OH OH - Katelyn Markham, 22, Fairfield, 14 August 2011 - #4

[Peepers]

I mean if there was a search, and everyone gathered for it and TM said, "hey we decided to go search this area 15 miles from here", then there probably were pings. If TM gathered everyone right there near the scene and searched just nearby, the pings rumor is probably not true..right??

 

[cluciano63]

I mean if there was a search, and everyone gathered for it and TM said, "hey we decided to go search this area 15 miles from here", then there probably were pings. If TM gathered everyone right there near the scene and searched just nearby, the pings rumor is probably not true..right??

From what I read on FB, they searched around the area of John's parents and/or steps home, which is where one ping is rumored, as well as another town outside of Fairfield. So they are either hitting various areas due to LE already having searched the entire town, as they said they did weeks ago, or they are following some pings, and that is what made TM so angry, that people determined that pings were a factor when they wanted to pretend they weren't.

 

[Peepers]

Thanks! I read the FB posts and it makes more sense now. Maybe I should have done that first. lol

 

[cluciano63]

Billboards of some sort have been donated apparently...if someone has killed and buried her, hope they are sleepless with guilt at the idea of people everywhere keeping an eye out for her, as though she is simply missing.

 

[lg25]

From what I read on FB, they searched around the area of John's parents and/or steps home, which is where one ping is rumored, as well as another town outside of Fairfield. So they are either hitting various areas due to LE already having searched the entire town, as they said they did weeks ago, or they are following some pings, and that is what made TM so angry, that people determined that pings were a factor when they wanted to pretend they weren't.

The search area, outside of Fairfield, is home to relatives and friends of John. LE stated that they knew the area of Katelyn's last cell phone ping. They did NOT say where that was. The location (rumored) of that ping was not revealed until 2 days after TM/TES published their new search rule. I have no idea why TM is so angry. Something must have happened, but I have no idea what it was. But, the rumored 'ping' location did not show up on FB until after the TES message. Internet posters can still join searches, just not TES searches. TES is not here now, but searches are ongoing.

 

[SchoolgirlShamus]

Honestly I can see how rumors CAN indeed impede an investigation and search. For instance, the cell phone thing. Rumor was that it was found. So searchers might have thought they shouldn't be looking for a cell phone.

No one in their right mind on a search would ignore a red cell phone on the ground, even IF they believed hers had already been found. And surely searchers are instructed by TES what exactly to look for in a briefing before the search...? If someone tells you look for her phone, surely most people realize the other report had to be false?

At any rate, confused information cannot be laid solely at the feet of internet rumors. The August 31 Nancy Grace segment gave a lot of time and emphasis (and visuals) to the phone that was found, implying strongly that it was Katelyn's, and never clarifying that it was not.

 

[SchoolgirlShamus]

For me, if this were true, it really makes me wonder if Katelyn ever came back home after the fair.

Once again: they did not attend the fair the night Katelyn disappeared which was Saturday night. They attended the night before, Friday night.

List of Facts & Statements:

http://kmdce.livejournal.com/1435.html

 

[SchoolgirlShamus]

I agree, it is the FB site that is problematic (and I've enjoyed reading over there). ... What is accomplished by rumors and heresay?

I can think of one example. There was a rumor that JC had spent $100 on raffle tickets at the fair Friday night, and KM was upset about it. But, a good friend who was with them that night (she is also the admin of the main group, the one that deletes all questions about JC) said they were perfectly happy that night, not fighting at all, and that JC wouldn't have done that.

Nonetheless I included this rumor (noting it as such) in my "info page" because I thought it had the ring of authenticity. I know the press reads the FB discussion page, because a local reporter has visited and said so. Sure enough, a few days later, JC was asked about the $100 raffle ticket purchase in a TV interview. He admitted to it, but denied (of course) that Katelyn was upset about it.

Some rumors are false, and some are true. Yet people toss around the term like it indicates a statement totally lacking in merit. In a case like this, with no evidence and no body, every scrap of information that is the least bit plausible is worth checking into.

 

[SchoolgirlShamus]

The location (rumored) of that ping was not revealed until 2 days after TM/TES published their new search rule. I have no idea why TM is so angry.

Thank you for posting this important point.

Once more, for good measure: the leaked ping/search information was NOT the reason for TM's statement. It occurred 2 days afterwards.

A "Considering Everything" FB group contributor wrote to TES, asking for clarification on TM's statement, because so many people disbelieved that it meant what it explicitly said; many trusted that it was just unfortunate wording and was meant to admonish against gossiping at searches. However, the response from TES confirmed the original statement, saying it was correct, and that "our volunteers/members are specifically forbidden from discussing open cases on any type of social media, blog, etc."

Since they can't possibly enforce such a thing, it strikes me as a public relations faux pas to say it at all.

 

[JeannaT]

They can't enforce it, but they can set the tone for what they're looking for in volunteers. They explicitly don't want gossipers, or people who post unflattering speculation about loved ones in open cases where there is no evidence.

Taking the high road.

 

[cluciano63]

I can think of one example. There was a rumor that JC had spent $100 on raffle tickets at the fair Friday night, and KM was upset about it. But, a good friend who was with them that night (she is also the admin of the main group, the one that deletes all questions about JC) said they were perfectly happy that night, not fighting at all, and that JC wouldn't have done that.

Nonetheless I included this rumor (noting it as such) in my "info page" because I thought it had the ring of authenticity. I know the press reads the FB discussion page, because a local reporter has visited and said so. Sure enough, a few days later, JC was asked about the $100 raffle ticket purchase in a TV interview. He admitted to it, but denied (of course) that Katelyn was upset about it.

Some rumors are false, and some are true. Yet people toss around the term like it indicates a statement totally lacking in merit. In a case like this, with no evidence and no body, every scrap of information that is the least bit plausible is worth checking into.

We just use the word "rumor" here to indicate something that is not verified by LE or the media; not to offend anyone. It's just that things that have not been verified tend to become a part of the facts if repeated often enough. Maybe they are true, but we don't know that.

 

[chasing.halos]

Hello SchoolGirlShamus. I see I have been quoted in a number of your posts. Just an FYI, I do not follow this case any longer but happened to see this page and wanted to reply to your comments.

Thanks for clarifying they did not attend the fair the night of Katelyn's disappearance. I was totally wrong on that. That wasn't a rumor I don't think, just me getting it wrong. I do appreciate you clarifying that. As far as the TES stuff, I am not going to get into that, as I don't think it helps in finding Katelyn.

A special thanks to all those searchers looking for Katelyn, especially News_Junkie. You are wonderful people!! :grouphug:

 

[Breazy]

Anybody know when TES is suppose to be going back to search for Katelyn again? For some reason, I can't seem to think of what was said previously.

I am so scared that Katelyn's case is going cold. I pray I'm wrong!!

 

[pynkphysh]

Anybody know when TES is suppose to be going back to search for Katelyn again? For some reason, I can't seem to think of what was said previously.

I am so scared that Katelyn's case is going cold. I pray I'm wrong!!

Breazy, TES will be back after the first frost date. They also noted that they're just a phone call away if a clue comes in; they'll be back sooner if that happens.

 

[Breazy]

Breazy, TES will be back after the first frost date. They also noted that they're just a phone call away if a clue comes in; they'll be back sooner if that happens.

Yes, I remember now... thanks!

 

[SchoolgirlShamus]

They can't enforce it, but they can set the tone for what they're looking for in volunteers. They explicitly don't want gossipers, or people who post unflattering speculation about loved ones in open cases where there is no evidence.

Right, but how many people will realistically decide, "Gosh, I want to search... but I guess I better not, because I'm a vile gossip who has been spouting unflattering speculations and I know TES doesn't want my kind around. So I'll stay home." Most people discussing the case probably don't regard themselves in quite that light. lol

Several people closely associated with Katelyn's fiance have said the Considering Everything group contributes nothing to the case but gossip, rumor-mongering, bashing, and even libel. But the truth is, some very thoughtful and intelligent people there are doing smart things, like closely examining the timeline and drawing logical inferences from it. They also ask clarifying questions of friends and family who (voluntarily) appear in the group and announce they have nothing to hide so ask them anything, etc.

If someone sees a glaring inconsistency and brings it to the table for discussion, and the inconsistency casts an "unflattering" light on the loved one in question, how is that the fault of the person who merely noticed it? That loved one is the author of that inconsistency and thus of any "unflattering" perceptions that develop. That loved one must reasonably expect to generate public reaction when he chooses to express himself in the public eye.

BTW, the TES spokesperson who answered the inquiry to clarify TM's statement apparently regards ANY discussion as a problem. She did not limit the stricture to those making "unflattering" speculations about "loved ones" but to anyone discussing the case in blogs and social media. (I'm sure people discuss it in the real world too; but they are not mentioned.)

To sum up:

-I understand having a problem with obnoxious people who won't shut up on the searches. (Send them home and ask them not to return.)

-I understand if TES wants to distance itself from any appearance of partaking in or supporting any particular kind of public speculation.

-I do not understand why they're speaking for local law enforcement, who have said not one word to the Considering Everything administrator.

-I do not understand why they'd want to alienate interested, motived, caring people, reduce the number of volunteers (when the refrain has been that they don't have enough), and reduce donations.

 

[SchoolgirlShamus]

We just use the word "rumor" here to indicate something that is not verified by LE or the media; not to offend anyone.

Oh, I wasn't even thinking primarily of WebSleuths during my little "rumor" rant. I see people on FB say so often that something is "just a rumor" when they clearly mean "someone made it up out of whole cloth." Drives me crazy... I think rumors and talk, especially by people who know the involved parties, can be unexpectedly enlightening. Not all of it, of course, or even most of it... but maybe some of it.

"I love rumorsssss!" - Col. Hans Landa from Inglourious Basterds

 

[ShouldBWorking]

I must admit, I use to think that TES was a great organization BUT after their involvement here and what was said and seen of this group in Cinn. I am not all that impressed. I think about the high profile cases they have been involved in and not the best track record, I went on a search and DIDN'T say one word about the case BUT a lot of folks searching in my group talked about it and TES said nothing and they heard the conversation, so you can talk to random people about searching and spout off integrity etc. BUT you let folks talk during the searches and stay mute.....I just don't understand it. Tim from Equu Search stood in the shade and talked to reporters so in reality he could do his part from Texas....just not impressed!

 

[AmandaReckonwith]

TES and Tim Miller are imperfect. (I was hella mad at him in the Haleigh Cummings case). But they are well known and sought after because they DO bring obscure cases to national attention.

And I do get why they don't want people on public sites yakking about the searches, locations, stuff found. Facebook brings it's own sort of craziness when locals and friends are guided by emotion. You cannot help it. But it does not help the search.

We armchair detectives cannot solve cases, even when we are absolutely right.

If I were a family member of a missing person I don't think I could bear to read most of it.


Schoolgirl Shamus, I also want to mention that your site is a fabulous resource! So many details and keeping it straight is a job. Good for you

 

[cluciano63]

I'd still like to know how TES plans to enforce their new rule if and when they return to search for Katelyn; will it be on the honor system? Will volunteers have to sign a form stating that they have not "blogged" about Katelyn? And how will that be verified, since many use false profiles? It seems like a waste of time to me, not to mention spreading of ill will by TES, the way they phrased their message. They could have worded it in an entirely different way that would not turn people off to their group (and it has done that, for better or worse.)