GUILTY SC - Samantha Josephson, 21, Columbia, thought she was getting into Uber, 29 Mar 2019 *Arrest* #2

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

@Peppery

Let me start by saying I am new to the page. I thought I read all the posts before I posted. However, I didn’t realize there was 2 threads. This is much different than FB & discussion groups (so I am trying to watch what I say) I’m trying to separate actual facts vs accusations.

In my earlier post playing devils advocate, I was merely trying to throw out another side. I want to make it clear I was not victim blaming! I’m 100% sure NOONE believes that IF NR & SJ knew eachother than that would give him a reason to murder her. Absolutely noone deserves to be murdered!! However, I truly don’t think it’s irrelevant. If that is the case, then what would be purpose of the thread? Everyone trying to piece together the night with very little information. So that leaves me little confused.

I want to add the devils advocate post wasn’t just random stuff I picked out of the air. I’m sorry if anyone was offended. Those where no my intentions.

If an admin can reach out to me or someone can help me understand some of these rules, I would appreciate it. I have read thru them multiple times. I can’t figure out how to message because I am new to the site. Here is where I’m running into issues - For example: In my devils advocate post, I stated what IF NR was at a party. I stated it because he had a friend that posted on FB that he was road tripping to Columbia to party. He also tagged NR in it. Merely, assumption but I think he was tagged because he was coming down to party with NR. (which is where the senecio came from) My question is.. I know I can’t share his FB per group rules. Would this be assumption? Can it not be mentioned?

Sorry, if the is confusing but I don’t want anyone to take things that I say with ill intent. Samantha did not deserve to die for any reason whatsoever! We are all here for #justiceforsam.

Please delete if not allowed.
 
liltexans said:
MOD NOTE

It's against TOS to race-bait or to have a debate about race in a case thread. This applies to all cases. Please stay on topic.
Click to expand...

With honest respect, I don't believe anyone was race-baiting, which is defined as encouraging racism, using racially derisive language in order to intimidate or coerce, or making verbal attacks against members of a racial group. Nor were we even having a debate about race in general.

As in many places throughout these threads, we were on the specific topic considering what the mindset/motivation may have been when actions are taken or not taken. In this case, we were considering why he did not call LE and why he fled. Racial disparity in the justice system from the point of arrest through sentencing is a well documented phenomenon, and as a black male he would be aware of it and we were considering if that contributed to why he didn't call LE and later fled. This seemed like a valid discussion point.

Can you help us understand how this violates TOS?
 
TruthSeeker007 said:
@Peppery

Let me start by saying I am new to the page. I thought I read all the posts before I posted. However, I didn’t realize there was 2 threads. This is much different than FB & discussion groups (so I am trying to watch what I say) I’m trying to separate actual facts vs accusations.

In my earlier post playing devils advocate, I was merely trying to throw out another side. I want to make it clear I was not victim blaming! I’m 100% sure NOONE believes that IF NR & SJ knew eachother than that would give him a reason to murder her. Absolutely noone deserves to be murdered!! However, I truly don’t think it’s irrelevant. If that is the case, then what would be purpose of the thread? Everyone trying to piece together the night with very little information. So that leaves me little confused.

I want to add the devils advocate post wasn’t just random stuff I picked out of the air. I’m sorry if anyone was offended. Those where no my intentions.

If an admin can reach out to me or someone can help me understand some of these rules, I would appreciate it. I have read thru them multiple times. I can’t figure out how to message because I am new to the site. Here is where I’m running into issues - For example: In my devils advocate post, I stated what IF NR was at a party. I stated it because he had a friend that posted on FB that he was road tripping to Columbia to party. He also tagged NR in it. Merely, assumption but I think he was tagged because he was coming down to party with NR. (which is where the senecio came from) My question is.. I know I can’t share his FB per group rules. Would this be assumption? Can it not be mentioned?

Sorry, if the is confusing but I don’t want anyone to take things that I say with ill intent. Samantha did not deserve to die for any reason whatsoever! We are all here for #justiceforsam.

Please delete if not allowed.
Click to expand...

I am not a mod, but social media sites tend to be problematic oftentimes. My understanding is that you can mention something that the suspect said on his social media page, but cannot reference something that someone else said, nor can you reference anything that is said on someone's page that is not a suspect or POI (person of interest). If you use something you saw there to form a hypothesis, and you state that it is only a thought and not a fact, I believe it would probably be allowed to stand. I personally didn't see anything wrong with your post, and I was the first person to reply to it. I will say that mods ask that you submit questions like the ones you have to them directly in a message, rather than to post it in a thread here. They get kinda fussy about "off topic" posts at times. And finally, I do not believe anyone here thought you posted anything with ill intent. And btw, welcome to Websleuths!
 
Last edited:
Bugurl747 said:
This is a big development!

The article states: ' the weapon was discovered in the execution of the initial round of search warrants issued'

Besides the Impala, do we know the locations that the initial search warrant covered ?
Click to expand...
Wasn't there some sort of body of water that was searched? Maybe it was found there. Imo
 
MsBetsy said:
Wasn't there some sort of body of water that was searched? Maybe it was found there. Imo
Click to expand...

Yes, there was a small pond near where her body was located, and they were using shovels and metal detectors. I think it's interesting that this search was conducted five days after her body was found, so likely additional information came to light to send them back there to do a more thorough search. Here are links about the search:

This one mentions the pond:

SCDNR: Wednesday search in Clarendon Co. for ‘additional articles’ related to the murder of UofSC student Samantha Josephson

This one mentions metal detectors:

Officials: Search underway in SC is for 'additional articles' related to college student's murder
 
IMO When you take away all the "What ifs", the "I feels", the "I thinks", the devil's advocating, the unproven claims of all those who knew him, and apply the principal of Occum's Razor, to the actual facts, that have been officially released, the result clearly shows that Nathaniel Rowland killed Samantha Josephson, the night she entered that car.
 
Heather30024 said:
With honest respect, I don't believe anyone was race-baiting, which is defined as encouraging racism, using racially derisive language in order to intimidate or coerce, or making verbal attacks against members of a racial group. Nor were we even having a debate about race in general.

As in many places throughout these threads, we were on the specific topic considering what the mindset/motivation may have been when actions are taken or not taken. In this case, we were considering why he did not call LE and why he fled. Racial disparity in the justice system from the point of arrest through sentencing is a well documented phenomenon, and as a black male he would be aware of it and we were considering if that contributed to why he didn't call LE and later fled. This seemed like a valid discussion point.

Can you help us understand how this violates TOS?
Click to expand...

We respectfully ask you follow our terms of service and do not interrupt a thread discussion with your opinion on moderation or how we do things. This thread is for the case discussion only. In the future please send the moderators a message if you have a question.

Since the thread discussion has already stopped I will answer your question.

First, every day on Websleuths thousands of members post with no problem. Our rules are simple and basic.

Do not personally attack each other, keep on topic, do not post random Facebook or non-mainstream media sites,
and do not bring racism or politics into a discussion unless there is absolute proof that it is imperative to discuss these topics in regards to the case.

In other words, just because someone says something about a case is racist doesn't mean it's so. However, it also could be true but until we have concrete evidence of racism we are not going allow any discussion to turn into one about racism today.

If Websleuths could help even one little bit the problem of racism I would allow the discussion but it has been proven time and time again that we cannot discuss race because everyone gets mad and the discussion always blows up.

Until there is evidence in this case of any type of racism that topic is off the table. It is not up for discussion. If you do not agree then you need to decide if you want to stay or go somewhere else and post.

This case has plenty of known facts to discuss. Please stick to the facts and do not blow up the thread or stop the discussion by going off topic.

Thank you,
Tricia
 
APR 9, 2019
Samantha Josephson: State lawmakers push for rideshare safety bill after student's death - CNN
[...]

South Carolina Rep. Seth Rose and Rep. Micah Caskey co-sponsored the "Samantha L. Josephson Ridesharing Safety Act" bill to make it easier for riders to identify Uber and Lyft vehicles.

The bill passed by a vote of 99-1, Rose said. The bill now advances to the Senate.

"This legislation creates an initial step by which someone should be able to start the process of verifying that a rideshare is in fact their vehicle," said Rose, who filed the bill just days after Josephson's death. "You still need to check the license plate, ask the driver to recite your name and follow other safety procedures that are available and in place. But with this bill, we are trying to allow the citizen to verify from a distance that a vehicle may be their rideshare."

[...]
 
Tricia said:
In other words, just because someone says something about a case is racist doesn't mean it's so. However, it also could be true but until we have concrete evidence of racism we are not going allow any discussion to turn into one about racism today.

If Websleuths could help even one little bit the problem of racism I would allow the discussion but it has been proven time and time again that we cannot discuss race because everyone gets mad and the discussion always blows up.
Click to expand...

Thank you Tricia for responding. This helps clarify things and I imagine is helpful for others as well.
 
So a weapon was allegedly found. Knifelike leads me to dagger or box cutter...

While they searched the water, I do not see where they would need a search warrant for that unless the water was on private property.

Going by other cases, we have not heard of warrants on the residence(s) and those are generally up pretty much immediately on a warrant for weapons, computers, bloody clothing, etc.

While it could have been found in the vehicle, if it was we never heard that about the initial thorough search.

Just a guess based on these facts that it was likely found somewhere he stayed or was known to stay.

Just total speculation on my part, however.

Edited to fix typo.
 
ilovechili said:
So a weapon was allegedly found. Knifelike leads me to dagger or box cutter...

While they searched the water, I do not see where they would need a search warrant for that unless the water was on private property.

Going by other cases, we have not heard of warrants on the residence(s) and those are generally up pretty much immediately on a warrant for weapons, computers, bloody clothing, etc.

While it could have been found in the vehicle, if it was we never heard that about the initial thorough search.

Just a guess based on these facts that it was likely found somewhere he stayed or was known to stay.

Just total speculation on my part, however.

Edited to fix typo.
Click to expand...
According to a tweet from reporter @MarshallMaggi , divers searched an old irrigation hole turned pond, located on the private property of John Fleming.
So, with his permission, they wouldn't have needed a search warrant.
 
An Update from Columbia, SC NBC affiliate station WISTV. com in the following link.

USC soccer takes #whatsmyname pledge to the field, while Josephson investigation continues

I need to do some reading before I attempt to reply or post. I apologize.

By Paul Rivera | April 9, 2019 at 6:06 PM EDT - Updated April 9 at 6:06 PM
COLUMBIA, SC (WIS) - We are getting new updates in the case of USC Student Samantha Josephson, as the USC community continues to share her family’s message of safety.

Last week, DNR went back to the scene where Josephson’s body was found, looking for info and possible evidence. Tuesday they said they did not find anything.

Columbia Police, have not released any more information at this time.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 57 more.
Total: 2,369 (members: 58, guests: 2,311)

Online statistics

Members online
58
Guests online
2,311
Total visitors
2,369
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
602,342
Messages
18,139,370
Members
231,354
Latest member
Akwy
Back
Top