Have to admit I haven't read it yet, and I should. Even though it's apparently not error-free, and is more a rumination on prostitution and society than a thorough examination of the case. I wonder what's missing from this timeline:
http://www.nhpr.org/post/lost-girls-abbreviated-timeline
I still very much like this map, though:
http://lostgirlsbook.com/case-map/
Meanwhile, don't forget to join this censorship-free board!
http://s3.excoboard.com/lisk
Monday, July 29, 2013
Wednesday, July 24, 2013
Latest Atlantic City "news"
I have to wonder if a story like this is placed just to try to spook suspects they're watching, maybe influence them to take certain actions.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/07/2...-2006-unsolved/
The police are considering "more than one" POI, they say; good to know, but for how long? A year, two years? There's nothing in the story, that I can see, that implies that anything new is going on with the case at all.
Makes you wonder.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/07/2...-2006-unsolved/
The police are considering "more than one" POI, they say; good to know, but for how long? A year, two years? There's nothing in the story, that I can see, that implies that anything new is going on with the case at all.
Makes you wonder.
Tuesday, July 23, 2013
New LISK Message Board
http://s3.excoboard.com/lisk
Join, contribute, make suggestions. I'm still messing with the layout looks.
Talk about puppies if you like, but also don't worry about discussing LISK theories in detail - nothing will be censored for being too controversial. Only blatant trollism will be omitted.
Why is WS's LISK Thread in the "Parking Lot"?
The 48 Hours show the other night was the most-watched TV show that day:
http://tv.broadwayworld.com/article/CBSs-48-HOURS-is-Saturdays-1-Program-in-Viewers-Households-20130723
Presumably, something like that might generate traffic to a crime board. But it's difficult to even find the LISK thread in the table of contents at WebSleuths, and that's because several months back the thread was relegated to their "Parking Lot". Not up in the section with other live cases, but in a catch-all everything-else area.
Why? The stated reason was that someone had been banned from the board, started a blog, and was now cutting-and-pasting WS posts onto their blog. Or something like that; it didn't make much sense to me. So, the reasoning went, by putting the thread in an area where the material can't be read by "guests" but which requires that a member sign into it, no one who had been banned could have access to it.
Sounds fishy to me. For a while I considered the possibility that WS admin was trying to help LE out by making the area sign-in only; if the actual LISK likes to read about himself, seeing who is reading the posts at all times could be instructive. Eventually I gave up on that idea; it's too much of a stretch to think the WS people would be that much on the ball.
I think the real reason is that posts in the Parking Lot are "private" and won't turn up in search engine results. Like they did when James Dolan, owner of Newsday and half of Long Island, was mentioned in connection with one of his offices being located a couple of blocks from one of the motels where one or more GB4 victims were last staying. Having an ex-member copy-and-paste content is mildly problematic, having Dolan threaten a lawsuit is a monster headache that WS can't endure.
http://tv.broadwayworld.com/article/CBSs-48-HOURS-is-Saturdays-1-Program-in-Viewers-Households-20130723
Presumably, something like that might generate traffic to a crime board. But it's difficult to even find the LISK thread in the table of contents at WebSleuths, and that's because several months back the thread was relegated to their "Parking Lot". Not up in the section with other live cases, but in a catch-all everything-else area.
Why? The stated reason was that someone had been banned from the board, started a blog, and was now cutting-and-pasting WS posts onto their blog. Or something like that; it didn't make much sense to me. So, the reasoning went, by putting the thread in an area where the material can't be read by "guests" but which requires that a member sign into it, no one who had been banned could have access to it.
Sounds fishy to me. For a while I considered the possibility that WS admin was trying to help LE out by making the area sign-in only; if the actual LISK likes to read about himself, seeing who is reading the posts at all times could be instructive. Eventually I gave up on that idea; it's too much of a stretch to think the WS people would be that much on the ball.
I think the real reason is that posts in the Parking Lot are "private" and won't turn up in search engine results. Like they did when James Dolan, owner of Newsday and half of Long Island, was mentioned in connection with one of his offices being located a couple of blocks from one of the motels where one or more GB4 victims were last staying. Having an ex-member copy-and-paste content is mildly problematic, having Dolan threaten a lawsuit is a monster headache that WS can't endure.
No Rehab Clinic for CPH
MG and CPH have a conversation during the latest 48 Hours where he says to her, approximately, "And this talk about running a rehab clinic - I don't run a rehab clinic." Sounds to me like MG had been confusing CPH with oft-discussed local resident Steven Yohay, who did/does indeed run a rehab clinic (and is some piece of work in his own right).
Yohay, in fact, is one of the odder and creepier characters out there; the only problem with connecting him to SG's disappearance is that there's absolutely nothing to indicate that he ever had contact with her.
Yohay, in fact, is one of the odder and creepier characters out there; the only problem with connecting him to SG's disappearance is that there's absolutely nothing to indicate that he ever had contact with her.
Pak's Email to CBS
I was surprised not to see this mentioned on WS. At exactly 29:00 of the 48 Hours episode...
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50151326n
...there's an email sent (on June 5, 2012) from Pak to CBS. They just flash it up there for a second, but what can be read of it says:
Now, we don't know the context of what he'd been asked by CBS. His train of thought here might make sense if, for instance, he'd been asked "Did you touch her? If not, how close did you get to her? By the way, what movie actor did she remind you of?". Absent that series of questions, though, I think Pak's statement is a little odd. He's referring to chasing her through the neighborhood, not catching up, and then throws in a comment about her psychological state while in JB's house. A bit of jumping around, yes? One more gratuitous and unqualified psych analysis, I guess; fits in perfectly with Varrone's characterization of the 911 call (Varrone apparently doesn't know what the word "stupor" means, but I'm sure that doesn't stop him from using it all the time).
Question for Pak, just from that text: if you never got closer than 5 feet from her, that means that at least at some point you were that close - did she run off into the brush, duck down a street, just disappear into thin air? No one could accuse you of keeping too close of an eye on her, that's for sure.
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50151326n
...there's an email sent (on June 5, 2012) from Pak to CBS. They just flash it up there for a second, but what can be read of it says:
I never touched her. I was never closer than 5 feet away from her. When I saw her crouching behind the couch in a paranoid state she reminded me of Johnny depp in the movies...
Now, we don't know the context of what he'd been asked by CBS. His train of thought here might make sense if, for instance, he'd been asked "Did you touch her? If not, how close did you get to her? By the way, what movie actor did she remind you of?". Absent that series of questions, though, I think Pak's statement is a little odd. He's referring to chasing her through the neighborhood, not catching up, and then throws in a comment about her psychological state while in JB's house. A bit of jumping around, yes? One more gratuitous and unqualified psych analysis, I guess; fits in perfectly with Varrone's characterization of the 911 call (Varrone apparently doesn't know what the word "stupor" means, but I'm sure that doesn't stop him from using it all the time).
Question for Pak, just from that text: if you never got closer than 5 feet from her, that means that at least at some point you were that close - did she run off into the brush, duck down a street, just disappear into thin air? No one could accuse you of keeping too close of an eye on her, that's for sure.
Peter Brendt
The other day, on WS, someone posted a link to Peter Brendt's blog, and his comments regarding the 48 hours show. I hadn't seen the blog before, and found it interesting. Here's the link:
http://www.brendtandbrendt.com/
If you scroll down and read his comments about being banned from WS, you'll see a pretty fair representation of the types of conflicts Brendt ran into at WS. Brendt feels, generally, that if you didn't perceive a case as he did it's because you're an idiot, and he'd frequently stop just short of saying so directly. That is, of course, rather arrogant, and in moments of candor I'm sure Brendt realizes he's arrogant. But guess what? His posts were always interesting, he does have a background in criminal theory, and it was fun to argue with him about his intransigent attitudes. Not to be, though; at WS disagreement is rabidly non-PC and strictly verboten.
There are, however, some new members there with nice pictures of puppies and smiley emoticons.
http://www.brendtandbrendt.com/
If you scroll down and read his comments about being banned from WS, you'll see a pretty fair representation of the types of conflicts Brendt ran into at WS. Brendt feels, generally, that if you didn't perceive a case as he did it's because you're an idiot, and he'd frequently stop just short of saying so directly. That is, of course, rather arrogant, and in moments of candor I'm sure Brendt realizes he's arrogant. But guess what? His posts were always interesting, he does have a background in criminal theory, and it was fun to argue with him about his intransigent attitudes. Not to be, though; at WS disagreement is rabidly non-PC and strictly verboten.
There are, however, some new members there with nice pictures of puppies and smiley emoticons.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)