Possible Victim: Shannan Gilbert #2

[PreciousDust]

Please could you elaborate. These statements are made very definitively and I would be curious to know the reasoning behind them.

Shannan being given a sedative is a he said/she said between Mari Gilbert and Charles Hackett. Mari says he said it, Hackett denies saying it or doing it. There is zero evidence that it happened, it's speculation when anyone opines about it, and my opinion is that it's extremely unlikely and did not occur.

Before people ask questions about how Hackett would answer certain questions, it's important to look at the record. On page 784 of his Examination Before Trial (EBT), for instance, Hackett claims he'd never heard the expression "wayward girl" until John Ray said it to him. Clearly, it would be useless to ask him questions about his "home for wayward girls" when he claims to be unfamiliar with the term.

There is no indication that I know of that he is practicing medicine in Florida, where he now lives. There is no indication that I know of that he has pending lawsuits against him. The onus is on the people who make those claims to prove them (definitively), not for others to disprove them.

Oak Beach is rife with liars. Hackett, we know, lied originally about not calling Mari. Many of the rest of the residents seem to enjoy making up stories about Hackett.

 

[PreciousDust]

If you believe Hackett treated Shannan in Pak's presence, as Hackett has stated.

Hackett denies treating, or even meeting, Shannan Gilbert. By all means, though, please show where Hackett stated otherwise.

 

[White_Rabbit]

Shannan being given a sedative is a he said/she said between Mari Gilbert and Charles Hackett. Mari says he said it, Hackett denies saying it or doing it. There is zero evidence that it happened, it's speculation when anyone opines about it, and my opinion is that it's extremely unlikely and did not occur.

Before people ask questions about how Hackett would answer certain questions, it's important to look at the record. On page 784 of his Examination Before Trial (EBT), for instance, Hackett claims he'd never heard the expression "wayward girl" until John Ray said it to him. Clearly, it would be useless to ask him questions about his "home for wayward girls" when he claims to be unfamiliar with the term.

There is no indication that I know of that he is practicing medicine in Florida, where he now lives. There is no indication that I know of that he has pending lawsuits against him. The onus is on the people who make those claims to prove them (definitively), not for others to disprove them.

Oak Beach is rife with liars. Hackett, we know, lied originally about not calling Mari. Many of the rest of the residents seem to enjoy making up stories about Hackett.

Thank you for elaborating.

The reasoning in your reply is exactly why there needs to be a jury trial in the case of Gilbert, Shannan, Estate of, vs. Hackett, Charles Peter, D.O., which is the current lawsuit against him in Suffolk County Supreme Court.

Peter Hackett's credibility is being called into question. He denied calling Mari Gilbert and it was discovered that not only did he call Mari Gilbert, he called from a phone other than his own. Both the fact that he called from a different phone and that he denied making the call shows that he was being devious and deceitful in order to protect himself from something he may have done. If he lied about something as simple as making the call to Mari Gilbert, it stands to reason that he may be lying about other more important things.

The September 24, 2014 Affidavit of Bruce Anderson is evidence. Bruce Anderson clearly states that Peter Hackett personally told him that he ran a home for wayward girls.

The May 28, 2014 deposition of Mari Gilbert is evidence.

The January 10, 2016 statement of Joe Scalise is evidence.

The statement of Evelyn Scalise is evidence.

In the interest of justice for Shannan Gilbert the defendant Peter Hackett and the other witnesses should be examined before a jury, and the jury should be allowed to determine who they believe is telling the truth, Peter Hackett or the other witnesses (except for Mari Gilbert may she rest in peace) who are not on trial.

 

[WINDSOR]

Hackett denies treating, or even meeting, Shannan Gilbert. By all means, though, please show where Hackett stated otherwise.

Hackett, called Shannan's mother, and told her that he treated Shannan. Hackett initially denied making that phone call, then subsequently admitted in writing that he made the call. Hackett lies about telling the truth.
PreciousDust, Is there any proof or evidence that Hackett never met Shannan, or is not involved in her demise in some way?

 

[LR1]

There were multiple calls to 911 that morning including the one from Gus Colleti and the one from Barbara Brennan. I'm not sure if the first officer to arrive was responding to Barbara Brennan or Gus Colleti. If it was the responder to Barbara Brennan who arrived first, then we know Barbara Brennan made no mention of the black SUV in her call, and that officer would have no reason to be searching for it, rather, he would be searching for a young woman. When the other responder arrived he would then link up with the first, and they would work together. Thomas Canning, Barbara Brennan, Justin Canning and then Gus Colleti all congregated around Barbara Brennan's house with the two responding police officers. The priority may have been to find the young woman not the black SUV.

All units responding to oak beach, in fact all units on duty would've had access to the information about the vehicle, if not from hearing it given out over the air, then through their CAD system which they are constantly reading.

 

[WINDSOR]

Hackett denies treating, or even meeting, Shannan Gilbert. By all means, though, please show where Hackett stated otherwise.

If you believe Hackett's denial, then there is nothing more to say; other than Hackett denied ever speaking to Mari, then admitted he did. It all points to the character and credibility of Dr. Hackett.

 

[ACG2x]

I saw a few more references to Brewer and his possible involvement in a conspiracy to hurt Shanann. That's the one guy in this scenario who I don't really have any suspicion cast on for several reasons:

1. There is no credible evidence to suggest that he and Pak or he and Shanann knew each other in any capacity before this event. So to get there, you have to believe that Brewer and Pak concocted a plan to hurt or kill Shanann in the short time she was at Brewer's residence - much of which was spent with Shanann entertaining Brewer and guests.
2. Brewer is heard multiple times on the call telling Pak to get Shanann to leave and he was "going upstairs" which I presume to mean to bed. Brewer even tries to coerce Shannan out of his home and to step outside which again I believe so he can shut and lock the door and get rid of her.
3. No sightings of Brewer at any point past when Shanann ran from his home during the 911 call. There are multiple sightings of Pak's SUV casing the neighborhood for her. This tells me he stayed in his home.
4. Gus Colletti specifically stated that Pak was alone in his SUV when they encountered each other as Pak drove by.
5. Shanann was refusing to leave Brewer's home with Pak. On the 911 call, she repeatedly refuses to go with Pak and would rather stay inside Brewer's home. It's clear that it's Pak she fears, not Brewer.

There are other minor reasons but those are the big ones. #1 alone to me is enough to pretty much clear him. If Pak & Brewer didn't know each other, you have to believe that Pak brought Shanann to Brewer's home, then clued him in on 'hey I'm going to hurt this girl, need your help bro' and Brewer just went along with it. Just makes no sense.

In the end, I think Brewer himself was just a lonely middle-aged guy who had some money and paid for sex/sexual entertainment from younger women. Without knowing who else was at the party with Brewer/Pak/Shanann, it's impossible to determine if another male was there and said or did something to Shanann that gave her this fear.

But around the time Shanann called 911, I think Brewer had gotten to the point where the party was over, it was almost 5AM and he wanted to go to bed. She wouldn't leave or go outside so he called Pak and basically told him hey you brought her here, you get her to leave. She wouldn't and was acting very strange so Brewer finally decided screw it, I'm going to bed, this guy (Pak) needs to take care of it.

 

[PreciousDust]

Hackett, called Shannan's mother, and told her that he treated Shannan.

After writing my post, I remembered that you treat an allegation as a fact. "According to Mari Gilbert, Hackett told her he treated Shannan" - there's a sentence I can live with, since it's accurate. I have no opinion about whether he said it or not, and if he didn't it doesn't mean Mari was lying - a grieving mother trying to deal with law enforcement and lawyers and Oak Beach residents is entitled to get something wrong.

Is there any proof or evidence that Hackett never met Shannan, or is not involved in her demise in some way?

Ah, proving a negative. It's not necessary, no one has to prove their innocence, it's the other way around. There's no proof that I (or anyone else on the planet) didn't meet her or cause her demise, but I'm not worried about finger-pointing from people who don't understand law.

 

[PreciousDust]

The reasoning in your reply is exactly why there needs to be a jury trial in the case of Gilbert, Shannan, Estate of, vs. Hackett, Charles Peter, D.O., which is the current lawsuit against him in Suffolk County Supreme Court.

I was hoping the underlined "current" was a link to show that civil (not criminal) lawsuit is still active. I don't see any upcoming court dates; I can't imagine that even John Ray thinks anything will ever happen with it.

The September 24, 2014 Affidavit of Bruce Anderson is evidence. Bruce Anderson clearly states that Peter Hackett personally told him that he ran a home for wayward girls.

You know, I assume, that Bruce Anderson's credibility is just about on the same level as Hackett's. Ditto FlukeYou. No jury can be assembled to hear he-said/she-said's, the court docket is replete with actual cases.

 

[White_Rabbit]

I was hoping the underlined "current" was a link to show that civil (not criminal) lawsuit is still active. I don't see any upcoming court dates;

Gilbert, Shannan, Estate of, vs. Hackett, Charles Peter, D.O. is still listed as an active case. The request for Summary Judgment filed on April 9, 2021 still has not been decided.

I can't imagine that even John Ray thinks anything will ever happen with it.

I knew a person that was in the midst of a custody hearing. The clerks and the lawyers kept telling him he doesn't stand a chance, the judge will rule against you, it's better to settle. etc.. My advise to him was not to allow the clerks and the lawyers to pressure him into a settlement if he was not comfortable with it, and to let the judge make the final decision. It turns out the clerks and lawyers were all wrong, and the judge ruled in his favor.

You know, I assume, that Bruce Anderson's credibility is just about on the same level as Hackett's. Ditto FlukeYou. No jury can be assembled to hear he-said/she-said's, the court docket is replete with actual cases.

This is an actual case that is well known, made headlines and is discussed in the public (similar to the way we are now discussing it in this forum, and many other forums), and everyone involved should have their credibility examined in front of a jury.

I'm very curious. Setting aside what can proved in court (and it seems by your standards that the accused would need to be caught holding the murder weapon on video in front of several witnesses), what is your personal opinion on what happened to Shannan Gilbert? What is your personal opinion on Peter Hackett's involvement? What is your personal opinion regarding circumstantial evidence?

 

[WINDSOR]

After writing my post, I remembered that you treat an allegation as a fact. "According to Mari Gilbert, Hackett told her he treated Shannan" - there's a sentence I can live with, since it's accurate. I have no opinion about whether he said it or not, and if he didn't it doesn't mean Mari was lying - a grieving mother trying to deal with law enforcement and lawyers and Oak Beach residents is entitled to get something wrong.



Ah, proving a negative. It's not necessary, no one has to prove their innocence, it's the other way around. There's no proof that I (or anyone else on the planet) didn't meet her or cause her demise, but I'm not worried about finger-pointing from people who don't understand law.

Precious, this is not a legal forum, nor a court of law. I do not think it is necessary for one to impose the restrictions of Legal Statues on the forum members. Legally none of the individuals being discussed have been charged with any crime.

Last time I checked, the 1st Amendment allowed people to discuss opinions, ideas, suppositions, allegations and such, on forums like this.

I agree I may not understand the law, and never have purported to. All I understand is that Shannan believed and expressed on the 911 call, that someone was trying to kill her, and she did end up dead.

 

[PreciousDust]

what is your personal opinion on what happened to Shannan Gilbert?

It's a puzzler, isn't it. I'm at 80% killed by Pak at a drug lord's instruction, 20% headed for lights on Robert Moses bridge and succumbed to elements. Maybe more like 90% to 10%.

What is your personal opinion on Peter Hackett's involvement?

Slept through it, I've said so.

What is your personal opinion regarding circumstantial evidence?

Enough of it convinces a jury. He said she said's are anecdotal evidence, which is weaker.

 

[PreciousDust]

Last time I checked, the 1st Amendment allowed people to discuss opinions, ideas, suppositions, allegations and such, on forums like this.

Discuss away, you just threw me by stating an allegation as a fact, until I remembered that you do see it that way. And, indeed, in a trial, a prosecutor might very well tell the jury "Peter Hackett treated Shannan Gilbert". Defense would object, obvs.

 

[White_Rabbit]

It's a puzzler, isn't it. I'm at 80% killed by Pak at a drug lord's instruction, 20% headed for lights on Robert Moses bridge and succumbed to elements. Maybe more like 90% to 10%.



Slept through it, I've said so.



Enough of it convinces a jury. He said she said's are anecdotal evidence, which is weaker.

You seem to have attributed quotes from my post to Windsor.

1) Shannan, hysterical, in the immediate vicinity of Peter Hackett's house on the morning she disappeared is circumstantial.

2) Peter Hackett behaving in very suspicious ways after Shannan's disappearance is also circumstantial.

3) Peter Hackett contacting Mari Gilbert and then lying about the fact that he called is also circumstantial.

 

[PreciousDust]

You seem to have attributed quotes from my post to Windsor.

I see that, no idea how that happened.

1) Shannan, hysterical, in the immediate vicinity of Peter Hackett's house on the morning she disappeared is circumstantial.

That would make everyone on the block a suspect, wouldn't it?

2) Peter Hackett behaving in very suspicious ways after Shannan's disappearance is also circumstantial.

Besides the phone call, what behavior of his was suspicious in a circumstantial way? Descriptions of his actions by locals is anecdotal, just like claims that he sedated people or talked about homes for wayward girls is anecdotal.

3) Peter Hackett contacting Mari Gilbert and then lying about the fact that he called is also circumstantial.

That's it right there, that's the one thing that we know Hackett did, that lie. And it's certainly suspicious, it's hard to know why he lied about it. I think you need more to bring a negligent homicide (or whatever) charge, which is why there's just a civil case out there, if it's still out there. I don't think a criminal prosecutor can say, "Hackett lied about calling Mari, Mari filed a report saying that Hackett admitted to sedating Shannan, and drugged Shannan then died", unless there's some type of corroboration and further evidence. For instance, people who actually say they were treated by Hackett at his house, instead of locals saying it was common knowledge around town. Hackett called the mother of a missing person and identified himself by name - if Shannan met foul play, it's hard for me to see that guy as the boogeyman.

 

[WINDSOR]

If Hackett never met or treated Shannan that night, how did he come to call Mari? Hackett has admitted calling Mari, so that is solid admissible evidence.

The point is if Hackett never had any interaction with Shannan, how would he be aware of her existence (or Mari's phone number), and why would he have called Mari. It just does not make sense.

Therefore based on the call to Mari, the only sensible assumption is that Hackett did come in contact with Shannan.

If you take the position that Hackett never met Shannan, please explain how he was able to talk to the mother Mari, about her daughter, Shannan, who he never met?

 

[White_Rabbit]

That would make everyone on the block a suspect, wouldn't it?

The fact that she was last seen in the vicinity of Peter Hackett’s house becomes more significant in light of the other circumstances.

Besides the phone call, what behavior of his was suspicious in a circumstantial way? Descriptions of his actions by locals is anecdotal, just like claims that he sedated people or talked about homes for wayward girls is anecdotal.

Please refer to John Ray’s synopsis for many examples of suspicious behavior on the part of Peter Hackett following Shannan’s disappearance.

One example in particular, which surprisingly John Ray did not list, is when Erin Moriarty of 48 hours asked Peter Hackett about the phone call to Mari Gilbert. He stops himself in mid-sentence when he states, “When you give.. let me not get into it.” What else could he possibly have alluded to besides medical assistance?

 

[PreciousDust]

If Hackett never met or treated Shannan that night, how did he come to call Mari?

Hackett has always said that Pak and Alex Diaz, there the next day to look for Shannon, gave him Mari's number. I'm not aware that there's any controversy on that point.

 

[WINDSOR]

Hackett has always said that Pak and Alex Diaz, there the next day to look for Shannon, gave him Mari's number. I'm not aware that there's any controversy on that point.

Exactly, that is what Hackett said. So we do not have any idea if it is a true and factual statement.

Now please explain why Hackett would ask for, or accept Mari's number from these two total strangers, and call Mari.
Hackett never admitted knowing MP or AD before they came to his house. He does not admit meeting Shannan.

(Curious of all the homes in Oak Beach, we only are aware of MP and AD handing out Mari's phone to one individual, Hackett. Did they visit anybody else?)

I can see the scenario now.................

MP-AD: "Hello sir, we are looking for a woman who disappeared from near here. Did you see or hear anything?

Hackett: "I did not hear or see anything, but if you have the missing girl's family phone contacts I would be happy to call and comfort those people."

ALTERNATIVELY

MP-AD: "Hello sir, we are looking for a woman who disappeared from near here. Did you see or hear anything? If you think of anything, here is the missing girl's mother's contact info. Do not call us but call her.

Hackett: "I did not hear or see anything, Yes give me the mother's contact info I would be happy to call and comfort her mother.

I have not been involved in too many missing person's search efforts, but I believe the only phone number given out is that of Law Enforcement or a designated 'Search Team Leader'.

 

[PreciousDust]

Exactly, that is what Hackett said. So we do not have any idea if it is a true and factual statement.

Pak, on page 228: "I think Alex called Mari and put Hackett on the phone."
Then, by the way, Ray asks Pak if Hackett mentioned a home for wayward girls, and Pak says "Never" (which isn't good enough for Ray).
So, in that scenario, people are just handing phones to Hackett with Mari already on the line.

Does anyone refute Hackett's explanation of how he got Mari's number? Where do those people suggest that Hackett did get the number?