Let's talk about the letters

[Mountain_Kat]

This is why doc called mari Gilbert and lied to his family, community, and law enforcement......in his manic phases he feels untouchable.

My gut feeling has always been that whoever our sk is, he is a heavy drinker. Panics, and in an inebriated state, makes huge errors.

JMO

 

[Just K]

I totally agree 100%

CPH is an oddball character with a crazy need/desire to inject himself in the middle of everybody's business with the spotlight on himself.

He might be a strange person but that does not make him a murderer.

We all know his personality type. His ego and his desire to be viewed as an important figurehead got the best of him this time. I can only imagine his reaction when he learned that he had put himself in a compromising position right smack in the middle of what became an actual serial killer investigation!

It is obvious that he is not the killer because the real killer would have never acted so sloppy in such a showcase fashion within the limelight. The real killer's pride is built upon his ability to outsmart the police and remain a total mystery. CPH's urges to be in the spotlight and viewed as a hero are not exactly what we'd expect from the killer.

Ted Bundy worked the phones at a Rape Hotline. He befriended Ann Rule even while she was researching for a book on the still unsolved notorious murders...which were later attributed to Bundy. Dennis Radar (sp?) did community TV interviews, in his capacity, as the Animal Warden. He was a deacon at his church. Radar sent taunting letters to the investigators. Both he and Bundy got very sloppy in the end of their murderous careers.

If this killer has been doing this for two decades then one might consider that he too has gotten sloppy.

 

[Flukeyou]

Opiates will do that to you!!!!! Guess who was in rehab in the late 90's ????

 

[hawkshaw]

Justice for SG is coming!!! Have a great day seaslug!!!!!

Just wonder if u have a good rumor?

 

[mcme]

<modsnip>

My sarcasm meter just twitched. I don't believe any of the people who post here are stupid, and I like to see everyone's opinion and try to understand how they reached it. When I examine the facts and statements available, I don't see CPH as SG's killer or the LISK. I don't see any evidence that SG was murdered or that her death was part of the GB4 deaths, or any of the other bodies found. But that's just how I see it, and I promise, I'm not here to try and change anyone's mind.
<modsnip>

 

[truthspider]

can you guys believe this heat today? it's got to be like what 100 degrees?
it's so weird for this time of year, and the humidity, I can't stop sweating!
anic:

 

[inspctrgadget]

......I don't believe any of the people who post here are stupid, and I like to see everyone's opinion and try to understand how they reached it. When I examine the facts and statements available, I don't see CPH as SG's killer or the LISK. I don't see any evidence that SG was murdered or that her death was part of the GB4 deaths, or any of the other bodies found. But that's just how I see it, and I promise, I'm not here to try and change anyone's mind.

I don't think anyone here is stupid either. However, I do think anyone who still subscribes to the notion that SG was murdered has a clear case of "confirmation bias", or they just don't have a good handle on the information that we've produced here while analyzing SG's circumstances.

"Confirmation bias is a form of selective thinking in which an individual is more likely to notice or search for evidence that confirms his or her theory, while ignoring or refusing to search for contradicting evidence. Confirming evidence is given more weight, while contradicting evidence is given less weight. The components of confirmation bias include failure to seek evidence that would disprove the theory, not utilizing such evidence if found, refusing to consider alternative hypotheses, and not evaluating evidence diagnostically."

Confirmation bias is something that is prevalent in all areas - philosophy/religion, politics, science, and especially criminal investigations. It is no surprise that we find it here at Websleuths.

Confirmation bias will lead people to believe that CPH is the culprit and that SG was murdered, and any possible evidence to the contrary will be for the most part discounted.

Unfortunately, I think about 99% of any posts here are related to SG and CPH, even though the evidence has lead the police to other conclusions. I'm comforted that the police looked at the evidence objectively and determined that SG was a victim of an accidental death, even though the "evidence" from that night would make anyone think that she ran into the serial killer that night. I hope they ultimately catch this guy, and do so quickly. I just don't think anyone chasing the SG/CPH angle is going to be of any help.

I'm sure this will be an unpopular opinion here because the polls here show that 99 out of every 100 Websleuthers think SG was murdered.

I would just ask you to consider this case as if SG had never gone missing to begin with. From that perspective, your confirmation bias will disappear and perhaps you can come up with a new angle or approach that nobody's thought of before?

 

[mysterymom7]

can you guys believe this heat today? it's got to be like what 100 degrees?
it's so weird for this time of year, and the humidity, I can't stop sweating!
anic:

Strange... it was 68 this morning in FL, and only a high of 81 with low humidity. Apparently the Powers that Be decided to show CPH the weather he's in for... lol

 

[truthspider]

Does anybody want a donut?

 

[fred&edna]

I don't think anyone here is stupid either. However, I do think anyone who still subscribes to the notion that SG was murdered has a clear case of "confirmation bias", or they just don't have a good handle on the information that we've produced here while analyzing SG's circumstances.

"Confirmation bias is a form of selective thinking in which an individual is more likely to notice or search for evidence that confirms his or her theory, while ignoring or refusing to search for contradicting evidence. Confirming evidence is given more weight, while contradicting evidence is given less weight. The components of confirmation bias include failure to seek evidence that would disprove the theory, not utilizing such evidence if found, refusing to consider alternative hypotheses, and not evaluating evidence diagnostically."

Confirmation bias is something that is prevalent in all areas - philosophy/religion, politics, science, and especially criminal investigations. It is no surprise that we find it here at Websleuths.

Confirmation bias will lead people to believe that CPH is the culprit and that SG was murdered, and any possible evidence to the contrary will be for the most part discounted.

Unfortunately, I think about 99% of any posts here are related to SG and CPH, even though the evidence has lead the police to other conclusions. I'm comforted that the police looked at the evidence objectively and determined that SG was a victim of an accidental death, even though the "evidence" from that night would make anyone think that she ran into the serial killer that night. I hope they ultimately catch this guy, and do so quickly. I just don't think anyone chasing the SG/CPH angle is going to be of any help.

I'm sure this will be an unpopular opinion here because the polls here show that 99 out of every 100 Websleuthers think SG was murdered.

I would just ask you to consider this case as if SG had never gone missing to begin with. From that perspective, your confirmation bias will disappear and perhaps you can come up with a new angle or approach that nobody's thought of before?

I don't believe the word "accidental" was used by LE (specifically the medical examiner), and I don't think I'm splitting hairs by saying... undetermined is not the same as accidental. If the death was declared an accident then why would LE still say it's an active investigation?

 

[truthspider]

The game is up. LE will prolly never get their man.
Das fin.

 

[Justiceforever]

The game is up. LE will prolly never get their man.
Das fin.

Why what's happened?

 

[fred&edna]

The game is up. LE will prolly never get their man.
Das fin.

I just hate it when the rumor goes "poof" before I even know what the rumor is/was. :maddening:

 

[mysterymom7]

I don't believe the word "accidental" was used by LE (specifically the medical examiner), and I don't think I'm splitting hairs by saying... undetermined is not the same as accidental. If the death was declared an accident then why would LE still say it's an active investigation?

When Shannan's pants, purse, etc were found (the day before her body), Dormer said he believed she died from an accidental drowning. The ME labeled it "inconclusive".

 

[WINDSOR]

I don't think anyone here is stupid either. However, I do think anyone who still subscribes to the notion that SG was murdered has a clear case of "confirmation bias", or they just don't have a good handle on the information that we've produced here while analyzing SG's circumstances.

"Confirmation bias is a form of selective thinking in which an individual is more likely to notice or search for evidence that confirms his or her theory, while ignoring or refusing to search for contradicting evidence. Confirming evidence is given more weight, while contradicting evidence is given less weight. The components of confirmation bias include failure to seek evidence that would disprove the theory, not utilizing such evidence if found, refusing to consider alternative hypotheses, and not evaluating evidence diagnostically."

Confirmation bias is something that is prevalent in all areas - philosophy/religion, politics, science, and especially criminal investigations. It is no surprise that we find it here at Websleuths.

Confirmation bias will lead people to believe that CPH is the culprit and that SG was murdered, and any possible evidence to the contrary will be for the most part discounted.

Unfortunately, I think about 99% of any posts here are related to SG and CPH, even though the evidence has lead the police to other conclusions. I'm comforted that the police looked at the evidence objectively and determined that SG was a victim of an accidental death, even though the "evidence" from that night would make anyone think that she ran into the serial killer that night. I hope they ultimately catch this guy, and do so quickly. I just don't think anyone chasing the SG/CPH angle is going to be of any help.

I'm sure this will be an unpopular opinion here because the polls here show that 99 out of every 100 Websleuthers think SG was murdered.

I would just ask you to consider this case as if SG had never gone missing to begin with. From that perspective, your confirmation bias will disappear and perhaps you can come up with a new angle or approach that nobody's thought of before?

Inspector, I tend to believe that there is some order in the universe and that events that happen are related in some way. I also believe in mathematical probabilities.


You or I for an example. We may end up dead tomorrow as a result of an accident. That is life. No big issue. But if you called 911 today and said somebody is trying to kill you, what is the chance you would die by an accident the next day? The probability becomes astronomical. Not many people who call 911 in fear for their lives, dies by an accident the next day.

You can say SG died by accident, there was no foul play involved and her death has nothing to do with the LISK. But real life is not like that.

Here is the statistical proof, in the hundreds of years that records have been kept for Oak Beach, how many people have died in marsh land area? Was SG the first and only? I think so.

If SG died climbing Mount Everest, that would be a tragedy, but understandable because 200 others have died in that mountain. How many people have died in the Oak Beach marsh? I believe the number is zero prior to SG.

So look at it statistically, a woman calls 911 in fear for here life, and her body is found where nobody else has died of natural causes before. What is the probability she died of natural causes?

You can accuse us of having 'confirmation bias' but the reality is as it appears.

SG called 911 in fear for her life; she died, her body was found where nobody else has died, it could have been an accident, but not likely.

If you ask a Vegas bookmaker, what are the odds that SG died naturally, he would be happy to take your money.

MOO

 

[Justiceforever]

I don't have a comfirmation bias because I never had a preconcieved theory. It hasn't been until very recently that I am in favor of one. I have always kept an open mind and still have, but after reading virtually everything available...I cannot believe SG death was an accident.

 

[Justiceforever]

Does anybody want a donut?

I do!! ; ))))

 

[mysterymom7]

Inspector, I tend to believe that there is some order in the universe and that events that happen are related in some way. I also believe in mathematical probabilities.


You or I for an example. We may end up dead tomorrow as a result of an accident. That is life. No big issue. But if you called 911 today and said somebody is trying to kill you, what is the chance you would die by an accident the next day? The probability becomes astronomical. Not many people who call 911 in fear for their lives, dies by an accident the next day.

You can say SG died by accident, there was no foul play involved and her death has nothing to do with the LISK. But real life is not like that.

Here is the statistical proof, in the hundreds of years that records have been kept for Oak Beach, how many people have died in marsh land area? Was SG the first and only? I think so.

If SG died climbing Mount Everest, that would be a tragedy, but understandable because 200 others have died in that mountain. How many people have died in the Oak Beach marsh? I believe the number is zero prior to SG.

So look at it statistically, a woman calls 911 in fear for here life, and her body is found where nobody else has died of natural causes before. What is the probability she died of natural causes?

You can accuse us of having 'confirmation bias' but the reality is as it appears.

SG called 911 in fear for her life; she died, her body was found where nobody else has died, it could have been an accident, but not likely.

If you ask a Vegas bookmaker, what are the odds that SG died naturally, he would be happy to take your money.

MOO

Thank you for writing this! I'm glad you saved me the trouble.

IMO, it becomes a "theory of common sense" as well as statistical probability.

My children learned in pre-k to call 911 for an EMERGENCY. If you google "when should you call 911," I'm sure "to shoot the breeze with the operator for 23 min" is not on any list.

If I am not directly involved in a case that wasn't even mentioned in a police press report, I don't seek out the mother of the victim, then lie about it, then say I called twice, and although I can't remember what I said, I know I didn't say what she claims I said.

If I was just "in bed with my wife", I would jump at the chance to take a polygraph to clear my name.

How does a woman's shoes, pants, phone, purse wind up in my back yard? Wouldn't it make more (common) sense to stay on the phone with 911, especially if I was already on the phone with 911 for 23 min, than it would for me to take my shoes and pants off and leave everything behind to run barefoot through the reeds toward a street lamp? ...only to be found dead by "drowning" in ankle deep water... Do you know how difficult it is to drown when you can lift your head up out of the water?

I'm glad I have enough common sense to navigate through life.

 

[Seajay]

I would just ask you to consider this case as if SG had never gone missing to begin with. From that perspective, your confirmation bias will disappear and perhaps you can come up with a new angle or approach that nobody's thought of before?

RSBM. That's a little hard to do because had SG never gone missing, we would have never known about the GB4 or the OB6 at all and there would be no case to have confirmation bias or not.

 

[deedee21]

MP said that he thought SG acted the way she did in JB home because she wanted to get out of giving him his cut of the money.(I am paraphrasing) . This is not a conclusion he would come to if she was in the habit of running out of clients homes.So I dont believe he said it.