Saturday, October 19, 2013

What Are Your Thoughts on the Coveralls?

  • What were your thoughts about the coveralls as you read through the analysis?

    Most of the analysis was written by Kaaryn Gough, who you may now see why I called her one of our nation's top analysts.

    Three Questions for you to answer in the Comments Section:

    1. Did your thoughts go through changes as you read through it?  

    2 What impact did the commentary have on your thinking?

    3. What impact did your knowledge of the case have on your thinking?

    Here is a sample of someone who wrote me a series of thoughts as she read through the analysis . It is interesting to note how her thinking evolved. The spaces denote the messages as she sent them over two days time. You can see that she is, intuitively, understanding the concept of sensitivity indicators.

    It is vital for you to understand why "so, since, therefore, because" is so very sensitive.

    It shows that the subject is anticipating being asked, "So, why did you...?"

    It is on their mind and it is why Avinoam Sapir has given the reason "why", in an open statement, the highest level of sensitivity in the color coding.

    Her comments are intelligent and show the ability to think through something by asking herself questions...

    Oh, and just so you're aware....I work with oilfield guys, tower climbers, transmission line guys, well guys, septic guys, etc...they ALL call their clothes "issues". It's a term used for FR clothing paid for by the company, because the FR's keep them cooler and has a flame-retardant chemical built into the material. Even though I'm "not from 'round here", I know these guys always refer to those clothes as "issues". It means the company "issued" them to the employee, and that's how much they have to turn back in when they're done with the job.

  • WAIT - could he have specifically needed his FR's that night???

  • The coveralls are huge, because he turned them in the very next day. Because he was "done with the job". I never caught it until now. And you want to know WHY he used those issues? Because they would have been scheduled to be sent to the uniform cleaner the minute he turned them in!!!!!!!

  • OK, I'm on a roll here! The significance of reporting her missing Tuesday afternoon was to make sure the uniform was turned back in (where it would be sent off to the uniform cleaner) BEFORE Hailey was reported missing! Then, that allowed them to build the story for the rest of the day around Hailey going to Mary Beth's. By the time she was reported missing at 3pm Tuesday, those coveralls might have been scheduled to be long gone.
  • Today

  • It all sort of hit me as I explained the coveralls!

  • It also explains why he "inserted" the information about initialing the coveralls. He WANTED his coveralls to be accounted for with the uniform cleaners, so they would check them and find nothing!
    He was banking on the chemicals they use -- such as soda ash -- to pull out any blood or DNA evidence!


Nic said...

1. Did your thoughts go through changes as you read through it?

Not exactly. I remember SA commenting in a "na-na-nana-naaa" fashion about the overalls being returned the next day and it being captured on video as proof (i.e., not missing). It came across like a response to the talk around the overalls on your site, Peter. Like, he thought of [that] already and there was nothing under "that" rock so for "us" to move on. That he even specifically addressed it in the manner he did, made me take note. I thought, then, there might be a 3rd pair of overalls. I posted today that the word "took" is a word also used when something is missing/has been stolen.

I don't know how companies manage that kind of inventory. Someone posted that there are barcodes asociated with the employees' names so that the right overalls are redirected back to the right employee after they've been cleaned. If there was a third pair he "took", then it would appear that his inventory was present and accounted for/his story "lined up" when LE went back to investigate SA's statement about returning his coveralls.

2 What impact did the commentary have on your thinking?

Karen was great at breaking down the "why" and her commentary just tied up where her analysis was taking the reader very nicely.

3. What impact did your knowledge of the case have on your thinking?

? You mean whether I agreed with Karen's analysis or would be open to her analysis? I think she was spot on and was able to flesh out "why" the overalls seemed important. Like why SA tried to disuade anyone from thinking they were key to anything.

Peter, the comments from your reader are really interesting. I find it helpful to read posts by readers who can provide an "in the know" type of perspective.

Nic said...

There has been so much reported/written and commented upon this case. In hind sight I wish I had drawn a diagram about everything said about the timeline before/since Hailey went missing.

For me, there were three nagging thoughts about this case.

1) the coveralls
2) whether or not Hailey was pregnant (school video)
3) why did David leave so late (9:30/45?) for a sleepover. Those types of things are planned earlier in the day. Even earlier in the evening, like after dinner, if it's last minute. If my teenager came to me at 9:30 to say he was going to his friend's for a sleepover, I'd be saying it was too late to go out and to pick another night. Alternatively, if my kid came to me at 9:30 asking if his friend could sleep over, I'd say, "No. It's too late, "now". Pick another night."


Anonymous said...

It is possible to have another pair, taken from another employee's locker. Then they were put in the bin, and counted as there. There is a barcode tag sewn into each garment, and matched to an employee.

In our company, the uniform company places the lockers, and a dirty 'bin'. Techs arrive to find their locker filled. The clothes are changed out each week. Some techs take them home to wash in their own detergent, or to have them starched the way they prefer.

Trigger said...

I agree, Nic

Shawn had already thought about his "coverall cover up" before he went back to his place of employment and fabricated the rest of his alibi.

Why would Shawn take home a pair of work "issue" coveralls for the weekend when he had a work locker to store them in?

He must have used them to conceal Hailey's body when he transported it to his place of disposal.

REK said...

The comment about the open locker for his co-workers to take things makes me wonder if its a cover for a missing pair. Was one of the pairs truly there in the first place? did he take two home, dispose of one, and brought the other one back as an alibi to show that all of them should have been there and accounted for..and by leaving the locker open..if one of them was missing he could blame the co-workers

Anonymous said...

I found Kaaryn's analysis to be very thoughtful, especially because she is so careful with what the words suggest as opposed to drawing definitive conclusions. I believe that the coveralls brought in are likely separate from the two issued because of her analysis.

The above analysis I don't think much of. It's speculation about Adkins' behavior and has little to do with the statement and analysis of it.

For example:

"Because they would have been scheduled to be sent to the uniform cleaner the minute he turned them in!!!!!!!"

"By the time she was reported missing at 3pm Tuesday, those coveralls might have been scheduled to be long gone."

Which is it? We can't know. I tend to think that the statement brings up the possibility there were three coveralls, and that the one turned in was not the same as what he was issued. But the above speculation infers that he was relying on Cintas to remove blood and DNA implicating him in a murder. I don't see any flags from the email suggesting that. Further, he can't hope that the co-workers steal them and they get washed by Cintas. Which comes out in the statement? The former.

I agree with what Lemon says about his taking something. He lists items in his locker then puts an "etc." Later he refers to "the belongings I left in my locker" qualifying them, suggesting there was a belonging he did not leave in his locker.


Anonymous said...

for me -- not sure if he even left the overalls in the locker, instead think he snuck them back out after parading them in front of security camera. he may have counted on the washing to get stains out - or maybe not -- seeing as sombody could have pulled them out of the bin upon seeing the stains - and that would have been a big risk. there's another reason I think he kept them - when he says they were surely stolen -- that makes he think he "stole" them. otherwise he would be crazy nervous that one of his work buddies was out there with damnin evidence against him -- but he doesn't seem to linger on that possability at all -- I think he never left them in his locker just faked it.

regardless -- whatever happened to them---

due to all the seemingly unnessary talk about them by him -- we can assume what is more basic and relevant -- they were covered with blood and he murdered Hailey.

Anonymous said...


elf said...

Coveralls have sleeves. Overalls have shoulder straps. They are 2 different types of clothing.

Anonymous said...

plural noun: coveralls

a full-length protective outer garment often zipped up the front.

told you coverallS was plural.

correct grammar would be
the coverallzez tagz. he is consistent with not pluralizing the second noun that needs to also to be pluralized.
two pair
coveralls tag

so the word "tag" is not a sensitivity flag imo in this case.

as i read the analysis, i loled more and more each line. does that count?

GetThem said...

Before I answer the 3 questions, I have to say KUDOS to the anonymous person who sent their thoughts. I think she is on to something.

1. Did your thoughts go through changes as you read through it?

2 What impact did the commentary have on your thinking?

3. What impact did your knowledge of the case have on your thinking?

elf said...

I'm from south west Missouri and we all coveralls or overalls even when it is just one pair.

Unknown said...

Just a thought; if Shawn really quit & then the plan was to wait to report her missing to insure the coveralls were cleaned to erase DNA, (as stated in article above), then he would have been more adamant about them knowing he was done, or quit. The way he did it, it could have been that those coveralls would still be sitting in the locker for a time until the Supervisors figured it out.
Remember that it was reported that Shawn came in to the locker room, (Billie sitting outside in running car), got a Dr. Pepper out of the machine, looked at one of them, and walked out without a word.
That was taking a big chance that someone would consider that his termination of employment, and send the coveralls off in wash load that day.

As a Manager, I would first assume something serious must have happened to make an employee (with no previous issues), come to work and leave suddenly. I would have assumed he got a call about a family emergency or had a personal issue that would make sense later. I wouldn't have touched the coveralls, thinking he would return & explain the emergency to me.

Remember that his father worked for the same Company as a truck driver. Odds are that he has coveralls also. I think we can all agree that Shawn isn't the most honest person breathing. I am sure with his love of horror flicks & Jason, that he has plenty of pairs of these type coveralls. I doubt he would have been trusting enough to allow anyone else to take care of the pair he used when handling Hailey. Remember, he moved Hailey's body and analysis showed most likely Billie didn't know where Hailey was finally disposed of. That was Shawn's only leverage, or guarantee, that Billie could not pull a fast one. He was clever enough to figure that out (and it worked) so I have no doubt he was/is the only person handling the coveralls used. I would be willing to bet that the coveralls used are very close to him today.
They were too obsessed with a violent demonic culture not to keep a token for themselves.

sidewalk super said...

I'm thinking the return coveralls just a ruse, especially since he makes sure he is seen getting soda on the property. All of it screams "hey, lookit me!"
Timeline alibi?

Anonymous said...

good point bonnie
"no doubt he was/is the only person handling the coveralls used. I would be willing to bet that the coveralls used are very close to him today.
They were too obsessed with a violent demonic culture not to keep a token for themselves."
Shawn had asked on that Jason website if anyone had ever dressed up like Jason and went on a killing spree for real. Billie sounded upset that LE had confiscated Shawn's mask. Did Billie have to give up her token to Shawn because he had lost his? What was it?

Turtle said...

I agree, depends on your dialect. How many pair doesn't matter to me. The sensitivity of the subject is more important to me.

Anonymous said...

Can I ask a question bc I am not as informed about this case as others here: If Shawn had wanted to get rid of a pair of coveralls by returning them to his company to get them washed bc they had evidence on them, wouldnt there have been a far simpler ways to go about destroying evidence--like he could have just destroyed the coveralls (burned them for example)?
As far as the analysis, it is excellent. I see how some of his language does have sensitivity indicators. Did it change my opinion? Not really. For some reason w this case, I feel like the perp is someone else. This guy Shawn Adkins just seems like he would be the most likely perp bc of his corrupt character, love for horror movies etc but I just have a gut feeling the actual perp is someone that people would be less likely to suspect. Although I am willing to believe that it could be Shawn.

Shelley said...

I just saw a YouTube video clip from the Mccanns.

Now I have read that rubbing your ear as you speak a lie, indicates deception....

Now add in a lil SA.

This clip mom and dad were point blank asked if they drugged the kids.

Gerry responds at first that
"Were not gonna comment on anything"

Then proceeds to comment

But there is absolutely no way we used any sedative drugs (Gerry then looks down and grabs ear) or anything like that"

Then goes into how the have core rated and will take any test (except a polygraph) etc etc

Ok "the Mccanns are innocent" people let's hear your rebuttal to this one.

Anonymous said...

According to an affidavit, LE have both coveralls (once seized from Shawn's locker and the other seized from Pille Jean's house) so why don't you contact LE and ask them whether or not the coveralls yielded any forensic evidence?

Anonymous said...

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

lind58 said...

Anon, It's also speculation imaginary guess to assume Shawn went to pick up a thumbnail or other item.

Why won't law enforcement give us an update on this case? I want an update. I want Shawn and Billie arrested! Have they even been interrogated this year? Does anyone know?

Anonymous said...

The overalls were their red herring. Right from the beginning, they were mentioned far too many times.

Great analysis Karen!

Anonymous said...

lind58, It's not an imaginary guess that Shawn went to pick up an item (or items) from his locker when he cleaned it out!

Sounds to me like LE needs to be interrogated themselves.

Anonymous said...

The overalls are a moot point, imo.

It's unlikely he'd been wearing them in the commission of disposing of a body. The fact they (coveralls) were on their way to the friendly dry cleaners for a cleansing is also moot. Axel grease, soil, diesel, oil, and almost anything else he would have come in contact with would pollute the finely detailed evidence the "experts" would need to try the case.

Nope! They were in the truck where they always remained.