First of all, I would like to take this opportunity to thank CA and RVS, without whom this blog would not even possible. As in it never would have even been born in the first place. These two are near and dear to me, almost as close as my own parents.University seems like a distant memory, but 10 years can feel like an awfully long time. Wait, why did I mention university and 10 years. No idea, but I say all sorts of silly things for nor reason.
By the way, have you ever heard of the word doppelganger? Look it up some time. Just throwing that out there, not mentioning it for any particular reason.
I don’t have much new information to report, so this report will simply be dedicated to rejoinders against some of the crazy accusations against me. As you will see, all of these accusations are false, as they usually are.
As if I didn’t have enough enemies as it is, it seems I’ve acquired a number of new ones.
Via the execrable LibbyandAbby subreddit, an hysterical woman named “Xanaxarita” complains:
1. I am sex pervert because I took crime scene pics and drew circles around the bodies of two naked teenage girls (Teenage Girl Sex Panic). How dare I do this!
Response to this shrill harridan:
1. The crime scene pics did not come from me. They came from screen captures from a video done by a theoretical physicist analyzing the crime scene with graphics software. I spoke with the theoretical physicist, and I regard him as credible. The screenshots were done by a 43 year old woman I work closely with. I know this woman very well.
There is no way she manipulated those photos. It was this woman who also drew the lines around both girls’ bodies. I had been staring at those pics a while and had not been able to see either body until she did that.
Anyway, I didn’t zoom in on, capture, apply filters to, or draw lines around those photos. A 43 year old woman drew the lines. Obviously she’s the sick sex pervert. So go take it up with her. As far the prudish accusation that I posted “two photos of naked teenage girls,” you can’t see anything. They just look like stick figures. They could be wearing clothes, they could be naked, there’s no way to tell. So it’s irrelevant whether they have clothes on or not.
Of course, the bullshit couldn’t possible end with a few idiotic charges. They’ve always got more.
The latest comes from a thread on that same LibbyandAbby den of iniquity on Reddit.
1. This allegation is similar to 1 above. The allegation is that I deliberately manipulated graphics software to create a fake and fraudulent image of a large plush bear.
2. The leader of that group, A True Lady, whose not exactly a friend of mine if you catch my drift, alleges that I am being trolled by people who are feeding me false information. She’s been alleging this for some time now. Apparently she saw a woman posting around some thread, apparently a conversation with me (?) in which she is trolling me by deliberately feeding me false information. There were a group of people laughing along with this woman who said she was trolling me.
Update: This may be a reference to the first Search Party Woman who gave us the crime scene information that we originally ran. Apparently, like Leaker, she may be cutting and running and saying that she never said any of those things about the crime scene, and in fact, she was just trolling me the whole time with a bunch of crazy lies.
3. A True Lady also says the testimony of my search party member I used for crime scene reports is a lie because she thinks she knows the search party member in question, and this woman says she never spoke to me.
Responses to these charges:
1. As far as manipulating the helicopter photos to create a fraudulent photo of a plush bear, that’s just false. The truth is that I have no idea how to work any graphics program, and I’ve never used one in my life. I’m unable to do the first thing with any program like that, and I don’t even have a good graphics program anyway.
2. First of all, deliberately pretending to be a source and feeding journalists information you know is false to make them look bad is about as low as you can get. We journalists want to flay you types alive. There’s nothing worse than that. And what is this supposed to prove anyway? We journalists are as good as our sources, and a lot of the information we get, is impossible to fact check it anyway.
Of course, as a trained journalist (BA in Journalism), I work hard to develop and cultivate good sources. That’s one of the things they teach you. I’m thinking back to all of the information I have been putting out lately, and it’s all coming from good, trusted sources, almost all of them middle aged women who I work closely with. I trust them all implicitly.
Of course I get people coming to me all the time feeding me all sorts of information and showing me their latest POI in the case, which is never Bridge Guy because I know who Bridge Guy is. So people feed me junk, mostly unwittingly, all the time. As a rule, I tend not to run that stuff. It goes in the round file in my head. Nobody is trolling me and feeding me bad information. All of my sources are excellent. They are almost all women, and I have good relationships with all of them.
Update: If this is in fact the original Search Party Woman who first gave us that information now taking it back, that’s unfortunate, but there is a precedent for that. Leaker’s testimony obviously named Mr. X without stating his name openly. After people figured out that he was talking about Mr. X, he went back on his word and said Mr. X was innocent. The reason he did this is obvious.
After it came out that Mr. X was a suspect, a big hullabaloo was created, and Leaker felt responsible and probably guilty for shining the spotlight on Mr. X. So he took it back like a big coward and said Mr. X was innocent, thereby resolving himself of responsibility for outing Mr. X.
Something similar may be happening with the Search Party Woman. She went public to us via three separate sources with the same story about a bizarre crime scene. It may well have come out that she was the one leaking this information. Perhaps she got some heat for that. As in the Leaker case, she may be doing damage control by saying it was all lies anyway, and she was just making stuff up and trolling me. Anyway, see the answer to question 3 about why we don’t think she was making up lies and trolling us.
For one thing, she gave this information to three separate people: a popular podcaster and two separate women I work closely with, a 45 year old woman and a 64 year old woman. She trolled all three of us with a pile of lies, including two of her middle aged female colleagues? I doubt it. Also, we checked this woman out before we ran her stuff. Our determination was that this was a middle aged housewife with a couple of kids, absolutely ordinary in every way, and not the sort of person you would ever expect to make stuff up.
3. I doubt if A True Lady has met this search party member because the Search Party Lady is the one who told us about dolls, huge plush toys, etc. all of which A True Lady dismisses as nonsense.
I need to clear some things up here. The testimony of this search party woman came to me via a popular crime podcaster. Later this search party member spoke to two other middle aged women I work closely with. What she told them lined up perfectly with the information relayed to me from the podcaster. One thing you need to understand. I hardly talk to any of these sources you see me quoting. I get almost zero first-hand information. All of the information in my Delphi posts comes to me second or third hand.
In addition, another female member of the search party, a younger woman this time, came to one of my female colleagues above and told her separately what she saw at the crime scene. It lined up very well with what the first woman told us via three separate sources, all of which lined up well.