Roy Harrold said:
Yes, that's my point. I didn't "discover" the site, and I assume none of you here discovered it independent of "Jimmy Gibson's" posting about it either. So, as far as I can tell the "discoverer" of the site (in the sense of someone who made its existence public) was this "Jimmy Gibson" poster on the Register.
It's a small point, unless Noreen is saying "Jimmy" - the discoverer of the site - is an investigator of hers, because if that is what she means to say it kind of validates the story "Jimmy" gave about how the photos ended up in Noreen Gosch's associates hands - and presumably in hers.
But um, Roy?
You were the one who brought the "Jimmy Gibson" post to our attention.
I don't know Noreen Gosch, as you seem to, so I didn't think it was my place to tell her about it and at the time I discovered that posting on the Register's site I had no idea if she already knew of the site or not.
I assume that none of us know Noreen (I don't know her), and none of us knew if she'd seen the pictures or knew of that site (I wasn't sure if she did). You would have been the first among us to have the chance, and you didn't send her the link and pics. To me that says a lot.
"Jimmy Gibson" is a troll. The ToS on this forum prevent me from saying who I believe the troll is. Needless to say, I think that if this whole thing was a prank, then "Jimmy Gibson" is the person who started the prank. "Jimmy Gibson" or actually the other screenname that troll used, "Jon".
"Jon" posted 18 minutes before "Jimmy Gibson" with the exact same site. So it wasn't "Jimmy Gibson" who discovered the site, it was "Jon". I would think that someone who has repeatedly quoted the "Jimmy Gibson" post would have noticed that. But apparently you missed that, Roy. Odd. There was also serious troll activity on the Register blog that the webmaster had to fix. I guess someone was ridiculing Noreen under a variety of names. Hmmm.
That said, if the photos do depict her son, if Noreen received these photos in an email on the 26th and concocted an envelope/doorstep story to make it more newsworthy, then who can blame her? Just because the photos weren't Polaroids left on her doorstep doesn't necessarily mean that they aren't a lead in the case, sent to her by someone in the know. In fact, if the photos were left physically on her doorstep, then there'd be no direction to the lead. It would just be mysterious evidence. However, what if they were sent
in order to draw attention to that sick site? i.e., If you're looking for the perps responsible for Johnny's kidnapping, follow this site.