Those who's interest is justice for murdered children follow the cases, listen to the statements, read the media reports, etc. Because of the interest in justice, they post their opinions about such cases.
In the case of Hailey Dunn, the police and the public focused in on the mother, Billie Dunn, and her boyfriend, Shawn Adkins. From national television and the police affidavit, we learned exactly why the focus was upon these two. In news commentary, on television, radio and online, this case has had the unique angle where not a single commentator, expert, profiler, analyst, retired investigator, etc, has disputed the police affidavit, or the known facts.
In other words, no one thinks the mother and boyfriend are innocent.
How do they defend her?
They do not attack the facts. They do not dispute the affidavit. They do not challenge the failed polygraphs, the drugs, the pornography, and so on. They do not attack the analysis that shows deception. They do not assert anything as true.
They attempt to attack personally, those who disagree with them. This is similar to the case of Amanda Knox, where, in a debate, rather than debate the assertions made, they went after credentials; that is, the background of what was said, rather than what was said, itself.
Of course, there is a sense to this: If you were going to learn how to hit a baseball, would you learn from Ted Williams, or from someone who has never played the game? This is a straw man argument, yet it is employed as a matter of diversion.
Yet, if statements are made asserting one thing or another, should the statements, themselves, be ignored?
This is similar to the sensitivity noted when one avoids answering a question: the question, itself, is "sensitive"to the subject: the subject has a reason to avoid answering the question.
If there is a sensible, logical, intelligent disputation of the facts, I will post it. In 2 plus years of the case of missing teen Hailey Dunn, I have not received a single one.
Defending Shawn Adkins and Billie Dunn
I have not found anyone alleging that the spokesman of the two, Dunn, has told the truth. I have not read, for example, analysis claiming, "this sentence is structured in a way that suggests veracity" or anything similar.
Neither have I heard radio hosts address the facts and assert why they believe Duun, over the affidavit, for example. In the lengthy interview analyzed, we heard the hosts agree with her, referencing prior conversations so that they could allow Dunn to explain her position, but they made no assertions of their own: only to "ignore the trolls"; that is, those who, in online media, believe the police.
The only defense I have heard comes from the mother, herself. Let's examine her assertions.
1. The mother claimed that a conspiracy exists between various elements of law enforcement.
2. The mother claimed that the polygraph, itself, was deliberately rigged to make her and Shawn Adkins fail.
3. The mother claimed the motive for the conspiracy among at least 4 different law enforcements, came from only one law enforcement branch: They did not want to search for Hailey.
This means that one branch (Colorado City Police) did not want to search for Hailey, therefore, they conspired with the Texas Rangers, the FBI and the District Attorney's office, to:
a. Lie under oath on the affidavit
b. Rig a polygraph machine to give false results
This means that those who contributed to this conspircy, risked their own employment and freedoms, simply to honor Colorado City Police Department's desire to not search. The desire to not search was not labeled with a motive, such as laziness, or expense. No motive given by Dunn, yet she asserts that the Texas Rangers, the FBI and the DA's investigator would all have to agree, risking their careers and their freedom, to enter into a criminal conspiracy to falsely accuse Dunn and Adkins, of whom few, if any, can claim to have known either Dunn or Adkins, before the case was reported.
Why would CC police officer make a false affidavit, knowing that she would face not only loss of employment, but face criminal charges?
Why would Texas Rangers risk the same to honor the CC officer?
Why would the FBI agents involved be willing to risk their careers, their freedom and their agency's reputation in order to go along with such a conspiracy? What would they gain?
Why would the DA's office risk careers and face possible criminal charges?
Why would the polygrapher, only identified as "devil" and "snake" risk his reputation, career and his own freedom, to rig a polygraph machine to give false results, regarding a man and a woman he likely had not known, nor met prior to the case?
Can you imagine the personal risk he would have taken? He would lose his name, reputation, license, job and likely his freedom, as he would face criminal charges? Many who do, lose their homes to foreclosure, and end up in divorce.
All this just to falsely blame someone he likely had never met? Yet, this 'motive' went unchecked by the hosts who ingratiated themselves with the subject, rather than conduct an interview.
There would have to be motive to get all of these professionals involved, yet an online organization who wants to be respected by law enforcement hosted a radio program where this monstrosity of deception was allowed to go, not simply unchecked, but with the supportive affirmation of the hosts?
Any possible credibility in criminal analysis was lost in this one program where the credibility of several law enforcement agencies was ridiculed without challenge. Why didn't anyone challenge such extreme nonsense?
One might think that an online community of sleuthing crime would be supportive of law enforcement, and not supportive of juvenile and incredulous blathering by a cornered sociopath determined to cry that the sky is falling just to get the town to run. This was reminscient of Cindy Anthony's outrageous claims where she sent law enforcement running to and fro because of "Caylee sightings" when she knew precisely where Caylee was dumped. Recall that she even said that one sighting "had to be real" because it was an ER doctor who saw Caylee. This was more than just wasting resources of law enforcement by Cindy Anthony, it was an attempt to influence future jurors, which is a strong motivation for the guilty to go on television and radio.
Justice will come. The same blustering suspects disappoint their groupie following when they inevitably plead guilty to some charge or another. As the ranks of groupies thin, they will say "she only did it because she couldn't get a fair trial." This bothers judges who then ask pointed questions of the guilty party, forcing her to admit involvement.
Yet, there will be those who's lives are so desperately void of fulfillment that they will correspond in prison, bringing laughter to the incarcerated who are amused, yet hold the faithful followers in contempt. Recall the nature of liars:
Liars become so used to being believed that they often go very far, that is, too far, in their expectation of getting away with the deception, such as Casey Anthony walking down the hallway of Universal to her "office": think about what must have gone through her mind with each passing step. Like a computer running through files, she was seeking the word that would release her from the pressure.
People are always amazed at how many liars go ahead and take the polygraph, only to fail. It is a confidence in their own ability to lie which causes them to think of the audience as beneath them; hence, the contempt factor of liars.
Liars, that is, those who fabricate reality, hold the world in contempt. It is ingrained within them from childhood.
Charlie Manson, not even close to being the genius he was made out to be in the book, "Helter Skelter", received marriage proposals for decades in prison, from his faithful followers. My guess is that Scott Peterson likely receives the same (if he's permitted fan mail).
There will always be those who see in the sociopath, elements of their own failures and frailties
and will assimilate into a group that seeks to, somehow, bask in the spotlight the sociopath holds. For some, negative attention is better than being sentenced to something far worse than death:
Being declared inconsequential.
There is, perhaps, nothing worse in human existence than such a sentence.
Scott Peterson may have had his supporters, and certainly Foxy Knoxy has her share of male, love-lorn followers, and Charlie Manson is considered an "artist" by some, just as it is that fame brings attention, and to be able to move towards the attention of fame, even if it is infamy, brings a certain level of satisfaction to the follower. Recall the paintings of the "killer clown", John Wayne Gacy, or the love letters (and money) sent to Casey Anthony while she was in jail.
But is that all there is to such followers? Is it just the desire to be noticed and important? After all, everyone needs to be noticed in life, and even though these may be extremist, is there more to sociopath worship?
There is also the inflatable "me against the world" element that is so precious to the follower. There are those who seek out persecution and ridicule, and deliberately behave in a manner in which to provoke it. Like "professional protestors", the lower the number of supporters, the more empowered they feel. The greater the logic weighs against them, the stronger the response to it becomes.
In short, there is a love of "me against the whole world" that makes the individual feel that her actions, provocative and illogical, paid off dividends because attention has been received.
There is also the need to feel "special" or "different" from others that drives them into the realm of the illogical.
Everyone wants to feel important, or "special", but this desire is balanced against reality: I grew up dreaming that I would play for the NY Mets, yet was not gifted with the ability to do so.
I love to play guitar, but will never be good enough to be professional.
Each of us possesses gifts or talents, yet it is that whatever it is that makes us unique, is viewed in light of sobering reality. By age 16, I knew that I would not be a professional baseball player.
If you saw a 6 year old boy who said when he grows up, he is going to be a hockey player, you'd likely pat him on the head and smile, knowing the odds are extreme.
But what if you saw the same boy, at age 12, having never learned how to skate, say the same thing? You'd be concerned.
What if you saw the same boy, now at age 18, clinging to the same dream, though he has yet to learn to skate? You'd likely seek to get him professional intervention, as the same words, spoken 12 years ago which brought joy, now bring sorrow and pain.
The desire to be special must be placed in check by reality.
Those who call themselves 'psychics' are subject to this. They see themselves as unique and special and will even demand payment for it, yet are exhaustively void of reality.
They are deceptive.
There is something very attracting to "I see what no one else sees, therefore, I am special" about this. In a case where "everyone", that is, crime experts, commentators, profilers, etc, see a case clearly, there is something alluring about "standing up to the world" and being "the only one" or "one of just a few" who see it differently.
The humiliation remains a back room issue as the person, in the light of overwhelming proof, puts on a brave face and defies logic, reason and everything else to say "but I know differently!"
The Emperor's new clothes sparkle in beauty, so let us bow before his glory!
Psychics have not found a single missing child. Not a one. There have been so many cases, and so many years that have passed and so many thousands of people claiming this ability yet there is not a single successful case...
but psychics still get radio and television time with audiences.
Thus the dumbing down of a nation that watches an overweight, undereducated child practice poor manners and calls it entertainment is highlighted by the ratings. People still tune in to hear programs with "psychic" guests, who's own language shows deception that is unchecked by sobering reality.
Recall the humorous irony of a "psychic investigator" sending a statement for analysis, wanting to know if it was deceptive. Yet, place this against the cruelty of a TV psychic flying in on his own plane to meet with the desperate mother of a missing boy, offering his "assistance."
This did not receive much press, however, and did not show up on any 'psychic' television show.
Police in Maine finally announced that they would no longer take calls from 'psychics' regarding Ayla Reynolds. They could not afford the folly any longer.
In national cases, those who claim to be 'psychics' across the country number greatly, yet not a single one can find a single missing child, ever? Yet, the uneducated and the fearful continue to tune in. They are, in deed, bottom feeders who prey on the vulnerable, seeking fame and fortune from their nonsense.
Those who, in the face of all reason, evidence, sworn affidavits, failed polygraphs, admission of drugs and perversity still seek to bask in the glory of infamy do so, not by debating facts or even opinions but seek, in the image of their goddess, to shoot the messenger because they cannot answer the message.
When Private Investigator Mac Sanford took on the case of Hailey Dunn, the mother, Billie Jean Dunn, handed him a list of those who did not believe her. She asked him to dig up dirt upon them so that she could silence them.
This had nothing to do with finding Hailey, a fact not lost on the investigator.
Mac Sanford highlighted that this is the M/O of Billie Dunn.
Instead of saying "I don't know why I failed the polygraph; I told the truth", she chose to ridicule the polygrapher, semi-quoting her attorney in making fun of those involved in the administration of a polygraph test in the case of her missing daughter. "Snake" and "devil" she called him.
Instead of asserting truth, she attacks and ridicules.
If the master be so, the disciples must follow.
Many years ago, I saw a protest on television where mothers were carrying signs and walking in circles.
They were protesting the state of New York, saying that the state had taken away their children in order to make money. Besides these angry mothers there was a small crowd of supporters and as each was interviewed, they all said, in one way or another, the same thing: they were wonderful mothers who were unjustly targeted by the state. "I have known her for 10 years and she would never..."
As I watched this, with me was a social worker who said, "I know a few of them. If the public only knew what they had done to their children, they'd be protesting against them."
He went on to describe horrific abuse and neglect, all entangled with drugs, including one man who said that he hadn't "really" molested his daughter, he was only "demonstrating" on her what "bad men" do to little girls to "teach" her. I had met and interviewed the man, who gave me the same excuse.
He was convicted of sexual abuse.
Children have the right, as citizens of the United States, to be raised in a home free from fear.
When a mother has a child, she gives up the right to bring into the home the violent sex offender, for example. She is not "free" to expose her child to harm's way. When the social worker confronts the mother with the criminal record of the offender, along with internal records of the investigation, the mother is given a choice:
"Either get this monster out of your home, or send your child to live with relatives, but if you don't do something immediately, you are going to be in front of a judge who will make the decision for you."
Mothers who lose their children in situations like these sometimes seem to have wanted "out" of motherhood, and will even push the envelop far enough to have a court order removing the child, so that the mother can justify her screaming conscience and blame the state, the court, the social worker, or "that b**** ex wife of his", or anything else to excuse her negligence.
The mother is not "free" to marry anyone she chooses because the child has rights too.
These type of women are drawn one to another, just the way people marvel how pedophiles in communities are able to seek one another out, and be drawn to them.
I once met a woman who had lost custody of 5 children: consecutively, pregnancy after pregnancy.
Each child had a different father.
Each father was a sex offender.
How was that even possible? Yet, she showed me the court documents, over a period of almost 10 years, and sure enough, she had a child with a different sex offender each time.
People of similar interests have a tendency to draw together.
I suspect the same of the Dunn followers and their desire to defend the indefensible, even if it means inventing multitudes of Face book identities to 'garner support' of their cause.
If they only knew the contempt behind the 'gracious' words of the mother who 'thanks' them for not 'giving up Hope for Hailey'; that is, believing that Hailey is alive, because if Hailey is alive, Shawn Adkins cannot be accused of killing her, and neither can anyone else...if they only knew the contempt factor, would they reconsider their position? Yet, the "hope for Hailey" factor has its own motive:
influence a potential jury pool.
Sound familiar?
Remember Cindy Anthony?
 |
| Casey Anthony's mentor |
I also suspect that Casey Anthony Jury has emboldened some into resisting making a plea bargains with prosecutors. If anyone appeared to be in need of a plea bargain, it was Casey Anthony. She was found "not guilty" and to this day, people still scratch their heads about how Caylee died.
It is no surprise that Billie Dunn gave the private investigator a list of people who did not believe her lies, and asked him to dig up "dirt" on them so she could silence them. Unable to answer the argument, it is a "shoot the messenger" philosophy.
Justin DiPietro's surrogate family did the same, approaching a news reporter and asking for "dirt" in order to silence a small blogger who called for Justice for Baby Ayla.
The reporter declined the request.
Those who cannot answer the facts, seek to cloud the issues, much in the way that Jose Baez did to a jury who was not able to follow an argument.
"Snake" and "devil" are words close to the heart of Billie Dunn, even as she aimed them at police, and was even able to get a radio host representing an online community to join in disparaging law enforcement. She's that persuasive.
So it is that in more than 2 years, we have yet to find a single crime expert, profiler, analyst, retired investigator, etc, to say "Adkins and Dunn didn't do it...the police are wrong" anywhere.
Should the Dunn supporters put together such an argument, I will post it in the interest of justice for Hailey.
Until then, however, we only hear insults, name calling, and ridicule, as if the "police conspiracy" is widening or that the conspirators have fooled everyone.
In the words of Marc Klass, "Shame on you."
0 comments:
Post a Comment