The GB4 and Shannan Gilbert-Connecting the dots

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
NY Police: Unlikely There's More Beach Victims

(snip) "the likelihood of finding further remains is remote"
-Deputy Inspector William Neubauer 12/17/10

How on earth were they so convinced so early in the investigation that there would not be any others like the GB4. Yes, they had mud on their face when the remains of six more were uncovered. And if you think about it, this was an incredibly bold statement to make considering SB, the one who sparked the entire investigation in the first place, was still missing.

With ten or more miles of beach still left to search, how could he be so certain that they were not going to find SB's body? Did our SK leave a note or some sort of message indicating this?
 
NJGuy said:
OK, good find MK...so as it stands we now have 3 of the 4 girls expecting someone to pick them up. Melissa was waiting at the curb waiting for someone to pick her up (don't know if it was a john, SK, or whomever) although from Terry's statement it appears she was waiting for a john. Megan walked out of her hotel at 1:30 am without her phone and began walking down the road from her hotel. Amber left her house to meet someone without her phone. Maureen is what we do not know what happened exactly, something that her inlaws said she was going to a hotel in Times Square. But we don't know if she ever made it to or left the hotel.
Click to expand...

Okay, so let's see what we can find through msm reports (no off the wall publications), and see if we can piece together more on Maureen. And let's try to get more than 1 source for the same information...sound good?

ETA: Don't pat me on the back too hard for that find...it was pointed out to me by someone else. ;)
 
Seaslug44 said:
NY Police: Unlikely There's More Beach Victims

(snip) "the likelihood of finding further remains is remote"
-Deputy Inspector William Neubauer 12/17/10

How on earth were they so convinced so early in the investigation that there would not be any others like the GB4. Yes, they had mud on their face when the remains of six more were uncovered. And if you think about it, this was an incredibly bold statement to make considering SB, the one who sparked the entire investigation in the first place, was still missing.

With ten or more miles of beach still left to search, how could he be so certain that they were not going to find SB's body? Did our SK leave a note or some sort of message indicating this?
Click to expand...

Neubauer said Friday it also appeared unlikely that a missing Maine woman last seen working as an escort on Long Island was among the four, although there was no official confirmation ruling her out.

WTH?! Was he talking about Megan?!
 
Mountain_Kat said:
Neubauer said Friday it also appeared unlikely that a missing Maine woman last seen working as an escort on Long Island was among the four, although there was no official confirmation ruling her out.

WTH?! Was he talking about Megan?!
Click to expand...

Yes he was! I recall seeing video footage of her family stating how they did not believe him.
 
Seaslug44 said:
Yes he was! I recall seeing video footage of her family stating how they did not believe him.
Click to expand...

I'd sure like to know what made it "unlikely" that it was her...when, lo and behold...it was her! :banghead:
 
Mountain_Kat said:
Okay, so let's see what we can find through msm reports (no off the wall publications), and see if we can piece together more on Maureen. And let's try to get more than 1 source for the same information...sound good?

ETA: Don't pat me on the back too hard for that find...it was pointed out to me by someone else. ;)
Click to expand...


Sounds like a plan...I'll post anything credible I find
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/25/nyregion/25bodies.html

Something interesting I may have missed the first time: "Maureen left for NYC the same day she disappeared, and was expected to return back the next day"

-So if this is accurate, Maureen actually went missing the very same day she arrived in the city? Meaning, she either drove, took a bus/train from CT to Manhattan and within a 24 hour span she went missing, presumably killed by our SK? Just strikes as one hell of a coincidence, or something larger
 
NJGuy said:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/25/nyregion/25bodies.html

Something interesting I may have missed the first time: "Maureen left for NYC the same day she disappeared, and was expected to return back the next day"

-So if this is accurate, Maureen actually went missing the very same day she arrived in the city? Meaning, she either drove, took a bus/train from CT to Manhattan and within a 24 hour span she went missing, presumably killed by our SK? Just strikes as one hell of a coincidence, or something larger
Click to expand...

I agree.

Something keeps telling me that the SK has ties to Connecticut and some of the unsolved cases there. Maureen's fate was either a pure case of absolute wrong timing (being in the exact wrong place at the wrong time) or it was perfectly orchestrated by the SK (which would have meant he either followed her to the city from CT or he and her and prearranged plans that were lucrative enough to lure her to the city as well as keep it a complete secret from those she told about the trip).
 
NJGuy said:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/25/nyregion/25bodies.html

Something interesting I may have missed the first time: "Maureen left for NYC the same day she disappeared, and was expected to return back the next day"

-So if this is accurate, Maureen actually went missing the very same day she arrived in the city? Meaning, she either drove, took a bus/train from CT to Manhattan and within a 24 hour span she went missing, presumably killed by our SK? Just strikes as one hell of a coincidence, or something larger
Click to expand...

Let's see if we can find anything that contradicts or supports that statement.

Here's the calendar for July 2007. http://www.timeanddate.com/calendar/monthly.html?year=2007&month=7

Does it makes sense that Maureen would travel all the way from CT to do work in NYC and arrive on a Monday? Most of the girls who travel out of town to work plan on working the weekend. Seems more logical that Maureen had arrived on Friday and was at the bus terminal on Monday because she was returning home, doesn't it? And there are msm reports that say she had travelled there for the weekend...but I'll have to look them up later, as I'm heading out the door in a few minutes.
 
I am taking a new approach to this as so far, I am coming up with very little that ties in all the girls, dates, locations. I will be looking at each victim as an isolated case...The GB4 are all victims of the same SK, (I am nothing if not obvious), but I want to look at each case as a separate entity. Meaning, if I were investigating Melissa's case as just an isolated murder, would that tell me anything different, or would I find something to go on. Anyway, I'll post anything I find
 
NJGuy! You're the best! I think that is a good plan. I am a bit busy this weekend but will check in when I can and will try and help more next week.

wm :)
 
NJGuy said:
OK, good find MK...so as it stands we now have 3 of the 4 girls expecting someone to pick them up. Melissa was waiting at the curb waiting for someone to pick her up (don't know if it was a john, SK, or whomever) although from Terry's statement it appears she was waiting for a john. Megan walked out of her hotel at 1:30 am without her phone and began walking down the road from her hotel. Amber left her house to meet someone without her phone. Maureen is what we do not know what happened exactly, something that her inlaws said she was going to a hotel in Times Square. But we don't know if she ever made it to or left the hotel.
Click to expand...

Just that I get this right: Maureen said, she would go to a hotel at Times Square when exactly? In the phone call after she was robbed?
 
Seaslug44 said:
NY Police: Unlikely There's More Beach Victims

(snip) "the likelihood of finding further remains is remote"
-Deputy Inspector William Neubauer 12/17/10

How on earth were they so convinced so early in the investigation that there would not be any others like the GB4. Yes, they had mud on their face when the remains of six more were uncovered. And if you think about it, this was an incredibly bold statement to make considering SB, the one who sparked the entire investigation in the first place, was still missing.

With ten or more miles of beach still left to search, how could he be so certain that they were not going to find SB's body? Did our SK leave a note or some sort of message indicating this?
Click to expand...

Most likely, it only indicates the urge of the officials to talk the whole thing down and out of the public interest
 
Peter Brendt said:
Just that I get this right: Maureen said, she would go to a hotel at Times Square when exactly? In the phone call after she was robbed?
Click to expand...

The source was not specific as to when she told her inlaws she was checking into a hotel...however, I would imagine it would've been before she was robbed, but nothing can be confirmed
 
Seaslug44 said:
I agree.

Something keeps telling me that the SK has ties to Connecticut and some of the unsolved cases there. Maureen's fate was either a pure case of absolute wrong timing (being in the exact wrong place at the wrong time) or it was perfectly orchestrated by the SK (which would have meant he either followed her to the city from CT or he and her and prearranged plans that were lucrative enough to lure her to the city as well as keep it a complete secret from those she told about the trip).
Click to expand...

This is maybe a stupid idea, but what if those four really visited the same client? The point I still stumble upon is, that Maureen left that client. Okay, she didn't deposit that money, but she made phone calls about she was robbed after that. Which still puts her in some place away from that client.
But what - just such an idea - if the sk is not connected to the victims directly but to this client?
 
Finally, something that makes sense and comes straight from a family member!

http://www.newsday.com/news/breaking/did-gilgo-victims-let-their-guards-down-1.2950472

By July, however, Brainard-Barnes had been laid off and faced eviction from her apartment, Cann said. On Friday, July 6, 2007, Brainard-Barnes left her children with their fathers, took a train to Manhattan, got a hotel room near Times Square and posted an ad on Craigslist, Cann said.

Brainard-Barnes did not return to Connecticut the following Monday, as she had promised, Cann said. She did call friends that day -- her last contacts before going missing. "There was nothing distressful," Cann said.
 
And here we have the info about her cell phone pinging from a Long Island location at least 6 months AFTER her disappearance. (This information appears to have come from Maureen's sister. I suggest reading the entire article, it's a wealth of info that comes straight from family members!)

http://nymag.com/news/features/long-island-serial-killer-families-2011-6/index2.html

<snipped by me>

The weekend she disappeared, Maureen had taken the train into the city with friends, but she left them once she got to Manhattan. Cann says her sister usually worked from a hotel room and never saw johns at their places. Maureen was adamant about working only in Manhattan and never said anything to Cann about working in Long Island. At one point that weekend, Maureen called a friend from the Port Authority and said she&#8217;d been robbed of all the money she&#8217;d earned. She needed a ride home, but the friend couldn&#8217;t come get her. After that call, no one heard from Maureen again. For three years, the NYPD had reported no trace of her&#8212;except, in 2008, for one cell-phone-signal ping off a Long Island tower, just a few miles from Gilgo Beach. &#8220;Someone was trying to access Maureen&#8217;s cell-phone voice-mail,&#8221; Cann says.

ETA: So...if Maureen called friends to come pick her up, I would think she had already checked herself out of her hotel room. That's what logic tells me anyway. JMO, and all that jazz.
 
LE retrieved her computer from the hotel. So my guess is she had not checked out of the hotel the last time she left her room. It was a lucky break for LE that the hotel still had it.
 
Redbird said:
LE retrieved her computer from the hotel. So my guess is she had not checked out of the hotel the last time she left her room. It was a lucky break for LE that the hotel still had it.
Click to expand...

Here's the thing that bugs me about the laptop story...Maureen's sister told a reporter that her sister only worked out of her hotel room. She also says that Maureen would call friends and have them refresh her ads for her. Why would she do that if she had her laptop with her?

(Info found in the 2 previous articles I linked.)

Also...I've never seen any mention of anything else being retrieved from Maureen's hotel room, have you? Where were her clothes, her makeup, etc.? We hear about all that stuff being found in Megan's room (Megan didn't check out of her room)...but nothing about Maureen's belongings, and surely LE would have been very interested in that.

And lastly, we have this:

<snipped by me>
Cann says the police have failed to take her sister&#8217;s case seriously, beginning with the first officer she spoke to. &#8220;Soon as I told him what she was doing up in Manhattan, it was like he didn&#8217;t care.&#8221; She speaks of the fruitless trips her husband and brother took to New York to try to find Maureen themselves, the two and a half years it took even to get Maureen&#8217;s name onto the national registry of missing persons. She tells me she got her sister&#8217;s e-mails, texts, and phone records herself.
http://nymag.com/news/features/long-island-serial-killer-families-2011-6/index2.html

Why would a family member have to do this if the cops had already flew in there days after she was reported missing and retrieved her laptop?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 158 more.
Total: 2,549 (members: 159, guests: 2,390)

Online statistics

Members online
159
Guests online
2,390
Total visitors
2,549
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
601,001
Messages
18,116,923
Members
230,995
Latest member
truelove
Back
Top