Shannan Gilbert Found, death declared an accident. #2

[Peter Brendt]

With what we have at hand, trying to prove Shannan was murdered is as pointless as trying to prove that she wasn't.


Regarding Lauren Sivan did a patchwork of previous media coverages.

PB
No need to interview him since all she said was already reported from other outlets.

PB
You won't find such a story out of MP's mouth. Only out of the mouth of that reporter.

Which one?

Or she's making it all up and getting awarded for that?
http://www.news12adsales.com/press-...ciated-press-broadcasters-association-honors/

That blonde one in exactly that video we talk about since five posts. Your original claim was, this was another story from MP and he lies, but in fact, he isn't even in that video. The blonde speaks ABOUT him, NOT WITH him.

 

[Just K]

Well, at least, we know it wasn't dark anymore. The "wild" part is the part we still struggle

True yet they (LE) would have us believe it was pitch dark and as you said...it was not... it was actually breaking dawn.

So, IMO, we have to take all of their (LE) descriptions of that dawn breaking episode with a truckload of salt. Given that they have misled the public re: the time they arrived, the weather conditions, and the scope of visibility, IMO, we must also question their description of the field. After tons of research and viewing image after image and weather maps etc, my opinion is that field was also overwhelmingly dry on May 1st, 2010...as the rainfall for the April was well within the average range (about 3-4 inches) and there was virtually NO precipitation for the two weeks prior to SG disappearing.

I believe very little of what LE in SC has said of the events surrounding the disappearance and death of SG. What they haven't said far outweighs any facts or opinions they have released publicly.

 

[Seajay]

From where comes that information and has anyone an idea who Mike could be?

"Mike" would be Michael Pak.

 

[LINative13]

I must agree with the one thing being said. MG is probbaly the most active one in this case as far as parents go (or atleast she grabs the most camera action).....she aint making that much of a stink. If she thinks foul play, and cant get a death certificate or a body....well then, ther ewould have to be a damn good reason for me not to get a little more aggressive.

 

[Peter Brendt]

"Mike" would be Michael Pak.

Fine, now I would really like to see a link to an article with that information.

 

[Emre E]

Your original claim was, this was another story from MP and he lies, but in fact, he isn't even in that video. The blonde speaks ABOUT him, NOT WITH him.

My original claim and my claim right now is the same; that story comes from MP.

Firstly the major difference of report is;

"According to Shannan's driver MP... three hours later she came out, delirious, on drugs and upset. She went in and out of the house more than once."

Your original claim was she just collected the various stories in the media coverages. I gave you the date of the show Aug 4th, 2011, and I asked if you could find any media coverage giving such an account of the events.

There isn't.

Your claim now is there is no such story to be found in the media.


So where does this version come from.

If she was to copy the story as in the circulation she would say "Three hours later JB came out of the house, told him to take her out of the house, he went in, Shannan bolted out."


My opinion; the source is MP himself. He gives the interview, trying to push Shannan more into the fire and clear himself to a further extent he narrates this version. But then decides not to give his permission for the interview to be aired. Therefore the reporter is forced to give the account indirectly.

Another alternative is she made it all up.

Please tell me if there is another way and reason to alter the backbone of the story in such a drastic manner.

 

[Peter Brendt]

My original claim and my claim right now is the same; that story comes from MP.

Firstly the major difference of report is;

"According to Shannan's driver MP... three hours later she came out, delirious, on drugs and upset. She went in and out of the house more than once."

Your original claim was she just collected the various stories in the media coverages. I gave you the date of the show Aug 4th, 2011, and I asked if you could find any media coverage giving such an account of the events.

There isn't.

Your claim now is there is no such story to be found in the media.


So where does this version come from.

If she was to copy the story as in the circulation she would say "Three hours later JB came out of the house, told him to take her out of the house, he went in, Shannan bolted out."


My opinion; the source is MP himself. He gives the interview, trying to push Shannan more into the fire and clear himself to a further extent he narrates this version. But then decides not to give his permission for the interview to be aired. Therefore the reporter is forced to give the account indirectly.

Another alternative is she made it all up.

Please tell me if there is another way and reason to alter the backbone of the story in such a drastic manner.

Lets see, you have exactly one reporter, who tells the story that way. About 20 dozen of them, who tell it different and you have in other TV shows MP's interview.
The reporter has motive to change the story if it makes the show a little more sensational. The reporter has urgent motive to change the story if Pak, knowing, there are people out there, who would redefine the mere fact of his existence as evidence he is lying, just didn't give an interview.
On the other hand, Pak has no motive, to change the story that way. What would he win?
The simple fact is, we hear in that episode not Pak, we hear the reporter. So until you contacted them and got in written form from her "yes, we interviewed Mr. Pak and that is, what he said, word for word" or you got the same story from Pak or at least a confirmation from him, this is second hand information.

 

[Peter Brendt]

Yes, "Mike"

I still wait for a link for this "Mike" information. Did you hear the 911 tape? Or anybody you know? Or any reporter? Or is that from John Ray? Who?

 

[To Kill a Mockingbird]

I actually like PB. He has a lot to offer. His opinions are as good as anyone elses. When I say he doesn't know what he is talking about the readers shouldn't take it too literal. I am under the belief that everyone's opinion could have some value. I will give him extra credit for writing a book on serial killers. It requires a good writer to have done considerable research on the matter. He probably has a broader knowledge of serial killers than most of us do, including yours truly.

hey yours truly.

 

[WINDSOR]

Peter,

Motives are not always obvious. Just because you do not believe that MP had a motive to kill SG, does not mean he did not have one.

Charles Manson's motive in the Tate-Lobianco murders was that he hoped the killings would start a race war in the USA.

Under your rigid analysis procedures, you would have never determined that motive from the evidence until you spoke to the criminals. In fact if we were sleuthing that case, I doubt you would have believed Charles Manson was involved.

The point I am trying to make when dealing with humans and emotions, the analytic approach can sometimes be a detriment. Try looking at things with a non-linear approach and try more flexibility in your outlook.

Often I have found solutions quicker when I say that might work lets try that approach; rather than, that will not work without extended consideration.

MOO

 

[Peter Brendt]

Peter,

Motives are not always obvious. Just because you do not believe that MP had a motive to kill SG, does not mean he did not have one.

Right, so deliver at least a possible motive then. As long as you can't find a possible motive, you can't claim he has one. And be generous, it can be a psychological as well. But it has to be at least something.

Charles Manson's motive in the Tate-Lobianco murders was that he hoped the killings would start a race war in the USA.

Under your rigid analysis procedures, you would have never determined that motive from the evidence until you spoke to the criminals. In fact if we were sleuthing that case, I doubt you would have believed Charles Manson was involved.

Please don't try to tell me, what you believe, I would have believed in a certain situation. Especially not in such an obvious case. I mean, hell, multiple intruders, overkill, but not much rage, where else but in the mission driven range could that possible put them? That would be profiling 101!

The point I am trying to make when dealing with humans and emotions, the analytic approach can sometimes be a detriment. Try looking at things with a non-linear approach and try more flexibility in your outlook.

Flexible as in seeing over obvious logic gaps?

Often I have found solutions quicker when I say that might work lets try that approach; rather than, that will not work without extended consideration.
MOO

Fine, then do that. But don't expect me to sleuth behind someone, who has more to win from SG being alive than from her being dead. That makes no sense.

 

[Just K]

Well, if Pak is a driver for many women within a larger group...as in one of many drivers from a pool that escorts can choose from, depending on their availability, and if he has had several snafus with SG and even other escorts...then he may have had reason to fear for his own life or just tired of pulling his and the escorts arses out of the fire. He could have any motivation. It may be a mistake to assume that MP drove only for SG.

 

[Emre E]

Lets see, you have exactly one reporter, who tells the story that way. About 20 dozen of them, who tell it different and you have in other TV shows MP's interview.
The reporter has motive to change the story if it makes the show a little more sensational. The reporter has urgent motive to change the story if Pak, knowing, there are people out there, who would redefine the mere fact of his existence as evidence he is lying, just didn't give an interview.
On the other hand, Pak has no motive, to change the story that way. What would he win?
The simple fact is, we hear in that episode not Pak, we hear the reporter. So until you contacted them and got in written form from her "yes, we interviewed Mr. Pak and that is, what he said, word for word" or you got the same story from Pak or at least a confirmation from him, this is second hand information.

So, she made it up. Valid opinion. Not mine.

 

[Peter Brendt]

Well, if Pak is a driver for many women within a larger group...as in one of many drivers from a pool that escorts can choose from, depending on their availability, and if he has had several snafus with SG and even other escorts...then he may have had reason to fear for his own life or just tired of pulling his and the escorts arses out of the fire. He could have any motivation. It may be a mistake to assume that MP drove only for SG.

He surely didn't drive only for SG. How could he make a living from only one. However, to make this motive work, you need forst to construct a big mob organization, then you need to assume, all five (the GB4 and SG) were part of that, and then you build on the assumption, that MP would be able to pull any rear out of the fire without leaving evidence. Because according to your theory, he has done this several times in the past or it couldn't accumulated rage. But the only time, MP came up was that passport story and that was his very own snafu. And if he was so good in pulling rearsides out of the fire, the only thing coming at him would have been promotion, in this hypothetical mob organization, but not fear for his own life.
That's exactly the problem here, MP has no motive as long as we stay in the realm of "possible". All those "motives", "claims" and "theories" involve immediately a big organization for which we have no evidence, a long list of crimes in the past of someone for which we have no evidence, and intricate constructs why someone would do a thing, that brings him nothing while not doing brings him profit.

 

[Just K]

No, not that he killed his passengers before just that he had had enough of being drawn into Drama and SG calling the police this time was the last friggin' straw...for all we know he turned her over to whoever he really works for and they ddid what they do with the people who they see as trouble makers.

 

[Mountain_Kat]

CPH and MP stay high on my list of possibilities. Speaking of which, i just made a post in another thread about Megan being the only victim who offered femdom, and I have to say CPH came to mind. I'm pondering the psychology of someone who is into female domination but ended up killing the dom.

Along those lines, i can't get The Missus out of my head and how submissive a disabled hubby might have to be on an everyday basis with such a domineering partner.

JMO

Totally agree with everything you've said here, except that Megan never offered femdom. That was Melissa.

 

[Mountain_Kat]

Oh, I think it might be positively titillating to drive home to The Missus every day, and just before arriving home on time (or heaven forbid, LATE for dinner) to have that rush of utter power whilst driving past your trophies just before crossing the threshhold into the den of submission.

As always, JMO

And it's MY opinion that a man bent toward this particular type of rush might also find it a tremendous high if his wife did some type of volunteer work to keep this beach clean and pristine. Say, if she's out there with her social group picking up trash and doesn't even have a clue. I imagine that would make the man feel superior indeed...IF he were so inclined.

JMO

 

[Mountain_Kat]

Not really a surprise given, women carry that stuff in purses. And an earring was found somewhere along her route, or near to CPH's house?

Brewer's house. Found on the sidewalk by SG's sister.

 

[Theforeigner]

Not really a surprise given, women carry that stuff in purses. And an earring was found somewhere along her route, or near to CPH's house?

No it was NOT "along her route, or near to CPH's house"

It was found by SG's sisters, at Joseph Brewes house:

http://www.cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1107/24/cp.01.html

SARAH: We pretty much from there tried to do our little own investigation, we made up flyers, passed them out, went door to door, and making up notes to give to (INAUDIBLE). I actually found a piece of her jewelry.

LARSEN (voice-over): In searching near Brewer's house they say they turned up something police had overlooked.

LASTER: The police had been there and searched it before the sisters went there but when the sisters went they said they found her earring on the front porch. So now they're more frantic, now they're more frustrated.


http://www.websleuths.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-162330-p-2.html

"May 8th - Sherre & her sister Sara go to Oak Beach and knock on doors to ask questions about Shannan. They talk with Brewer but he claims he knows nothing and just told them Shannan acted bizarre the night she was at his home. As they were leaving they found Shannan's earring at the bottom of his steps."

AGAIN... I just try to get the facts straight!

 

[Seaslug44]

I always regarded the discovery of her earring on JB's porch as more solid evidence that SG was not a victim of the LISK.

Our SK is a mastermind at covering his tracks. He takes great pride in his ability to attend to every minor detail (including the accountability of even the tiniest piece of jewelry like an earring). It simply is not his signature to overlook such an obvious clue.

The earring on the porch also suggests that JB had no clue that SG died that early morning. It shows a complete lack of regard on his part (in other words, he had nothing to hide and no reason to sweep his residence clean of evidence).