Lindsey Baum # 5 9/28/09 - 10/4/09

[Northern Rose]

im still tryin to figure out who you can text someone that allegedly didnt have a cell phone at the time ::MonkeyTease:

MB did have a cell phone per MM...it was MK (Kayla) that did not have a cell phone, per some posting today....

IIRC someone had notice that one of Kayla's myspace accounts stated "updated by mobile" or something to that effect which would indicate it was via cell phone.  It may have been one of Lindsey's account but I thought it was Kayla's.

[Fanny Mae]

JESS STAR, I realize the thread has now gone in another direction, but I just read your post. I guess I will be the one monkey on the branch, but in the heat of a child being missing, I would STILL put that child first, and open my door for LE to take a look. I am not naive. I have had a background in LE, and have seen the good, the bad and the ugly. I do not know the LE here where I live now, but I would still let them in if it meant finding a 12 yr old alive or to find her remains if she wasn't. I would not hide behind my blinds and turn a blind eye. If they did find something suspicious, or thought they did, I would THEN retain someone in your capacity.

Now maybe the people in McCleary/Grays County know MORE about their local police there, and realize they have a history. That, I do not know. All I know is that the residents of where I live have respect for the LE, there is no bad gossip about them, and they are very visible and transparent and efficient. Until proven otherwise, I will hold that judgement.

If we are to be advocates for children, we should be able to "put ourselves out there" to a degree. I know Kona is paying the price. I cannot say how she feels at this point. I know she felt strongly enough to do something. Doing the right thing is not always easy, and it sometimes doesn't turn out the way we want it to. I have had things not turn out the way I wanted either, but at least I know I tried.

I will sit on the branch by myself on this if I have to. I have not changed my mind about it at all. JMO

And you are entitled to your view, Fanny Mae.  I respect that.  As I said in my post, I'm not trying to tell anyone what to do or to change anyone's mind.  We're all adults and can make our own decisions. 

Maybe I'm overreacting to the "If we are to be advocates for children . . ." portion of your post.  If I am, I apologize.  But I certainly don't need anyone to preach to me about what it means to be an advocate for children, or to suggest that I'm somehow less of an advocate because I'd be inclined to protect my family if faced with a situation like Kona is facing.  That offends me.  I "put my self out there" every day of the week, Fanny Mae, in ways I will not go into because, quite frankly, it's no one's business.  But I will say, it's all about ACTION, not words.  It's all about being PROACTIVE, not reactive. 

I meant no disrespect or not trying to preach to you or anyone. I was stating my own opinion. I am sorry you are offended and I apologize. I feel very strongly myself, and I see no reason for you to feel defensive and I am sorry if you do. This is one of the reasons I do not post much here. There is room for everyone's opinions, we do not have to agree. I will still sit on the branch by myself, if need be. I did not come here for a tongue lashing or to start a conflict. I am as concerned about Lindsey as everyone else.  JMO

I understand, thanks.  I wasn't offended by your opinion on consensual searches, nor am I being defensive.  I have nothing to be defensive about.  And you certainly have the right to let anyone into your home or onto your property for any reason whatsoever.  It's your prerogative, and I'm sure there are many many others that feel the same way.  I was just offended by what appeared to be a statement that questioned my dedication and devotion to advocating for children.  Again, maybe I was overreacting and, if so, I apologize. 

No, I have no reason to question your motives or dedication. I have been reading along for a long time on many of the thread where you are advocating. I respect your opinions, and admire what you do. I am sorry we crossed wires.   

Friends???                

[JessStar]

JESS STAR, I realize the thread has now gone in another direction, but I just read your post. I guess I will be the one monkey on the branch, but in the heat of a child being missing, I would STILL put that child first, and open my door for LE to take a look. I am not naive. I have had a background in LE, and have seen the good, the bad and the ugly. I do not know the LE here where I live now, but I would still let them in if it meant finding a 12 yr old alive or to find her remains if she wasn't. I would not hide behind my blinds and turn a blind eye. If they did find something suspicious, or thought they did, I would THEN retain someone in your capacity.

Now maybe the people in McCleary/Grays County know MORE about their local police there, and realize they have a history. That, I do not know. All I know is that the residents of where I live have respect for the LE, there is no bad gossip about them, and they are very visible and transparent and efficient. Until proven otherwise, I will hold that judgement.

If we are to be advocates for children, we should be able to "put ourselves out there" to a degree. I know Kona is paying the price. I cannot say how she feels at this point. I know she felt strongly enough to do something. Doing the right thing is not always easy, and it sometimes doesn't turn out the way we want it to. I have had things not turn out the way I wanted either, but at least I know I tried.

I will sit on the branch by myself on this if I have to. I have not changed my mind about it at all. JMO

And you are entitled to your view, Fanny Mae.  I respect that.  As I said in my post, I'm not trying to tell anyone what to do or to change anyone's mind.  We're all adults and can make our own decisions. 

Maybe I'm overreacting to the "If we are to be advocates for children . . ." portion of your post.  If I am, I apologize.  But I certainly don't need anyone to preach to me about what it means to be an advocate for children, or to suggest that I'm somehow less of an advocate because I'd be inclined to protect my family if faced with a situation like Kona is facing.  That offends me.  I "put my self out there" every day of the week, Fanny Mae, in ways I will not go into because, quite frankly, it's no one's business.  But I will say, it's all about ACTION, not words.  It's all about being PROACTIVE, not reactive. 

I meant no disrespect or not trying to preach to you or anyone. I was stating my own opinion. I am sorry you are offended and I apologize. I feel very strongly myself, and I see no reason for you to feel defensive and I am sorry if you do. This is one of the reasons I do not post much here. There is room for everyone's opinions, we do not have to agree. I will still sit on the branch by myself, if need be. I did not come here for a tongue lashing or to start a conflict. I am as concerned about Lindsey as everyone else.  JMO

I understand, thanks.  I wasn't offended by your opinion on consensual searches, nor am I being defensive.  I have nothing to be defensive about.  And you certainly have the right to let anyone into your home or onto your property for any reason whatsoever.  It's your prerogative, and I'm sure there are many many others that feel the same way.  I was just offended by what appeared to be a statement that questioned my dedication and devotion to advocating for children.  Again, maybe I was overreacting and, if so, I apologize. 

No, I have no reason to question your motives or dedication. I have been reading along for a long time on many of the thread where you are advocating. I respect your opinions, and admire what you do. I am sorry we crossed wires.   

Friends???                

I wouldn't have it any other way!

 

[Fanny Mae]

JESS STAR, I realize the thread has now gone in another direction, but I just read your post. I guess I will be the one monkey on the branch, but in the heat of a child being missing, I would STILL put that child first, and open my door for LE to take a look. I am not naive. I have had a background in LE, and have seen the good, the bad and the ugly. I do not know the LE here where I live now, but I would still let them in if it meant finding a 12 yr old alive or to find her remains if she wasn't. I would not hide behind my blinds and turn a blind eye. If they did find something suspicious, or thought they did, I would THEN retain someone in your capacity.

Now maybe the people in McCleary/Grays County know MORE about their local police there, and realize they have a history. That, I do not know. All I know is that the residents of where I live have respect for the LE, there is no bad gossip about them, and they are very visible and transparent and efficient. Until proven otherwise, I will hold that judgement.

If we are to be advocates for children, we should be able to "put ourselves out there" to a degree. I know Kona is paying the price. I cannot say how she feels at this point. I know she felt strongly enough to do something. Doing the right thing is not always easy, and it sometimes doesn't turn out the way we want it to. I have had things not turn out the way I wanted either, but at least I know I tried.

I will sit on the branch by myself on this if I have to. I have not changed my mind about it at all. JMO

And you are entitled to your view, Fanny Mae.  I respect that.  As I said in my post, I'm not trying to tell anyone what to do or to change anyone's mind.  We're all adults and can make our own decisions. 

Maybe I'm overreacting to the "If we are to be advocates for children . . ." portion of your post.  If I am, I apologize.  But I certainly don't need anyone to preach to me about what it means to be an advocate for children, or to suggest that I'm somehow less of an advocate because I'd be inclined to protect my family if faced with a situation like Kona is facing.  That offends me.  I "put my self out there" every day of the week, Fanny Mae, in ways I will not go into because, quite frankly, it's no one's business.  But I will say, it's all about ACTION, not words.  It's all about being PROACTIVE, not reactive. 

I meant no disrespect or not trying to preach to you or anyone. I was stating my own opinion. I am sorry you are offended and I apologize. I feel very strongly myself, and I see no reason for you to feel defensive and I am sorry if you do. This is one of the reasons I do not post much here. There is room for everyone's opinions, we do not have to agree. I will still sit on the branch by myself, if need be. I did not come here for a tongue lashing or to start a conflict. I am as concerned about Lindsey as everyone else.  JMO

I understand, thanks.  I wasn't offended by your opinion on consensual searches, nor am I being defensive.  I have nothing to be defensive about.  And you certainly have the right to let anyone into your home or onto your property for any reason whatsoever.  It's your prerogative, and I'm sure there are many many others that feel the same way.  I was just offended by what appeared to be a statement that questioned my dedication and devotion to advocating for children.  Again, maybe I was overreacting and, if so, I apologize. 

No, I have no reason to question your motives or dedication. I have been reading along for a long time on many of the thread where you are advocating. I respect your opinions, and admire what you do. I am sorry we crossed wires.   

Friends???                

I wouldn't have it any other way!

 

[Madre]

Is MB being left to decide these things or is she being advised by someone(s)? MM said LE had told MB that HO was not worth a darn, how would she know? Was it only LE? Did anyone else know?
Was she told something about TE from a person in the inner circle? Is she relying on anyone to give her information? If so, who?

I would like to know why LRC has said they are unlikely to help with this search again.  I think it is time to call TES again!!

JessStar, can you elaborate on this?  If not, I certainly understand.  Thank you

[Northern Rose]

credits to KageyKaren at WS posted today at 4:42pm:

I'v been surfing again & all I can do is shake my head for many reasons. One of the subjects that is left to me to answer since I'm the one that made the statement that many of you read but never commented on. With honesty and confidence I shared Tim Miller's from TE financial backer and author post here. She's a great gal and so helpful in the Caylee case. I talked personally with the secreatary who spoke with Melissa Baums "neighbor" & 4 wks. later Melissa Baum. There are mistruths (thank you CA Caylee's grandma, for my new word) that have been spoken concerning a search. The secretary stated she thought both conversations were odd for first time callers. the neighbor stated she was calling on her own to get info about their services and would share with mom b. but that mom b was going to go with LRC's. Mom B called them, finally and told them she was sorry for the delay but LE had her computer. She then thanked them but told them she was using LRC. It seemed to me that Michelle B may have told her to use them. Secretary stated she told both women their service is free and if she changed her mind to give them a call. It was also shared with neighbor that Tes brings in their own volunteers (40-50) will train civillian volunteers as well. LRC is great but I would have picked TES to find my daughter so early into an investigation. JMO if my daughter could be in a forrest. There is way to much secretiveness going on so I took the time to clear up one subject for whatever it may be worth at this point. 

I don't understand this post at all. Can someone please summerize it for me?

BTW, thank you Northern Rose for such a good detailing of who Michelle is. I am not up on caylee's case and do not know the inner workings. Your post helped me to understand this person is thought of as an opportunist.

You are very welcome.  From what I have seen of her interviews as a spokesperson, heard her radio show, read her statements and watched as she created one organization after another ( the latest two being National Vigil for Hope and another company that she is now involved with which has something to do with uploading all the private and confidential information about your child(ren) and being charged yearly to have it housed on an outside server without even an inkling of the safekeeping of said information or that the police would even go there when they have their own databases) I would not call Ms Bart if I lost a ring down a drain!  Just my opnion...

[darla]

Thanks to all who answered my question. Will be reading trying to get caught up. There is just something that just ain't adding up. Can't put my finger on it yet.
And why anyone would turn down Tim Miller blows my mind.

[Madre]

Thanks to all who answered my question. Will be reading trying to get caught up. There is just something that just ain't adding up. Can't put my finger on it yet.
And why anyone would turn down Tim Miller blows my mind.

I know what you mean Darla.

[Fanny Mae]

Thanks to all who answered my question. Will be reading trying to get caught up. There is just something that just ain't adding up. Can't put my finger on it yet.
And why anyone would turn down Tim Miller blows my mind.

Exactly, and mine too. Thanks for explaining Michelle Bart. You were much more diplomatic that I could have said it. 

[JessStar]

Is MB being left to decide these things or is she being advised by someone(s)? MM said LE had told MB that HO was not worth a darn, how would she know? Was it only LE? Did anyone else know?
Was she told something about TE from a person in the inner circle? Is she relying on anyone to give her information? If so, who?

I would like to know why LRC has said they are unlikely to help with this search again.  I think it is time to call TES again!!

JessStar, can you elaborate on this?  If not, I certainly understand.  Thank you

I'm sorry, I can't say because I really don't know.  But based upon what I was told, LRC is still working closely with LE and the family.  They just are not planning to return to Washington at this time to conduct another ground search. 

[Northern Rose]

credits to KageyKaren at WS posted today at 4:42pm:

I'v been surfing again & all I can do is shake my head for many reasons. One of the subjects that is left to me to answer since I'm the one that made the statement that many of you read but never commented on. With honesty and confidence I shared Tim Miller's from TE financial backer and author post here. She's a great gal and so helpful in the Caylee case. I talked personally with the secreatary who spoke with Melissa Baums "neighbor" & 4 wks. later Melissa Baum. There are mistruths (thank you CA Caylee's grandma, for my new word) that have been spoken concerning a search. The secretary stated she thought both conversations were odd for first time callers. the neighbor stated she was calling on her own to get info about their services and would share with mom b. but that mom b was going to go with LRC's. Mom B called them, finally and told them she was sorry for the delay but LE had her computer. She then thanked them but told them she was using LRC. It seemed to me that Michelle B may have told her to use them. Secretary stated she told both women their service is free and if she changed her mind to give them a call. It was also shared with neighbor that Tes brings in their own volunteers (40-50) will train civillian volunteers as well. LRC is great but I would have picked TES to find my daughter so early into an investigation. JMO if my daughter could be in a forrest. There is way to much secretiveness going on so I took the time to clear up one subject for whatever it may be worth at this point. 

I don't understand this post at all. Can someone please summerize it for me?

BTW, thank you Northern Rose for such a good detailing of who Michelle is. I am not up on caylee's case and do not know the inner workings. Your post helped me to understand this person is thought of as an opportunist.

see MM's post here at:
http://scaredmonkeys.net/index.php?topic=5994.60


Also, if my daughter was missing I would not be waiting for 4 weeks to contact TES (because LE had my computer?), after this neighbor told me about their services.  Also, the secry at TES did NOT decline their services, rather that if MB changed her mind to let them know.    Another inconsistency?

I am not sure when Ms Bart interjected her services (whatever they may be) into this case, however I could fully see her not being supportive of TES or wanting them involved based on her backing of Cindy Ant when TES was trying to conduct a search for Caylee whether she was dead or alive and Cindy left a scathing and vile message for Tim telling him not to challenge her as he would lose.

[Tracygirl]

maybe she didn't know who tim miller is, I certainly do not. maybe someone advised her and she listened? I will ask and if no one knows the answer I will try to find out. Who is advising MB? Who is in charge of this all?

[Leroy]

maybe she didn't know who tim miller is, I certainly do not. maybe someone advised her and she listened? I will ask and if no one knows the answer I will try to find out. Who is advising MB? Who is in charge of this all?

In my opinion, LE is advising her. 

[Tracygirl]

im still tryin to figure out who you can text someone that allegedly didnt have a cell phone at the time ::MonkeyTease:

MB did have a cell phone per MM...it was MK (Kayla) that did not have a cell phone, per some posting today....

IIRC someone had notice that one of Kayla's myspace accounts stated "updated by mobile" or something to that effect which would indicate it was via cell phone.  It may have been one of Lindsey's account but I thought it was Kayla's.

I thought it was said Kayle had a cell phone. hmmm

[Madre]

maybe she didn't know who tim miller is, I certainly do not. maybe someone advised her and she listened? I will ask and if no one knows the answer I will try to find out. Who is advising MB? Who is in charge of this all?

In my opinion, LE is advising her. 

Leroy, do you think LE would advise her not to go with Tim Miller?

[Leroy]

maybe she didn't know who tim miller is, I certainly do not. maybe someone advised her and she listened? I will ask and if no one knows the answer I will try to find out. Who is advising MB? Who is in charge of this all?

In my opinion, LE is advising her. 

Leroy, do you think LE would advise her not to go with Tim Miller?

IIRC, TES opted not to come because LRC was involved already.  LE discredited HO which is why MB did not accept him with open arms.  I would not trust any type of Law enforcement that would advise me not to have Tim Miller...JMO

I'm not very familiar with HO though.

[Tracygirl]

maybe she didn't know who tim miller is, I certainly do not. maybe someone advised her and she listened? I will ask and if no one knows the answer I will try to find out. Who is advising MB? Who is in charge of this all?

In my opinion, LE is advising her. 

However MM says LE is not advising her or keeping her up to date...In tracy they had a liaison for Sandra's mom, wonder if there is one for MB or is she relying on friends?

[Leroy]

a couple things I can answer......

MB had never met kona or her family and has no beef with her

MB didnt turn down assistance from texas equisearch group. she was in contact with them via phone and when she metioned that LRC was going to come up, TE said they would hold off and let LRC take charge.

HO was discredited by LE and MB was told it was her choice to use him if she wanted. When your child goes missing, I believe youre going to listen to what LE tells you because you dont know any differently. Its not that she didnt want and or appreciate any additional help.

As for JB, LJ, and MK all walking with out knowing who would spend the night where ect,,, this was a common occurrance for jb and JL to walk MK home so she didnt walk alone and then they would back together.  If LJ had stayed over then JB being a 12 yr old boy coming back home alone the short distance wasnt such a big deal.

BUMP

[Tracygirl]

I am off for a bit. I'll check in later.

[Tracygirl]

yes leroy you are correct, she did say that, although is there another statement somewhere I have read in the past day or so about LE not telling her things and keeping her up to date?

Be back later!