“WE need PROOF…”

“…EVIDENCE… FACTS…”

I always wonder who this “we” refers to. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again- sock puppets flourish in this case. So is this a case of “we”- the sock puppets, or “we”- a group or, “we”- supporters of CPH? Who is this “we” who texted they believed my aunt’s faked accident was murder and “we” who found someone to take care of funeral arrangements? Who is this “we” who called my husband’s phone and left a voicemail asserting “we” would continue to spread [his phone number]? Who is this “we” who keeps asking for proof, evidence, and facts?

How many “we’s” will ask the same questions and say the same things over again?

Continue reading

The rest

Something else happened on May 1, 2010, two worlds collided; Utopia Guide’s “CCC” (Carney Construction Crew) and LISK.

The fact that Shannan used a driver to get there was unknown to LISK. While he watched the car go in to the Oak Beach neighborhood, he wasn’t able to see who was driving. I imagine that Brewer went to Hackett’s that early morning (where the call to CVS came in), and Shannan was given a script-how he got her information (under the guise of medical history). For what? My guess is that it was GHB; prescribed for narcolepsy. Shannan (and Brewer) may have been led to believe that it was something else. When a doctor hands you a script, you don’t usually look it over.

Shannan and Brewer got back, had a few beers, and did their thing. Before the second go, she took the script. GHB is also a date rape drug. Every symptom that Shannan had (confusion, sounding drunk, aggitated, unaware of surroundings…) are synonymous to GHB. It only takes about 15 min for it to kick in, and at that point, Brewer would want her out, and Shannan would think Brewer was trying to kill her (it was Brewer that took Shannan to Hackett’s home). If Pak was being dismissive to Shannan, in her confusion she would think he knew what was happening and part of it and fear him, as well. She ran past the front gate, to a familiar place, to someone she thought she could trust and someone who could help her.

Continue reading

Stalker History

Let’s go back in time… before 2010…

At the LISK’s core, he is a stalker. His stalking behavior is evident before and after he murders his victims. He has had many, many, many years to perfect his stalking behaviors. Dennis Rader (BTK) was a stalker, and someone I have studied with the help of John Douglas, FBI Criminal Profiler. I believe LISK is almost identical to BTK. During Rader’s sentencing hearing, he went into great detail on the “what” and “why” and “how” he chose, stalked, detained, and killed each of his victims. (YouTube Documentary on Dennis Rader) It was through my study of Dennis Rader that I was able to understand the psychology of LISK. It was also the reason why I highly suspected Dr. Charles Peter Hackett to be my own #1 POI.

When I came upon the case after watching the 48 Hours Mystery episode mentioning Dr. Hackett, I was intrigued how he could be ruled out as a POI so quickly. I wanted to know more about this particular man, and went on a search for what information was out there on him. That is when I came upon a particular thread titled “The Last Happy Hour” on WS started by “truthspider”, who was also featured in an article in the UK GQ Magazine.

Continue reading

“Do some real sleuthing…”

image

This is the time I need to go back to the beginning. When I came onto this case in August 2012, I never heard the names “flukeyou” or “JS”. I read thread after thread of info on the characters involved on WS before ever forming an opinion. An opinion of my own; free of others’ influence. An opinion that I based on the facts (news articles, books, dates, ages of those seemingly involved, etc) and my OWN inferences. I didn’t start talking to anyone privately about the case until after October 1, 2012. The first person I spoke to privately approached me. Susie Sampierre’s first question to me was assuming I was from Long Island or Ft. Myers (Hackett’s new residence) since I seemed to “know so much. I explained I just knew how to utilize a Google search… and read.

Continue reading

Interview with Fieldnotes-part 1

Jim Jones has been an intergral source of information in this case. I had been so focused on CPH having a hand in all the sock puppetry going on, I was even convinced CPH was the author of Jim Jones’ blog. Phew! I have since come out of my tunnel, and have forged on in search of further information. I cut contacts and decided to get back to the drawing board.

I’m not from the area and haven’t met these people in person, but Jim Jones has. So I decided I would give him a call. I gave him a call at the pizza place he works at; Cherrywood in Wantagh. He was a little busy when I called, and it was understandable since it was almost 6pm on a Wednesday night. He told me to shoot him an email and he’d give me a call as soon as he had a chance. To date, it was the most detailed source of info I’ve gathered on this case.

“Jim Jones” (aka fieldnotes) is a pen name used by Michael Dougherty. He chose that name after the infamous Jim Jones, who was most notable for getting a town full of his followers to drink cyanide-laced Kool-Aid in Guyana. It was a mass suicide of men, women and children who believed Jim Jones was a prophet. I thought the name choice odd and it made me slightly hesitant, but I decided to speak with him anyway.

I wanted to make the most out of our conversation, especially since I wasn’t sure how much time we’d have to talk. I had read most of his blog, but admittedly, when I first read it, I still had my CPH blinders on. I wanted to go into our conversation without any preconceived notions of who Michael Dougherty was and also wanted to assume everyone he interviewed (GC, CPH, HA) was absolutely telling the truth through Michael Dougherty’s blog. So what would I choose as my first question?

WHO was at Brewer’s party on April 30, 2010?

Continue reading

Inconsistancies

If you don’t follow the information handed out by the “regulars” of certain websites, it is difficult to determine the inconsistancies from the comments made by those active “regulars”. On the website specific to this case, you can form 3 distinct groups: those seriously searching for the truth, those curious but not invested, and the “distraction”.

When the “distraction” is coming from an alias that becomes “known” and questioned, the alias changes but the “distraction” continues. One has to wonder the motive of any alias meant to confuse, distract, point fingers, ramble about irrelevant issues, and comment on the other alias’ personally (to discredit, accuse, misdirect, chastise, etc).

I fall into the group of wanting to find out the truth. There isn’t much to work with. In the absence of facts, I use common sense, and think, “The simple answer is the most likely.” This brings me to the conclusions I’ve surmised about this case.

Continue reading