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

[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

 

[sunshineray]

She's not the decision maker.

At the very least she's a strategy molder, if she's helping to write briefs for RA. Can't jump in a mud puddle and come out clean. If she's tasked to compose something, is she not making the decisions on what she writes? (Rhetorical question) AJMO

 

[MiniMoo]

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

I had no idea!

There definitely shouldn't be lines crossed that is for sure - the law exists for a reason.

 

[TTF14]

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

And here we are on Websleuths talking about it. Gobsmacked, I tell ya.

IMO MOO

 

[sunshineray]

Honestly? We still have nothing more than he said / she said. Its a sideshow. A distraction. The very thing most of us say we want to avoid in this (and most other if not all other) case(s). If there is something illegal that went on, someone should deal with it. I've asked upthread who that would be - what powers that be could deal with it? The police? Judge Gull? Ethics committee? Who would deal with it and how would a party get them involved? So far, nothing seems to really have come of it in terms of consequences for the parties nor for RA's actual case. If something is going to come of it, when would we expect this to happen by?

Regarding the family being victimized by the show. The family would probably only imagine it happening until this show came out. Shame on them for making it public. Its just as gross to put the comments out to the public as it is to make the comments in a "private" convo imo. Hopefully the family members didn't bother to listen to the podcast and hopefully none connected to to them will tell them... of course they'd also have to ignore the media outlets who have since reported on the content creators war....

Shame on them for making it public, making it known!? Shame on those who wrote it is a more realistic and empathetic point of view, IMO. Knowing may be painful but it's better to know fully what's going on.This case is about Abby and Libby's murders as much as it's about RA's guilt or innocence. Why wouldn't the families want to know if corruption of that case is possibly happening? (Rhetorical question) AJMO