhere but on David. He either was involved or he also knows the truth.

Turtle said...

I was thinking more for just an alibi....seen on camera. I guess they thought if they both were seen at work, and Hailey was found, then they could say they were at work, and it wasn't them. BUT they didn't realize people would question what happened before they went to work.

elf said...

On uniforms/work clothing provided by cintas they have an id number and bar code on the collar for identification purposes. Once they are laundered they are hung on hangers (at least shirts and pants are) and a slip of paper with the employees name is attached before delivery. My exboyfriends employer used cintas.

Trigger said...

According to Shawn, Billie likes covert sexual liaisons with him but the FBI knows this already, so he stays away from her intentionally.

This just proves he is 100% "innocent." Yeah, right.

No one word of compassion for the child victim who lay murdered in an "ugly field."

hooked on fb said...

No trigger~Shawn said more.

Bobby Jordan so Shawn, did you drop Billie off to work on monday? and where are your coveralls?

Bobby Jordan and did you watch the movie "the Collection" yet? if you liked Saw, you will like "The Collection"

Shawn Casey Adkins Yes and both pair of my coveralls were in my locker at WSI. FBI and the rest of LE know that..rest assured.

Shawn Casey Adkins Along with my H2s monitor and my hard hat.

Bobby Jordan so do you have a route where you were driving around in the back roads of Dunn so LE can clear you allready?

Shawn Casey Adkins Her co-worker Tana dropped her off at work on Tuesday. I dropped her off on Monday. That's all documented.

Bobby Jordan seriously, what did you do all tuesday? have you talked with LE lately?

Shawn Casey Adkins Like I said just call her and ask her for yourself.

Bobby Jordan she says she dont know what you were doing tuesday so i have to ask you.... and i have one more question

Shawn Casey Adkins All of yall have a Merry Chistmas and A Happy New Year.

Bobby Jordan what baby were you talking about?

Bobby Jordan hey, was Hailey prego or trying to have a baby

Shawn Casey Adkins I told FBI agent Dan Cottner and D.A. Investigator Billy Sides EXACTLY where I was tuesday. So, dont worry about what Billie Dunn says.

Bobby Jordan well you know those two screwed everything up dont you.

Bobby Jordan was Hailey really going to marybeth's? where do you think she was really going?
18 hours ago · Like

Bobby Jordan do you think Hailey is alive?

Shawn Casey Adkins Nope I wasn't aware of that. And yes.

Bobby Jordan hey, was Hailey prego or trying to have a baby?
???

Bobby Jordan i asked too many questions all at once, which one did you say yes to?

Shawn Casey Adkins Oh...btw..I never went to Austin..Evidently Billie didn't take to kind of it...She wanted me to rent a hotel room so her son David wouldn't find out she was meeting up with me.

Shawn Casey Adkins She told me He didn't like her going out because she had been doing that Alot with Ken and her other friends from K&M and he was getting very upset about it.

Bobby Jordan so the sunday night that hailey went missing, did you and billie sneak out of the house and go party?

Shawn Casey Adkins That's it tho..thought EVERYONE should know that.

Shawn Casey Adkins Bye.

Bobby Jordan well meeting you would have been different than being with Ken, i mean would david had really minded if she was with you?

Shawn Casey Adkins Yes..David knew his mother and I were no good for eachother..just like I know. I didn't go out of respect for David and Myself..I've washed my hands of Billie completely. Now she is back with Ken..if I heard right. Im sure David isn't happy about that. If I were David I would move back to west tx with his uncle. He had it WAYYYYY better with him than Billie.

Bobby Jordan do you think Hailey ran away for the same reasons? and where would she have went?

Shawn Casey Adkins I dont think she ran away..She loves David too much.

Shawn Casey Adkins And her Mom and Dad too..Even tho she is from a broken home. She loves her family.

Bobby Jordan would one of the relatives hid her away, did they not approve of Billie's lifestyle and raising Hailey?

Shawn Casey Adkins No they wouldn't IMO. And I dont know what Billie's family thought of her lifestyle.

Bobby Jordan well if it wasn't you or Billie, but it was someone close to Hailey, who would that be?

Shawn Casey Adkins You are asking the wrong person Bobby. I know Hailey but not like her family.

Bobby Jordan but you know Hailey, so what was the answer to , was Hailey wanting to have a baby?

Bobby Jordan do you think maybe she ran off with some guy?

Shawn Casey Adkins What the fuck kind of question is that?

Bobby Jordan there were 27 13 year olds prego in my town, it does happen, did you see any signs of that from Hailey?

Shawn Casey Adkins That question doesn't deserve a fucking answer. You are fucking sick man. Im done answering your questions.

shmi said...

Did LE ever confirm or deny that they found 2 pairs of coveralls in Shawn's locker? Is one pair missing? Maybe the missing pair was found with Hailey's remains, with the "weaver" logo still visible on them.

Nic said...

Karen said:

Question: Did he bring home a pair that had not been issued to him?

h. “…that I had taken home over the weekend…”—not “brought home”. “taken home” suggests the subject considered them to be his property.


i. “…that I had taken home over the weekend…”—not “taken home to wash”. The subject does not include why he took the pair home.



The word taken also implies that when someone "took" something it was because it didn't belong to them. As in, "He took my pencil!"

Maybe there was a third pair of coveralls? He talks about his initials being in his coveralls as "proof" they were two pairs that belonged to him. I wonder if anyone was missing a pair of overalls, or if the inventory is "out" a pair.

Nic said...

*there were two pairs that belonged to him.

turtle said...

When Bobby asked so if it wasn't you, Shawn missed the oppurtunity to say he did not do it, instead he just say's you are asking person. Like a line from a movie. Guilty.

turtle said...

You are asking the wrong person*

Anonymous said...



Jen @ 12:44
yes Jen i do know.
i am the Bobby that
hooked on fb
posted my conversation with shawn. thanks hooked, i had to find that in my recycle bin and dig it out, you beat me to it.
but i also have more that proves i am right.
----------------------


The Search for the Truth
We would like to thank Shawn Adkins for going to WOJ and posting. However,

we would like to clear up a couple of Mr. Adkins discrepancies. First and

foremost, LE may have been told by Mr. Adkins that his coveralls were put

in his locker on the day that he "quit" his job, but that does not make it

so. We are sad to inform Mr. Adkins that cameras do not lie. Mr. Adkins

needs to explain how the camer
a caught him entering his place of employment WITHOUT said coveralls in

hand. Second, Mr. Adkins owned said coveralls and his name was stitched

into said coveralls, so why would he leave them in the first place? It just

does not make sense and certainly does not add up.

With regards to who took Billie to work and on what day? Mr. Adkins told

Billie that he had to be at work EARLY on that particular Monday, so Billie

was left to get a ride from a co-worker. We are unfamiliar with any person

by the name of "Tara", but that is not surprising. There have been

countless posters who have put out so much false information that it would

be comical if this case was not about an innocent missing child named

Hailey. It was Tuesday that Mr. Adkins took Billie to work, not Monday.

Mr. Adkins needs to concern himself with cooperating with the F.B.I. and

not who Billie may or may not be dating. Mr. Adkins also needs to

discontinue threatening the men that he thinks Billie may be dating. This

does not paint Mr. Adkins in a good light.

The next time that Mr. Adkins posts Billie's phone number on a public

facebook page he might want to take heed. Billie has private numbers for

the majority of Mr. Adkins family.

The Search for the Truth
When a person is a habitual liar, and has been for the majorit of their life, it is nonsensical for one to assume that any situation in life will make them change that habit. The question for us is, why does Mr. Adkins continue to lie about turning in said coveralls. Is their an innocent explanation? If you work for a company and you OWN the coveralls and your name is stitched in said coveralls, why would one turn them in at the end of their employment. Nobody else would be using said coveralls, particularly when Mr. Adkins is very tall and said coveralls would unlikely fit another employee. Why would Mr. Adkins be so generous as to leave the coveralls that he owned and only fit him and had his name stitched in them? The camera even caught Mr. Adkins WITHOUT said coveralls on Mr. Adkins person. So, what possible innocent answer could there be for this continual lie?

Billie Jean Ostrander Dunn
Not just the camera proves this,but also his former boss says he didnt leave a thing in his locker,also I asked a trusted member of LE where the coveralls were,to which he stated,theyve never been found,now why is Shawn lying about taking me to work Monday when LE has already confirmed someone else did,there are cameras at the hospital where I was dropped off. Why is he denying failing a second polly in Dallas? Why did he lie & say he was with his mom all day Tues when infact he never went there

Billie Jean Ostrander Dunn
And he has threatened every male coworker I ever had,Snyder PD has many reports from my friends there,but now youre a suspect in Haileys disappearance & you are dumb enough to msg my best friend,who I do love dearly, & threaten his children if he doesnt stay away from me. You are a disgusting pathetic waste,yes please keep talking. I cant believe it took me so long to see what a homicidal maniac monster you are. You will be made to answer,you will pay!

REK said...

>>>Shawn Casey Adkins Yes and both pair of my coveralls were in my locker at WSI. FBI and the rest of LE know that..rest assured.


sounds like he's reassuring himself

Anonymous said...

now, if you can keep it all connected, you can see that the emial was a response to these conversations or posts from facebook. (and more posts) you cannot analyze the email ALONE as it reflects the content of the other posts and you will have a failed analysis.

Anonymous said...

turtle said...
When Bobby asked so if it wasn't you, Shawn missed the opportunity to say he did not do it, instead he just say's you are asking the wrong person. Like a line from a movie. Guilty.
--------------

imo that was not a chance for him to state a denial.
shawn was well aware that i do not believe that him or Billie are guilty. i believe he knew that i felt i had ruled out him and Billie but i was still clueless as to who did it. i believe he understood i was asking him for help, but he would not point any fingers or suspicions at anyone. he is just that way.
and yes, while i was having that conversation with him, on his facebook wall he was posting about how much he had finished drinking. i paid attention to when he was drinking and that is when we would hit him up for a conversation, lol.

Anonymous said...

This all comes down to who do you believe more Shawn or Billie?

All in all though they already have their WHO, They have her Body, The LOCATION of where they put her, Cell phone data, Statements from various people.

The only thing left is CAUSE OF DEATH, which they are working on,and connect that with everything else those two will be ARRESTED.

Then maybe we will hear the truth about the infamous coveralls.

confused said...

If you don't think they are guilty, then why were you waiting to ask him questions when he was drunk? If you thought the guy was innocent, why did you go that far to get info from him, that you didn't think he had/has anyway?


Anonymous said...

All in all though they already have their WHO, They have her Body, The LOCATION of where they put her, Cell phone data, Statements from various people.

WHO????

yes Hailey was found at the lake. jan 21st a plane circled that very area and did not see her. judging by other things that the plane searchers saw from the air, if Hailey was at the lake then, they would have seen her.

the cell data proves shawn was not at the lake (sun - wed) the white map of drive routes i made, show he did not have time to have gone to the lake monday morning.(on top of that, LE claims shawn went through CCity to get to his mom's)

various witness statements indicate that Hailey was seen alive after Shawn last seen her.

Anonymous said...

@confused
he wouldnt talk to me any other times, as a matter of fact, he blocked my other profile.
i have sought the truth from many by different means. asking shawn directly when the opportunity arose, i asked questions that were recent on everyone's minds, to find the answers to whether rumors were true or false.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous, aka Bobby Jordan I thought that YOU thought they were innocent (or was it just Billie?). Am I misinterpreting that you now question their innocence?

If not, what changed for you?

Sorry, I've been out of the loop on Facebook discussions for a while.

*JusticeSeekingAnon

Nic said...

Bobby Jordan there were 27 13 year olds prego in my town, it does happen, did you see any signs of that from Hailey?

Shawn Casey Adkins That question doesn't deserve a fucking answer. You are fucking sick man. Im done answering your questions.


You know what they say. When you ask a question (multiple times) and don't get an answer, you have your answer.

Anonymous said...

@JusticeSeekingAnon
i am even more convinced that Shawn and/or Billie are innocent. when i look at both sides of the argument, it confuses people as to who's side i am on. disproving the guilty side and proving the innocent side = not guilty.

Anonymous said...

Nic, i had to take into consideration ...
i knew someone else was PMing with shawn at the time,
and he had been drinking,
and with refreshing the page to see new posts...
(you can see i would post 3-4 times to his one, and sometimes he would post 2 times and not see my response before posting his second. that shows me he wasn't refreshing the page when he tabbed back over from PMing)
he may have missed the previous times i asked, so i couldn't be sure he even seen the question... until he ended the conversation.

turtle said...

If that is true he didn't have time AFTER he left work and was traveling between all 3 towns, BUT he had plenty of time before he went to work. I think she was put there EARLY Monday morning, before they went to work.

Whoever was in the plane could have missed her, if she was in the brush or under a bush. I'm sure they just didn't leave her in the open just lying there.

Anonymous said...

I just can't say they are innocent, it might be all circumstantial, but for me it all points to them. All her stuff still at home, the sleepover story a bust, all the lies.

I will say that it might not have started out as an intent to MURDER her that night, but maybe something went wrong and she ended up dying. They panicked and now it is just a big mess. Drugs cloud your judgement. Now it is considered murder, and when all the dots are connected, they will pay for the crime.

Anonymous said...

turtle, i viewed the plane search video, flying in you can see under, flying over you can see from above, flying away you can see back under. it is amazing how well you can see small objects that don't belong.
they found a white t-shirt hung on a fence under a tree.
Hailey was wearing a new bright green tshirt, that would have stood out really well in red dirt.

if you watch the helicopter news coverage of the place as LE wrapped up their search at the lake after Hailey was found, you will see that you can see under the small trees.
keep in mind it was also winter when the plane searches were conducted.

i suggested LE review the plane search videos to prove Hailey was not there jan 21, proving she had been moved there later.
oddly, shortly after i brought this up, the plane search video was removed from the internet.
but to my best ability, i did not see any bright green in that area. or navy blue. i did not see anything that did not look natural to that area.

turtle said...

Okay, valid point. So you think she was kept somewhere, and then they moved her there at a later date?

Why would someone keep her body, and then transport it, decomposing and all, that is morbid. (Thinking out loud)

Or the fact that she really was being held somewhere,could be true.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for answering. Being one of the confused, I appreciate your direct answer. Your comments are sometimes intriguing, and playing devil's advocate helps keep us on our toes. If nothing else, your shared thoughts help give a different perspective from the majority here.

*JusticeSeekingAnon

Anonymous said...

PS. I *LOVE tthe fact that we can reply directly under someone's comment now. it makes it so much easier to follow the conversations. NOW to get everyone on board with doing it, will make this a much better experience for all here IMO.

*JusticeSeekingAnon

Anonymous said...

if it were in response to harassment would he begin it with a greeting?
--------------------
he ends with "Billie is just looking to stir up shit like always." that is your proof that he was angry or w/e when he wrote that "email"
starting out with "Hi", i'm betting i know where that was sent, there are maybe 3 admins to that page and he wouldn't have known who he was talking to, but at the time they were on "friendly" terms.
hope that helps

A Voice for Hailey said...

It was Monday morning, Billie stated she 'peeked' in Hailey's bedroom to ease her mind. How could she possibly ease her mind and at the same time not be able to ascertain Hailey was there?

Sometime later, Billie, addressing Hailey in the media, said, "you are the only baby I ever wanted". Why would any mother, having more than one child, say this?

Anonymous said...

“…that I had taken home over the weekend…”—not “for the weekend”. “over” suggests the taking home occurred sometime during the weekend. It may suggest that there was a specific purpose in taking these coveralls home "over" the weekend.

i say,
"i took a skillsaw home for the weekend"
or
"had taken a skillsaw home over the weekend"

i took=("stole" it) a skillsaw home for=(needed to use it) the weekend
vs
had taken=(got stuck with it in my possession) a skillsaw home over(it was in my possession but i didn't use it) the weekend.

imo, they all bugged outta there early the friday without returning to their lockers, so he was "stuck" with their gear that he didnt use christmas weekend and had to return it monday when he decided to quit.

Anonymous said...


1 b.

2 b. i. the titling of the company is casual and suggests the subject knows the recipient is familiar with the company and therefore does not need to include a complete title.

4 c. “that” is specific and suggests the subject knows the recipient is aware of the details of his quitting.

4 k. “the” suggests it is either a known weekend by the subject and recipient collectively,

7 b. “Btw I did tell one of my supervisors I quit.”—not “told”. “did tell” brings emphasis to the action and suggests the subject believes this information is important and needs emphasizing. This also suggests the recipient may have questioned whether the subject told one of his supervisors that he had quit.

8 f. “It shows me on camera carrying the coveralls to my locker…”—not “the pair of coveralls”. Change of language from earlier where the subject said, “the pair of coveralls”. There is nothing inside the statement to explain why the subject changed his language at this part of the story.
-----------------
There is nothing inside the statement to explain why the subject changed his language at this part of the story.
wrong 1,2,2,4 and 7 i included above are all clues that there was more to this email response than what was mentioned in the email. you were so close, doing so good catching on to that.... so you see, it is with-in the email that we see the explanation for the change in language even though we do not know for sure what their prior contact covered.
------------

statement number 8 f. was in response to:
First and foremost, LE may have been told by Mr. Adkins that his coveralls were put in his locker on the day that he "quit" his job, but that does not make it so.
We are sad to inform Mr. Adkins that cameras do not lie. Mr. Adkins needs to explain how the camera caught him entering his place of employment WITHOUT said coveralls in hand.
Second, Mr. Adkins owned said coveralls and his name was stitched into said coveralls, so why would he leave them in the first place?
-------------
shawn's "change in subject" follows right along with "the subject changed his language" from the harassment/questions that are unknown to people who only read the email.
see here:
Btw I did tell one of my supervisors I quit. I just didn't up and leave like everyone thinks. It shows me on camera carrying the coveralls to my locker..and as far as the belongings I left when I quit Im sure my co-workers helped themselves to them. I initialed my two pair of coveralls on the tag and somewhere else with a permanent marker.
-----------

shawn, in his "email", followed along with the questions/accusations and responded accordingly to each subject using the language that the recipient would know what he was talking about and was not specific with detail or clarifying, the same as he did throughout the "email".

Jen said...

To Anon 11:37

My question was WHY you are trying so hard to dismiss the analysis. Which you answered by asserting that 'yes you do know' (ambiguous) because you are the person asking questions in one of the chats posted. I see through the subsequent comments that you are further trying to explain away sensitivity within the statement by referencing this POSSIBLY related or unrelated chat, that you 'bet' may have been written to one of 'maybe 3' admins, and that you believe is key to analysis.

I'm not sure how familiar you are with Statement Analysis, but you are ignoring some of the core principles in your effort to, 'disprove the guilty side, and prove the innocent side', as you stated in one of your comments.

So, the reason that you are trying so hard to dismiss the analysis, is because you actually think that Adkins and BJD are innocent?

Jen said...

Anon 2:23

You seem really invested is defending Adkins, and it's making sense the more I read of your comments. This comment in particular stands out, as it ends in a very familiar refrain...

"If it were in response to harassment would he begin it with a greeting?
--------------------
he ends with "Billie is just looking to stir up shit like always." that is your proof that he was angry or w/e when he wrote that "email"
starting out with "Hi", i'm betting i know where that was sent, there are maybe 3 admins to that page and he wouldn't have known who he was talking to, but at the time they were on "friendly" terms.
hope that helps"

Yes indeed, that did help!

theArobs said...

Off Topic:

Something is off with the "Apostle" Ron Carpenter's story about his wife/Co-Pastor, Hope. He is clearly being deceptive in his statements quoted in this article as well as during the "Message to the Congregation." I wonder who has any concern for this woman's actual whereabouts or her general state of well being???

http://m.wbtv.com/#!/newsDetail/23701174

theArobs said...

Here's another link to a news story that has a link to the "Message to the Congregation" dated 10-13-13. This is a local "MegaChurch" in my area. Questions to ask? Deception indicated? Where is Hope?

http://www.foxcarolina.com/story/23701174/pastors-sermon?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Anonymous said...

rapture, she the only one who made it.

Anonymous said...

He didn't just up and leave...that would be taboo. The work ethic demonstrates his honesty?

I used to think that. Someone was loading an employees things in a box and I asked why. They said the person just walked out and didn't return. I was shocked! Do people really do that? Yes! But, they could have fired that person with no excuse whatsoever also. Sounds harsh, but, that's the way it is. Sooooo....what ethic?

His photos tells the terror of the the midwest. His biker dad, his Halloween scare tactics, her downloading "serial killer" things...and at work of all places!

Just a couple days prior to Halloween, a car sat in front of a neighbor's home...then progressed to mine. It had been by earler. Came by two-three more times. At 10:09 a similar one. At 10:13 a state trooper. At 10:16...one ring to my phone...no data.

This is why we have to sleep fully armed in the midwest.