Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #188

[photographer4]

BBM I hope so. She should not be the one asked to comfort crime victims or orphaned children, IMO.

Well, I don't actually know what type of practice she wants to do / is doing at the moment, and it doesn't make her sound the most compassionate when we hear she has said unkind things about the family, but maybe there is some reason why she holds the opinions she holds about the family that we are not really privy to. I've said this before, everyone has opinions on just about everything. I'd be willing to bet some of the members here have private view points on key players in various cases that they don't express in the main thread as it is against the TOS. We may not like when people express public views against our own, but they're not legally precluded from doing so - unless they're in breech of an order, or committing some sort of actual crime like slander or libel etc....

 

[katydid23]

Well I don't think she used the word hacked - at least not in the article I read and cited earlier upthread. She said someone stole the chat messages after accessing them using a password they knew a member was using to participate in the chat.

But that is the definition of 'hacking'---stealing chat messages by accessing someone else's password

But Paul did not use someone else's password--he was the account holder. So he didn't need to steal anyone else's password.

Here is the quote:
And here is the link:

Leaked group chat reveals defense team strategies in Delphi murders case

The cohosts of "The Murder Sheet Podcast" told I-Team 8 they were given thousands of messages from the group chat.

www.wishtv.com

(quote below).
Hacking seems to involve a bit more sneaking about: What Is Hacking? Types of Hacking & More | Fortinet

Wieneke shared a statement with I-Team 8.

 

[photographer4]

Well I don't think she used the word hacked - at least not in the article I read and cited earlier upthread. She said someone stole the chat messages after accessing them using a password they knew a member was using to participate in the chat. Here is the quote:
And here is the link:

Leaked group chat reveals defense team strategies in Delphi murders case

The cohosts of "The Murder Sheet Podcast" told I-Team 8 they were given thousands of messages from the group chat.

www.wishtv.com

(quote below).
Hacking seems to involve a bit more sneaking about: What Is Hacking? Types of Hacking & More | Fortinet

Wieneke shared a statement with I-Team 8.

Actually I just realized she says “accessed her” acct (CW in the link in the post I’m commenting on). I thought it was some man who was the “owner” of the group chat etc who provided these to Ms? That he had access because he was a group member. She seems to disagree with this idea or I have misunderstood the leaker to be a male maybe?

 

[Caylee Advocate]

View attachment 518755

WRTV-News photo

Thanks Sparty, for a while I thought I was on a different thread than the Abby and Libby thread.

 

[photographer4]

But that is the definition of 'hacking'---stealing chat messages by accessing someone else's password

But Paul did not use someone else's password--he was the account holder. So he didn't need to steal anyone else's password.

I’m only pointing out - CW did not say she was hacked. She said someone accessed the chat using a password they knew which belonged to one of the group members. At any rate, and either way… they can’t both be telling the truth (MS & CW). Back to he said she said.

 

[MiniMoo]

Back on Page 21:

"internet sleuths do not have the best reputation as far as ethics or not harassing people.”

Is this in reference to those on WebSleuth or all sites that discuss crime cases?

 

[MiniMoo]

I was a paid employee, working for the firm. In those days we had to do a lot of typing and copying so I had access to evidence and discovery. So I had to sign an 'ethics' contract with the office manager and was held accountable.

[I was a pre-law student at UC Berkeley, but ultimately decided not to go to law school. ]

I'd have no problem with a paralegal or a law professor, working for the defense team, doing the vetting. But I do have big problem with the jurors private info being sent to a you-tuber, or a random group of students, because they have not
been vetted themselves.

I was an employee of the law firm, and I was trained by them. I was NEVER allowed to share the jurors info with anyone, nor speak about that info to anyone.

They hadn't vetted jurors because as they were discussing this option, the trial was postponed.

Some of this group were known to be shady and dox others. And being you-tubers, they were prone to leak or disseminate info widely.

Which YouTubers - is that known?

 

[katydid23]

I’m only pointing out - CW did not say she was hacked. She said someone accessed the chat using a password they knew which belonged to one of the group members. At any rate, and either way… they can’t both be telling the truth (MS & CW). Back to he said she said.

I don't think she could be telling the truth, and here's why. IF someone just accessed the chat using a password from a member, they would not be able to shut the whole account down. ONLY THE OWNER can do that. So that makes it seem like he is telling the truth and not her.

Maybe she thought it happened that way, but it didn't. The 'owner' of the account evicted the tenants.

 

[katydid23]

Back on Page 21:

"internet sleuths do not have the best reputation as far as ethics or not harassing people.”

Is this in reference to those on WebSleuth or all sites that discuss crime cases?

I'm not sure. But truth be told, there have been WS members banned because they intruded into active cases and did unethical things.

 

[grannygates]

I don't think she could be telling the truth, and here's why. IF someone just accessed the chat using a password from a member, they would not be able to shut the whole account down. ONLY THE OWNER can do that. So that makes it seem like he is telling the truth and not her.

Maybe she thought it happened that way, but it didn't. The 'owner' of the account evicted the tenants.

The account “the unraveling” was 3 people- 1 man and 2 women. They all used the same password to access their “unraveling” accounts, Twitter YouTube etc. one of the women primarily used the Twitter account.

The man became angry with the women for some reason and went into all of the accounts and changed the password, Locking the 2 women out.

Then, I’m assuming as some sort of revenge, he gave the password to murder sheet to scour all of the private conversations for their little expose. Then he deactivated the accounts which somehow deleted the group chats etc. I’m not familiar enough to explain that part.

All MOO

 

[Ravenmoon]

The account “the unraveling” was 3 people- 1 man and 2 women. They all used the same password to access their “unraveling” accounts, Twitter YouTube etc. one of the women primarily used the Twitter account.

The man became angry with the women for some reason and went into all of the accounts and changed the password, Locking the 2 women out.

Then, I’m assuming as some sort of revenge, he gave the password to murder sheet to scour all of the private conversations for their little expose. Then he deactivated the accounts which somehow deleted the group chats etc. I’m not familiar enough to explain that part.

All MOO

Please provide a link.

TIA

 

[photographer4]

I don't think she could be telling the truth, and here's why. IF someone just accessed the chat using a password from a member, they would not be able to shut the whole account down. ONLY THE OWNER can do that. So that makes it seem like he is telling the truth and not her.

Maybe she thought it happened that way, but it didn't. The 'owner' of the account evicted the tenants.

I can see your point here and it is reasonable to assume CW is either not clear on what happened or (b) has possibly been dishonest about it.

But it’s the same problem either way isn’t it. One person says it happened this way and the other says it happened that way. He said. She said.

I really don’t think it will have any impact on the case or the outcome though. It doesn’t appear anyone has acted in contravention of any laws or a court order.

I hope the loved ones of LG and AW are holding each other up somehow through this. I hope one day they find as much peace and closure as they possibly can.

 

[m00c0w]

She can provide an opinion on anyone - just like anyone else can and it appears that is what these content creators (the lot of them) like to do really. The person I replied to said she gave her professional opinion. An opinion is not a medical diagnosis. Here is the post I replied to for clarity: Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #188

Anyone can provide an opinion, yes. However, that’s not quite what she is alleged to have done. She made several comments prefaced by “as a mental health professional”, or equivalent appeal to authority. This is at odds with the NASW code of ethics, specifically 4.06:

(a) Social workers should make clear distinctions between statements made and actions engaged in as a private individual and as a representative of the social work profession, a professional social work organization, or the social worker’s employing agency.

Social Workers' Ethical Responsibilities as Professionals

She can have all the opinions she wants. Her invoking her authority as an LCSWA when giving those less-than-professional opinions is ethically problematic.

JMO

 

[photographer4]

Anyone can provide an opinion, yes. However, that’s not quite what she is alleged to have done. She made several comments prefaced by “as a mental health professional”, or equivalent appeal to authority. This is at odds with the NASW code of ethics, specifically 4.06:

(a) Social workers should make clear distinctions between statements made and actions engaged in as a private individual and as a representative of the social work profession, a professional social work organization, or the social worker’s employing agency.

Social Workers' Ethical Responsibilities as Professionals

She can have all the opinions she wants. Her invoking her authority as an LCSWA when giving those less-than-professional opinions is ethically problematic.

JMO

I don’t think she said she was acting as a social worker professionally in this matter, did she? It seems like she gave an opinion - a personal one and perhaps qualified it by pointing out her experience as a social worker (of some sort). Regardless, she gave the opinion on a private chat. Not in public. Currently I do not believe this is a violation of the law.

Also someone upthread noted she isn’t fully licensed yet. I do not know as I didn’t bother to check. But it occurs to me, she may not be governed by the rules as she may not be registered with the governing body. She may not even be eligible to register as a member of the governing body without a full license. Just a thought.

ETA: here is the link from up thread where someone said she isn’t fully licensed yet.
Post in thread 'Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #188'
Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #188

It doesn’t seem like she can practice without supervision. So I would say she isn’t likely eligible to register with the governing body yet but that’s just moooo and a guess on my part.

 

[m00c0w]

I don’t think she said she was acting as a social worker professionally in this matter, did she? It seems like she gave an opinion - a personal one and perhaps qualified it by pointing out her experience as a social worker (of some sort). Regardless, she gave the opinion on a private chat. Not in public. Currently I do not believe this is a violation of the law.

Also someone upthread noted she isn’t fully licensed yet. I do not know as I didn’t bother to check. But it occurs to me, she may not be governed by the rules as she may not be registered with the governing body. She may not even be eligible to register as a member of the governing body without a full license. Just a thought.

She absolutely kept qualifying her opinions as that of a professional social worker.

This isn’t a law, it’s the code of ethics for the national association. NC does have similar ethical guidelines in their regulations, though.

She is licensed by the state of NC and has to abide by the same rules and regulations as a fully-licensed LCSW. The LCSWA just means she requires supervision and can’t practice on her own yet due to a lack of experience.

I’m not sure why you’re trying to find any way to defend clearly unethical behavior from this person.

Administrative Codes - North Carolina Social Work Certification and Licensure Board

NORTH CAROLINA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE TITLE 21 OCCUPATIONAL LICENSING BOARDS CHAPTER 63 SOCIAL WORK CERTIFICATION SECTION .0100 - GENERAL .0101 PURPOSE

ncswboard.gov

 

[dub]

Anyone can provide an opinion, yes. However, that’s not quite what she is alleged to have done. She made several comments prefaced by “as a mental health professional”, or equivalent appeal to authority. This is at odds with the NASW code of ethics, specifically 4.06:

(a) Social workers should make clear distinctions between statements made and actions engaged in as a private individual and as a representative of the social work profession, a professional social work organization, or the social worker’s employing agency.

Social Workers' Ethical Responsibilities as Professionals

She can have all the opinions she wants. Her invoking her authority as an LCSWA when giving those less-than-professional opinions is ethically problematic.

JMO

My professional opinion is that this woman is a ding dong.

 

[photographer4]

She absolutely kept qualifying her opinions as that of a professional social worker.

This isn’t a law, it’s the code of ethics for the national association. NC does have similar ethical guidelines in their regulations, though.

She is licensed by the state of NC and has to abide by the same rules and regulations as a fully-licensed LCSW. The LCSWA just means she requires supervision and can’t practice on her own yet due to a lack of experience.

I’m not sure why you’re trying to find any way to defend clearly unethical behavior from this person.

Administrative Codes - North Carolina Social Work Certification and Licensure Board

NORTH CAROLINA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE TITLE 21 OCCUPATIONAL LICENSING BOARDS CHAPTER 63 SOCIAL WORK CERTIFICATION SECTION .0100 - GENERAL .0101 PURPOSE

ncswboard.gov

Again, she posted her opinions on a private chat. I think it’s a lot of tempest in a pot of tea. I may feel differently if she were touting her thoughts in public. But she didn’t do this that I know of. I just don’t have a pitchfork out for the members of the private chat. I may change my mind if it turns out they broke actual laws or court orders.

For now, I think I’ve said all I care to say about the MS series in question. Cheers fellow members.

 

[mrjitty]

Cara being mad that her embarassing messages are public doesn't give her right to lie about how the messages were acessed and that the owner of the account commited a crime.

She is an attorney. She should know better than WRITTING things that she didn't want to see public. Attorneys usually are very careful with what they write in my experience. It wasn't not very smart from their part.

They gave the game away when they spoke of the importance of public relations IMO.

This is a case with a gag order and a protective order in place.

 

[mrjitty]

I’m not sure why you’re trying to find any way to defend clearly unethical behavior from this person.

RSBM

This is where I am at. Forget the orders and lets just look at the ethics.

For the second time, the defence is caught up in a humiliating and troubling leak. This should not be happening. Let alone twice.

MOO

 

[sunshineray]

Is there a standardized license required to do this sort of work? I can't seem to find info that says X is required, and X is the oversight body??

One universal standard, I would image, just by moral standards would be not working with someone who considers illegal manipulation of citizen's private information an easy and suitable thing to do as a means to an end. JMO