CA CA - John Beck, 73, Alameda, 9 Feb 2016 #1

[Paligal]

I'm new to this group and have been lurking on this thread since the beginning of this case, when I saw it posted on Facebook. I read the rules and don't believe this is "victim unfriendly" per those definitions (I hope not!), but please let me know if so and I will delete. It just keeps niggling at me and I haven't seen it discussed anywhere. It's in service of trying to locate this man and alleviating his family's worries, but it is an unusual case because of his circumstances and the fact that he left on his own volition, per the CCTV and searches he did. The thing that struck me from the day his family was sent that photo of John on the trail is how much of an enormous coincidence that is that someone found this photo online, and I am one who thinks huge coincidences should probably be looked into further. Does anyone know if the citizen who posted that photo to Instagram has been questioned about it? The likelihood that out of the many millions of people who live or visit San Francisco, one would happen to capture a photo of a missing person that has a major landmark in the background only hours later, thereby suggesting an exact location, date, time, and supposed trajectory of the missing person, combined with that photo quickly being randomly discovered on a website with millions of photos of San Francisco, seems extremely coincidental. I also think if I were taking a photo of the bridge, I would wait for a hiker to clear out of my photo before taking my landscape shot. I could be way off base (I am so sorry if so!) and this is indeed a wild coincidence, but I'm wondering if the Instagram user has been questioned at all. He's definitely a stranger to John? Has the trail photo been examined from all angles in finding John's whereabouts?

 

[SlowMachine]

Paligal, I've thought the exact same thing.

 

[CAPIWannaBe]

Great post. I recall JoyM mentioning that the photographer took the picture because of the way the individual / scene in the photo resonated with him. The person who took the photo is in the film/entertainment industry by his Instagram account. I will see if I can find JoyM's comment about the photo taker.

I'm new to this group and have been lurking on this thread since the beginning of this case, when I saw it posted on Facebook. I read the rules and don't believe this is "victim unfriendly" per those definitions (I hope not!), but please let me know if so and I will delete. It just keeps niggling at me and I haven't seen it discussed anywhere. It's in service of trying to locate this man and alleviating his family's worries, but it is an unusual case because of his circumstances and the fact that he left on his own volition, per the CCTV and searches he did. The thing that struck me from the day his family was sent that photo of John on the trail is how much of an enormous coincidence that is that someone found this photo online, and I am one who thinks huge coincidences should probably be looked into further. Does anyone know if the citizen who posted that photo to Instagram has been questioned about it? The likelihood that out of the many millions of people who live or visit San Francisco, one would happen to capture a photo of a missing person that has a major landmark in the background only hours later, thereby suggesting an exact location, date, time, and supposed trajectory of the missing person, combined with that photo quickly being randomly discovered on a website with millions of photos of San Francisco, seems extremely coincidental. I also think if I were taking a photo of the bridge, I would wait for a hiker to clear out of my photo before taking my landscape shot. I could be way off base (I am so sorry if so!) and this is indeed a wild coincidence, but I'm wondering if the Instagram user has been questioned at all. He's definitely a stranger to John? Has the trail photo been examined from all angles in finding John's whereabouts?

 

[Paligal]

I mean, the search has focused on the North Bay and the Golden Gate Bridge solely because of the photo, but I wouldn't rule out the possibility that the photo was intended to give that impression, unless that has been investigated and dismissed as a lead in the case.

 

[persimmon]

I'm sure Joy answered "Yes he drives" to this IIRC. Trust me, 73 isn't all that old, not that you were implying that, but many think it is. I think he must have asked her to drop him off so his car wouldn't be found somewhere. JMO

Also, I think you would know since you said you once lived in Alameda what a bear parking in the bay area can be. When I have important meetings, I often get dropped off so I don't have to get stressed out looking for parking.

 

[CAPIWannaBe]

I mean, the search has focused on the North Bay and the Golden Gate Bridge solely because of the photo, but I wouldn't rule out the possibility that the photo was intended to give that impression, unless that has been investigated and dismissed as a lead in the case.

This is from the FB group about the photo
"Missing: John Nelson Beck
It was taken at 12:08 pm that Tuesday on the land's end trail. He didn't notice anything odd about John or his behavior though he does remember him--he walked behind him for at least a few minutes. The photographer didn't walk to the end of the trail. Not sure when he last saw john.
Like · Reply · 3 · February 14 at 7:20pm"

 

[Lilibet]

I'm new to this group and have been lurking on this thread since the beginning of this case, when I saw it posted on Facebook. I read the rules and don't believe this is "victim unfriendly" per those definitions (I hope not!), but please let me know if so and I will delete. It just keeps niggling at me and I haven't seen it discussed anywhere. It's in service of trying to locate this man and alleviating his family's worries, but it is an unusual case because of his circumstances and the fact that he left on his own volition, per the CCTV and searches he did. The thing that struck me from the day his family was sent that photo of John on the trail is how much of an enormous coincidence that is that someone found this photo online, and I am one who thinks huge coincidences should probably be looked into further. Does anyone know if the citizen who posted that photo to Instagram has been questioned about it? The likelihood that out of the many millions of people who live or visit San Francisco, one would happen to capture a photo of a missing person that has a major landmark in the background only hours later, thereby suggesting an exact location, date, time, and supposed trajectory of the missing person, combined with that photo quickly being randomly discovered on a website with millions of photos of San Francisco, seems extremely coincidental. I also think if I were taking a photo of the bridge, I would wait for a hiker to clear out of my photo before taking my landscape shot. I could be way off base (I am so sorry if so!) and this is indeed a wild coincidence, but I'm wondering if the Instagram user has been questioned at all. He's definitely a stranger to John? Has the trail photo been examined from all angles in finding John's whereabouts?

BBM

I don't think your post is victim unfriendly at all. It's a really good question, especially when you factor in the FTC case and the bankruptcy hearing. This is more than just a standard missing person case IMO. I don't know if this person was questioned by LE or if they felt it was necessary. I hope they did.

As you probably remember from reading what was posted at the time on the FB page, the photographer was visiting SF from LA and when he was contacted by John's family after the photo was found, he was on the way home. After he returned home, he looked to see if he had taken other photos with John in them and came up empty. He was able to confirm the time he took the photo.

But that doesn't really answer your question. You are wondering if this is more than a coincidence. I guess I accepted that it was a coincidence because I didn't see any reason/benefit for John (or his family) to arrange for him to be photographed at Lands End. And how could they be sure the photo was found by someone helping? But I'm interested in whatever reason you think might apply if you feel comfortable tiptoeing into it.

Here is the FB post about this photo 2/14.
https://www.facebook.com/findjohnbe...2750541891000/583988665100521/?type=3&theater

FWIW We heard about the FTC case on 2/12.

 

[Lilibet]

Also, I think you would know since you said you once lived in Alameda what a bear parking in the bay area can be. When I have important meetings, I often get dropped off so I don't have to get stressed out looking for parking.

I left Alameda several years before I learned to drive (late bloomer, age 21 ), but visited my Mom in Oakland for years...oh my! Both driving and parking are so stressful.

 

[Lilibet]

I mean, the search has focused on the North Bay and the Golden Gate Bridge solely because of the photo, but I wouldn't rule out the possibility that the photo was intended to give that impression, unless that has been investigated and dismissed as a lead in the case.

I would say that his computer search for public transportation to Sutro Baths and Baker Beach is what originally caused the search to focus there, but, you're right that the photo just cemented that focus and kept it there. As we talked about here recently, it could be like the distraction used by a magician when he makes something disappear. By the time the photo was found 2/14, the search would intensify in that location but John would be long gone.

I think if the photo was not a coincidence, it means that John absconded and had help. If that's the case, what was going to happen at the meeting 2/9 that John needed to avoid and who knew that besides his attorneys? Was he going to have to testify under oath about assets he didn't want the bankruptcy court to know about? I'm grasping at straws. We haven't been told. I have trouble believing he would commit suicide without leaving a note. But I keep waffling on this.

 

[Paligal]

Thanks for your replies. As you said, this is a tricky case because it involves someone who purposely went missing and was involved in a sticky legal mess. I think there are several hypothetical scenarios that have crossed my mind. One is that the photographer knew John. Another is that he was a stranger who was paid or asked to take the photo and had no idea what he was doing. So, in a hypothetical scenario in which this photo is not a coincidence, it could serve multiple purposes. For me, personally, I think the prominence of the Golden Gate Bridge and the fact that the trail more or less leads to it gives one the immediate hypothesis that this was a suicide and the body has not (or never will be) found. That's unavoidable, given that the bridge is inextricably linked with suicide (as insensitive as that may sound.) So if he never turns up, then the realistic hypothesis by LE would be that he took his life at the bridge, using the photo as evidence. The other thing it does is cause people to focus north of the bridge instead of south. If John headed south after this photo, then all the focus would be elsewhere while he disappeared. I think in a hypothetical scenario in which the photo is staged, it makes sense that it wouldn't be sent right away, as releasing it the same day would mean he would still be in the area after taking the photo, and could be located.
It's perhaps far-fetched and speculative, and would mean others helping him, but I could see someone wanting to disappear and protect his family from further turmoil or financial hardship. I just felt that it should be brought up as a hypothesis, since it is a very huge coincidence and that bridge very suggestive. Also, I did look the Instagram account and that photo up, and it's odd to me that the user (Hollyweirdfilms) doesn't seem more concerned that his photo is at the center of a missing person's case, simply tagging the photo as "Alamedaman" "Missing" and "JohnBeck" and writing, after knowing about the case, a comment about the trail to a friend with a smiley face. I know I'd post, "Oh my God! I can't believe this." Etc. Finally, I am curious about how the volunteer stumbled on this photo. Someone decided to go on Instagram and search through all the photos posted of San Francisco or the Golden Gate Bridge? There are over a million photos with the Golden Gate Bridge tag. The post on Instagram says "i am a friend and was looking through photos and found this."

Just some thoughts. I really hope I am not coming off as insensitive. I do hope they find him alive and this is taken as an attempt to help find him and get closure. It's unusual that nothing has turned up by now.

 

[Timekeeper65]

Welcome Paligal!

:welcome4:

 

[1&2&3]

Welcome Paligal! It is always great to have a new set of eyes and thoughts and your's make one stop and think.

Usually my thoughts are coincidences happen for a reason. I had never looked at the way you mention which is so viable. Adding to your thoughts, John may have wanted to give the implication of the Golden Gate Bridge which is known as a place for suicide. Yet, that is it all it was - an implication or distraction.

As I recall, there have been no known jumpers since John's disappearance. I am more of the belief that he is safe somewhere. After all, he has had years to stash money since being aware there was trouble brewing with his side business. It didn't just happen overnight that the FTC came in and sued him.

Who would be wiser in where to hide money than an attorney? The one mistake I think he did make, if I understand laws correctly, is why his business was not set up so his personal property was safe from being included in a suit like this? Perhaps laws are different in California.

 

[Hoosier952]

Who would be wiser in where to hide money than an attorney? The one mistake I think he did make, if I understand laws correctly, is why his business was not set up so his personal property was safe from being included in a suit like this? Perhaps laws are different in California.

SABBM- I've been keeping an eye on this case, and this has me scratching my head. I'm only familiar with LLCs, because it's the route my husband and I looked at for a while, but I'm sure there are many other options. As long as the business and personal finances don't intermingle, any personal property would have been spared in a case like this or at least that's how I understood it (maybe it's way more complicated?!). Because they would be going after the business rather than the person. It also gives tax benefits for those who are self-employed. I can't believe someone dealing in big money, real estate, and/or shady business practices wouldn't have had an accountant or a lawyer telling them to do something to cover their rears.

I do know that LLC laws vary by state, but federally are one in the same. Maybe the nature of this situation goes beyond LLC protections? Maybe there was intermingling of personal and business finances?

 

[windrower]

Paligal's recent posts re the coincidental nature of the photo of John being found amongst the millions of photos posted online, combined with the resounding silence of family and friends on sm, and from Joy on this forum, makes me think the true circumstances regarding John's disappearance have perhaps come to light.

I truly hope Joy was not taken advantage of in this whole situation.

And Lilibet, if I or anyone I know ever goes missing, I want you on the case! Very impressive work here.

(as always, imo)

 

[moonriverfarm]

I too wondered how, out of the hundreds of thousands of instagram photos online, one photo from someone whose account was not "followed" by the family showed John in it. That is way too coincidental IMO.

 

[Lilibet]

I too wondered how, out of the hundreds of thousands of instagram photos online, one photo from someone whose account was not "followed" by the family showed John in it. That is way too coincidental IMO.

IIRC At the suggestion of a friend, the family had a team of friends going through Instragram, using a particular filtering program or app, that narrowed the search down to the area of Sutro Baths and Baker Beach, which John had searched for that morning. Even with that tool, and many people looking, yes it is amazing that John showed up. But I can see it happening.

Of course, if I were the detective, I would interview the person who first suggested crowd-sourcing on Instagram, the person who found the photo, and the person who took the photo. But that level of thorough probably goes beyond the interest level of local LE and is more on the lines of the FBI.

But even without that photo, he had left a trail of crumbs to that area on his computer. I'm inclined to keep things simple, so I'm still on the random side of the fence regarding the photo, rather than staged. But I do get what you are saying and you could persuade me.

 

[QueenBea13]

Paligal's recent posts re the coincidental nature of the photo of John being found amongst the millions of photos posted online, combined with the resounding silence of family and friends on sm, and from Joy on this forum, makes me think the true circumstances regarding John's disappearance have perhaps come to light.

I truly hope Joy was not taken advantage of in this whole situation.

And Lilibet, if I or anyone I know ever goes missing, I want you on the case! Very impressive work here.

(as always, imo)

That's kinda where I'm at too...if the family & friends figured out they'd been duped, I would think they might be quite embarrassed or ashamed so they retreat & just try to move on. Idk I think there are a lot of strange coincidences in this case which make me think he left on his own in hopes to never be seen again. Look at the one guy, the gangster/mafia man, he went unnoticed for how long???


The thoughts & opinions stated above are that, MY random thoughts & opinions.

 

[Lilibet]

Paligal's recent posts re the coincidental nature of the photo of John being found amongst the millions of photos posted online, combined with the resounding silence of family and friends on sm, and from Joy on this forum, makes me think the true circumstances regarding John's disappearance have perhaps come to light.

I truly hope Joy was not taken advantage of in this whole situation.

And Lilibet, if I or anyone I know ever goes missing, I want you on the case! Very impressive work here.

(as always, imo)

Thank you for your kind words. Team effort!

I agree that something has likely come to light, causing silence. And it's likely that the discussion here has become more pointed, which might make Joy want to stay away. She has known the family since at least the early '90's, when John was doing his system on his own and not through infomercials. I suspect that the man she knows is not the man on the infomercials. This has to be so painful for her, and she is limited in what she can say.

That being said, I think we tiptoed a bit more than WSers normally do because Joy was here. Her presence personalized John's disappearance for us. We didn't want to step on broken hearts, and we still don't.

The difficult thing is that John is not a true victim because it's impossible to separate his tragic disappearance from the FTC case and bankruptcy proceedings (unless we view him as a victim in those cases, and I don't). He either committed suicide or absconded IMO. There is little or no reason to think he was abducted or had a medical emergency at this point. JMO

I don't know where this leaves us, except very sorry for his family and friends.

 

[Lilibet]

Welcome Paligal! It is always great to have a new set of eyes and thoughts and your's make one stop and think.

Usually my thoughts are coincidences happen for a reason. I had never looked at the way you mention which is so viable. Adding to your thoughts, John may have wanted to give the implication of the Golden Gate Bridge which is known as a place for suicide. Yet, that is it all it was - an implication or distraction.

As I recall, there have been no known jumpers since John's disappearance. I am more of the belief that he is safe somewhere. After all, he has had years to stash money since being aware there was trouble brewing with his side business. It didn't just happen overnight that the FTC came in and sued him.

Who would be wiser in where to hide money than an attorney? The one mistake I think he did make, if I understand laws correctly, is why his business was not set up so his personal property was safe from being included in a suit like this? Perhaps laws are different in California.

BBM

I agree that he had money stashed and I think that may have something to do with why he didn't show up at that particular hearing. He is a very smart man.

It does seem strange that he hadn't set his business up to protect his personal property. I don't know how that would play out in this case. The way he filed for bankruptcy is interesting. I'm still hoping one of our attorneys can help us out here.

At the time of the document in August, detailing the liquidation process (if he lost his FTC appeal), he was still under Chapter 11, from which his personal property would not be exempt. However, on Nov 30, 2015, he changed to Chapter 7, under some pressure from the gov't. So, I think that would protect his house on Regent St, if I'm not mistaken. Here is a chart showing the differences between 11 and 7.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/halahto...chapter-11-instead-of-chapter-7/#390e94ba1331

This article from the Alameda Sun, which has been posted before, explains a little too.

Law360’s reporter Beth Winegarner reported that in November 2012, bankruptcy trustee Barbara Matthews urged a California bankruptcy court to convert Beck’s Chapter 11 case to a Chapter 7 bankruptcy.
Winegarner reported Matthews’ concern that Beck was using Chapter 11 incorrectly as a shelter against paying the FTC. Chapter 11 could allow Beck to reorganize and remain in business, while Chapter 7 would require him to liquidate his assets and pay his creditors.
“At least initially … [Beck] asked to ‘park’ in Chapter 11 for an indeterminate period of time,” Matthews wrote. Beck’s attorneys told the court that their client wanted the Chapter 11 shield pending the appeal of the FTC’s judgment.
Matthews told the court, however, that “Bankruptcy serves no purpose in this situation other than to delay.” Winegarner wrote that Matthews recommended that the court dismiss Beck’s Chapter 11 case or convert it to one under Chapter 7.
http://alamedasun.com/news/john-beck-still-missing-his-case-unfolds

BBM

 

[Deleted member 165632]

Hi Everyone,
I am catching up on posts. Not sure where I fall on the coincidence or not of the insta photo. Here are my thoughts on why the person who took it might be keeping mum publicly (if it was coincidence):

1- LE may have asked them to not put too much out there... Who knows? stranger things have happened.

2- They may be afraid. Maybe not want LE or gov't on their backs since this is a big case.

3- The person works in film... They may be shopping the idea in Hollywood. Trying to sell rights or develop story into tv show/film, etc. Maybe next year you'll see Instagram Detective as a new primetime show, lol

In terms of the actual instagram feed, I actually see the picture as part of the whole vs. set apart. Many of the photos tagged in SF have the same quality, bluish tinge, few people (maybe one person) there seems to be a solitude or alone aspect to them. They also have nature/park like images... etc.

When I was younger I worked briefly in film/photography and this is an interesting shot. I could see someone who works with images going, "I have to capture this right now!" b/c of a few things:
The solitude of the figure on the path. Just capturing a figure walking like that implies movement and draws the eye in, creates a sense of depth. The diagonal line of the path vs the horizontal bridge in the background... The path is darker/in shadow vs/ the brightness of the Golden Gate Bridge in the background. Very interesting contrast.

In terms of it NOT being coincidence... well, whoever would allow themselves to get involved with such a thing really has to be sure they understand what they risk losing. After all, you are about to set yourself up for major LE and GOV'T investigation.

Just thoughts...