GUILTY WA - Ingrid Lyne, 40, Seattle, 8 April 2016 #2

[CARIIS]

She had it all. A career, children,home,I wondered yesterday, when the second bag was found so close to the other if it was to mess with the neighborhood. The "haves". I so still beleive,first face to face, and I would think by now they would know that. I hope her children never met him........................

I think he is smart also. Noone that has spoken up has not described him as such. I found the comment that he was better on the phone but in person creepy so telling. He could smoke his crack while online...................just speculating, however I believe crack is involved here

graduated from All OF them". this almost makes me think he was doing a cover, my client was so delusionial hours later ..................
I think it is ok to post his FB stuff to MSM has identified him.....I wish someone would do some cut and pastes ......reading the way his mind works, and his writing style is helpful...


I do not find him attractive either - the sepia photo he looked cute and sweet but any other pic I think he looks , well, sick. If I passed him in a 7-11 I think I would discomfort.

Last night it hit me reading something, that Hannibel ordeal, I do not think he was living there at the time. It struck me (wish I could find it) as if they came home, and he was like a burgler (you know what I mean)and then it went nutsola..

 

[JanetElaine]

The only thing that stands out as a big difference for me between meeting someone online vs elsewhere is the subtle cues we pick up from people when face-to-face that might stop us from getting past hello. We are not really aware of these subconscious interactions, but they are there, and we get a feeling about the person.

Online you don't have that filter until you actually do meet them, and maybe by then they have already gotten you to think positively toward them with fun banter and false narratives. You are primed to accept them before you ever meet in person. So your mind could over-ride your gut instincts at that point. That's what I would worry about.

Of course if you normally don't listen to your gut instincts anyway, it would be a wash!

bbm

I think this is a really good point. I've had that happen to me when I met another female I had previously only known online. This wasn't romantic, and it was more or less in a group setting, but the bolded part is exactly what happened. There were things that did not make sense IRL and I can only in hindsight say that I did override my gut instinct IRL because my mind tricked me into believing her online persona (not that she was completely different, there were just small things that I guess could be described as red flags in hindsight and after meeting IRL).

If I had met her IRL first, I would have been more sceptical of her motives and behavior from the start because they clearly shone through IRL. She was able to polish them away while using email/messenger and even phonecalls. This person turned out quite the back-stabber professionally and I should have seen that as soon as I met her IRL - but due to the image I had in my head from online contact I dismissed those feelings and was caught off guard down the road. Thank goodness that was not a situation where there was a risk at actual danger, but IMO the principle stands.

 

[CARIIS]

she continued the relationship

I view that as having doubts, and finally, that fateful night his manioulative skill set one her over and it was like she said ok I will meet him, with 70000 people around. I think in writing at times he slipped, and she kept having doubts and in more ways than one finally sucuumbed.........and her gut was obviouly correct.

Regarding moms .....speculating.....when I first saw Smart Moms on his whatever, it struck me as saying he felt his mother was not

What's the gray house? Oh that darn gray house! I think i finally got it. It was her house and SHE had 6 other people living with her. Since he stayed there two nights a week, intially the media got it all messed up .

Again speculating, but was befuddled by her continued invovment with him, and I think it was crack, and I get two nights a week without a shelter, both their needs met. But IMO there has to be some underlying "gets" for an "ex" to continue to see the "ex" two days a week................there IMO has to be something that overpowers her fear of him...crack is super addictive and remember theri was a "party" intial reported . I think it was a crack party or whatever the correct term would be

 

[CARIIS]

he is a misogynist with mommy issues, but you dollars to donuts he loathed his mother and all women.

Agree. Totally.

of the threat he made to his mother with the "Hannibal" thing. and did not have the ba#LS to mess with dad, he was a bully ...he is tiny .. I wonder if he was bullied as a kid----

But he really goofed up his story about her driving him back into town, yeh dude she is gonna drive you back there at 4 in the morning when her kids are coming back..dumb story

Curious or anyone when I use the multiquote, it "stays" there after posting - does that happen to any of you?

dismemberment types of murders are often associated with childhood sexual victimization, : I am a very "the first 10 years of life"are huge for the remainder of it ! I think we are going to find a horrific early start...............

 

[Globalgabby]

Sorry, I am pages behind. Has someone put together a timeline for RC's past 20 years - as far as where/when he lived various places, including jail time & prison? I would appreciate it if you could repost it or send it to me - I don't want to try and recreate it as I am assuming some of you astute WS'ers have already done the research! I am particularly interested in the 2005/2006 time frame ... Thank you very much!

 

[Globalgabby]

Perhaps this is common; I don't know much about such things ... but the Snohomish County Sheriff's Dept. made playing cards with Cold Cases and distributed them to inmates. You can see them here http://snohomishcountywa.gov/346/Cold-Case-Cards . I thought this was interesting.

 

[FrozenGerbil]

The only thing that stands out as a big difference for me between meeting someone online vs elsewhere is the subtle cues we pick up from people when face-to-face that might stop us from getting past hello. We are not really aware of these subconscious interactions, but they are there, and we get a feeling about the person.

Online you don't have that filter until you actually do meet them, and maybe by then they have already gotten you to think positively toward them with fun banter and false narratives. You are primed to accept them before you ever meet in person. So your mind could over-ride your gut instincts at that point. That's what I would worry about.

Of course if you normally don't listen to your gut instincts anyway, it would be a wash!

Yes, there is something very intangible that happens when two people actually meet in person. But if you think positively toward someone due to fun banter and false narratives that they have written during online interactions, you can likewise be smitten by similar fun banter and false narratives that they have spoken during a f2f meeting. It really depends on the person. Some people can be blinded by sugar-coated words, regardless of whether those words are written via online exchanges and emails or spoken in f2f meetings. And some people can be totally blinded by a really physically attractive person, regardless of how controlling, abusive, and condescending that person is. And some people confuse "lust" with "love".

Plenty of unfortunate people have been killed by sociopaths and psychopaths long before the Web was invented. Ted Bundy was always very charming and witty when you first meet him in person. That is a common trait in many psychopaths: they are frequently very charming, engaging, smooth, and slick. And your chances of bumping into a weirdo on an online dating site are really not much different than meeting some stranger at a party, club, or bar.

I also met my spouse online. A friend once told me, "I am not sure about this Internet dating thing". I told her: "Well, I hope that you are not dating the entire Internet, because that's a lot of people!" My advice to her and some other friends for online dating was simply this: "The initial online interaction is nothing but an icebreaker - nothing more, nothing less. It is the initial icebreaker to decide if you want to actually meet that person. Several email exchanges followed by several phone calls should give you some ideas about whether you want to meet. It is better to meet in person sooner, instead of exchanging endless emails and phone calls. Keep the first date very simple and casual - e.g. meet for lunch or coffee in a public area, but leave alcohol or fancy dinners for later dates. Even if you think your date is really hot, take it slow and keep your hormones initially under control. Alcohol and your libido can both blind your objective perception of someone."

The one big difference for me between meeting someone online and meeting someone elsewhere is some people sometimes post online photos of themselves from their younger years, which can be deceptive. And then when you meet them for the first date, you realize that they look much older than their online profile photos. Both men and women can be guilty of this deception in their online profile, posting photos from when they were younger. But when it comes being charmed by someone's physical appearance or their witty banter and false narratives, or being deceived by their stated age or marital status, that can happen regardless of whether you initially met them online, at a bar, at a party, or at your office.

 

[cujenn81]

I frequently cringed during this past week while reading the headlines of some articles on some highly respected news Web sites, with headlines such as "Mom was dismembered in own home after online date", "Ingrid Lyne murder sparks worry over dangers of Internet dating", and "Mom missing after going on a date with a man she met online". It is okay to mention these details in the main body of the news article. But when these headlines inflate the dangers of meeting someone online, this amounts to irresponsible fear-mongering tabloid journalism. Whether you meet people via meetup.com or match.com, the fact is that meeting people online is very normal these days. 20 years ago, the online crowds often consisted of computer nerds and geeks. But nowadays the online population is just a cross-section of the regular population. And considering that roughly 4% of the general population has sociopathic behavior, you can bump into weirdos whether you meet them initially online or whether you meet them in an office or on a college campus. And, yes, the commenters on some of these news articles are almost just as bad as Charlton. I read some article comments blaming Ingrid, one comment that said "Ingrid is a *advertiser censored*!", and some commenters made very tasteless recycling jokes.

I agree 100%!
I was shocked... (although, I'm not exactly sure why I'm surprised; the media is nothing if not sensational.)

I find it extremely disrespectful to Ingrid, as well as her precious daughters (and everyone else who knew and loved her, for that matter), to post these articles with such insensitive titles!

 

[CARIIS]

with this guy there is no doubt. Just odd what is it in his eyes? Mental Illiness! A lot, not all, have a vacancy emptiness IMO

euphoric release I think he liked dead powerless woman to have sex with no chance of rejection....

I too Big Hair -- do not believe the parent dynamic was a sudden hannibel out of the norm "event" he had been a drug addict for years, criminal thinking patterns since at least 97, impulse control issues manifest very early. I thin he was a tough child, a teachers nightmare, and had very many peer rejections. If it ever comes out IMO we are going to find skipping class, being bullies, bullying back temper tantrums,, fights, assualt on a teacher or two and a lot of meetings with school mental health folks. To get here, the past is typically pretty intense and traumatic

 

[cujenn81]

Perhaps this is common; I don't know much about such things ... but the Snohomish County Sheriff's Dept. made playing cards with Cold Cases and distributed them to inmates. You can see them here http://snohomishcountywa.gov/346/Cold-Case-Cards . I thought this was interesting.

That's really awesome actually! I've never heard of anyone doing this before but others should follow their lead!

 

[birpu]

Yes, there is something very intangible that happens when two people actually meet in person. But if you think positively toward someone due to fun banter and false narratives that they have written during online interactions, you can likewise be smitten by similar fun banter and false narratives that they have spoken during a f2f meeting. It really depends on the person. Some people can be blinded by sugar-coated words, regardless of whether those words are written via online exchanges and emails or spoken in f2f meetings. And some people can be totally blinded by a really physically attractive person, regardless of how controlling, abusive, and condescending that person is. And some people confuse "lust" with "love".

Plenty of unfortunate people have been killed by sociopaths and psychopaths long before the Web was invented. Ted Bundy was always very charming and witty when you first meet him in person. That is a common trait in many psychopaths: they are frequently very charming, engaging, smooth, and slick. And your chances of bumping into a weirdo on an online dating site are really not much different than meeting some stranger at a party, club, or bar.

I also met my spouse online. A friend once told me, "I am not sure about this Internet dating thing". I told her: "Well, I hope that you are not dating the entire Internet, because that's a lot of people!" My advice to her and some other friends for online dating was simply this: "The initial online interaction is nothing but an icebreaker - nothing more, nothing less. It is the initial icebreaker to decide if you want to actually meet that person. Several email exchanges followed by several phone calls should give you some ideas about whether you want to meet. It is better to meet in person sooner, instead of exchanging endless emails and phone calls. Keep the first date very simple and casual - e.g. meet for lunch or coffee in a public area, but leave alcohol or fancy dinners for later dates. Even if you think your date is really hot, take it slow and keep your hormones initially under control. Alcohol and your libido can both blind your objective perception of someone."

The one big difference for me between meeting someone online and meeting someone elsewhere is some people sometimes post online photos of themselves from their younger years, which can be deceptive. And then when you meet them for the first date, you realize that they look much older than their online profile photos. Both men and women can be guilty of this deception in their online profile, posting photos from when they were younger. But when it comes being charmed by someone's physical appearance or their witty banter and false narratives, or being deceived by their stated age or marital status, that can happen regardless of whether you initially met them online, at a bar, at a party, or at your office.

bbm
I actually would politely disagree here. I do understand all the cases made for equivalence with meeting the bad seed anywhere. Because they are anywhere, and many of us are fooled. You make good points, but I don't mean a person is "smitten" with the online words. Only predisposed to like someone they have never met, and perhaps more easily fooled at first in person than they would have been in person otherwise.

I think this subject would be worthy of a controlled experiment for a psychology thesis, since online communications are such a big part of our world now.

 

[FrozenGerbil]

bbm
I actually would politely disagree here. I do understand all the cases made for equivalence with meeting the bad seed anywhere. Because they are anywhere, and many of us are fooled. You make good points, but I don't mean a person is "smitten" with the online words. Only predisposed to like someone they have never met, and perhaps more easily fooled at first in person than they would have been in person otherwise.

I think this subject would be worthy of a controlled experiment for a psychology thesis, since online communications are such a big part of our world now.

I understand your points too! But your so-called predisposition does not always happen. Before I met my spouse online, I had done online dating off and on several times since 2001 and had several great relationships from those interactions. I have had interactions where I felt like great chemistry and spark was absolutely guaranteed because we had such great email and phone interactions before our first f2f meeting (i.e. I was already "predisposed" to really liking them before our first date). But then after one or two dates, things did not click that well and we both wished each other a cordial "good luck in your search" and moved on. I have also had interactions with someone where the email and phone interactions seemed a bit stiff and reserved. But then our first date went quite well, and our second date went really well and we started up a relationship. When I compared my experiences with some other friends, their online experiences were similar - i.e. regardless of how smoothly or how clunky the initial email and phone exchanges are, the actual f2f meetings can completely change your initial perception (or predisposition) very quickly. Thus my advice to friends that you should not spend too many weeks exchanging emails with online contacts.

But as I mentioned in an earlier post, if someone truly has some dark sides in their personality, whether it involves drug/alcohol abuse, sociopath/psychopath behavior, anger management issues, a strong passive-aggressive streak, or other deal-breakers, they can easily hide them during initial dates. Some people can hide their dark sides for months or years. Many people prefer to start a relationship organically, i.e. you first get to know that person as a friend, co-worker, church acquaintance, classmate, etc. where you get to know that person very well as a good friend over the course of many months before it blooms into a relationship. But many of us are not afforded that kind of opportunity.

Whether you arrange a date from an online meeting or whether you arrange a date from a mutual friend who introduces you two together, both persons tend to present the "glossy brochure" version of themselves on initial dates and it just takes time to get to know someone, regardless of the initial mode of contact. Unfortunately for Ingrid, her "getting to know someone" dating process ended up with a worst case scenario that 99.9999% of online daters never experience, and "online dating" is really not to blame since the same outcome would have resulted if IL had initially met JC at a bar or party. During this past week, the media has sometimes presented fear-mongering impressions that online dating is very dangerous. But the online population is now very representative of the population in general, which does include various liars and even a few psychos in the crowd.

 

[MzOpinion8d]

Hopefully this won't get deleted as a victim blaming post, but the way I see it, where Ingrid's "online dating" went wrong was not looking for info about his background before meeting him. It only took people minutes after learning his name to know he had a violent criminal history. I seriously doubt she'd have ever met him in person if she'd known his history. So I think the lesson to take away isn't to avoid online dating, but to be skeptical of anyone you meet and do some research to help eliminate the undesirable ones immediately.

Even that won't be 100% effective, but we can't be naive in the world in which we live today.

 

[klily444]

Didn't they release what parts were in the first bin before they were positively identified? I wonder if they found her torso which can be very telling in this case such as if she was raped, DNA etc so therefore they need to identify her first. Last time they had her head so they knew it was her.

How would they know if she was raped?

 

[FrozenGerbil]

Hopefully this won't get deleted as a victim blaming post, but the way I see it, where Ingrid's "online dating" went wrong was not looking for info about his background before meeting him. It only took people minutes after learning his name to know he had a violent criminal history. I seriously doubt she'd have ever met him in person if she'd known his history. So I think the lesson to take away isn't to avoid online dating, but to be skeptical of anyone you meet and do some research to help eliminate the undesirable ones immediately.

Even that won't be 100% effective, but we can't be naive in the world in which we live today.

Ummm, so please provide me a Web link or online resource that instantly shows his criminal background?

You say that it "only took people minutes after learning his name to know he had a violent criminal history", but that is because it was publicized by the media and law enforcement AFTER his name was publicized and AFTER the crime was committed. If you do not work in law enforcement, such information can be obtained by paying a fee to various online sites that provide background checks (e.g. intelius.com , beenverified.com , instantcheckmate.com). But she may not have been aware of those resources, and most people probably either are not aware of those resources, do not care to pay the fees involved, or do not remember to do it. Ten years ago, marriage and divorce records were freely searchable on the Web sites of some state governments, but even those are now no longer openly available to the public. Criminal records can also be expunged or sealed, and visible only to LE. More people remember to ask their partner for a blood test as proof that they are free of disease prior to sex than to perform a background check on a new partner, but even that is often not done and people just ask for a simple yes/no verbal confirmation that their partner is disease-free without asking for proof. I think that I am very good at cyber-snooping people, but excluding the publicity about the murder, I only found JC's Facebook page and later found his Plenty-Of-Fish and Mingle dating profiles. Just from his Facebook page, he seems to be very close with his sister and not that abnormal.

Ideally, every person who dates someone, regardless of whether they are male/female and whether they met online or in person, should perform both a background check and request official proof of being disease-free from a fairly recent blood test with each new partner, instead of just asking if they have ever been arrested and just asking if they are disease-free, but the vast majority of people do not have verified proof about their partner's arrest and disease backgrounds. Have you asked every previous partner for verifiable proof of their previous arrests and a copy of a recent blood test to check if they are disease-free? Have you even at least simply asked every previous partner if they have ever been arrested and if they are totally disease-free (even though they can lie about that)?

Being too naive is never a good idea, not just "in the world in which we live today", but also more than a century ago when Jack the Ripper roamed the streets of London.

 

[Guuj]

Hopefully this won't get deleted as a victim blaming post, but the way I see it, where Ingrid's "online dating" went wrong was not looking for info about his background before meeting him. It only took people minutes after learning his name to know he had a violent criminal history. I seriously doubt she'd have ever met him in person if she'd known his history. So I think the lesson to take away isn't to avoid online dating, but to be skeptical of anyone you meet and do some research to help eliminate the undesirable ones immediately.

Even that won't be 100% effective, but we can't be naive in the world in which we live today.

"
https://www.parentmap.com/article/every-single-dating-mothers-worst-fear

 

[PLT]

bbm
I actually would politely disagree here. I do understand all the cases made for equivalence with meeting the bad seed anywhere. Because they are anywhere, and many of us are fooled. You make good points, but I don't mean a person is "smitten" with the online words. Only predisposed to like someone they have never met, and perhaps more easily fooled at first in person than they would have been in person otherwise.

I think this subject would be worthy of a controlled experiment for a psychology thesis, since online communications are such a big part of our world now.

I am supportive of on-line dating forums and have many friends who met their significant others on-line. The horror stories my friends relay are maybe the person was not exactly who they portrayed appearance-wise or they just didn't click. I have had my own similar experiences.

Having said that, I think online dating does provide more opportunity and time to create the "version" of yourself that you want to present. Offline or online, there will be "players" but I think online allows more time/opportunity for the less polished to get their game together. You have hours /days to respond to conversations. Someone who is not familiar with a topic - has time to research and formulate their conversation. If someone is made uncomfortable by a question, they can eloquently respond back online. Whereas, in person, people are more "on the spot" and the other person can sense vibes/body language.

It was stated by one of his dates that JC seemed fine online and the phone but creepy in person and in my opinion that is because the gap between the online/offline versions was showing. On the flip side, he also met a former live-in girlfriend at Burger King - they worked together - and it took her some time to see his other side. This person blamed herself and allowed him to practice his dominance.

Ingrid was that not person - I don't think there was any way she was going to put up with him. I am not saying strong women do not fall victim to abusive relationships - we know that is not true. However, Ingrid had been married to a successful man who appears to be a great Dad, had her own career, a great group of friends and children/family she cherished. I would be surprised if she would feel so sorry for this guy that she'd let him stay with her or put up with his dominating mindset. I think they had met before on other dates (maybe lunch, coffee) and he passed the quick test dates. This may have been the first "real" one. Maybe her guard was down too with a few drinks (speculating) and he started acting weird and her guard went back up and she wanted him gone. Whether she was in a compromising position that would not allow her to run outside or make noise- that is to be seen. But based on the location of his injuries (forehead, chest, mouth) - I envision she was laying down either forced or otherwise.

 

[CSIDreamer]

Sorry, I am pages behind. Has someone put together a timeline for RC's past 20 years - as far as where/when he lived various places, including jail time & prison? I would appreciate it if you could repost it or send it to me - I don't want to try and recreate it as I am assuming some of you astute WS'ers have already done the research! I am particularly interested in the 2005/2006 time frame ... Thank you very much!

Post # 301

 

[Globalgabby]

"
https://www.parentmap.com/article/every-single-dating-mothers-worst-fear

No one should have to take “reasonable precautions” to avoid being murdered and dismembered. This is a great blog post (link). Some of her points, I am sure, will be misinterpreted by some. But read it again. And then ask some of the women in your life about it. Talk about it. Sure, it is unavoidable that we must take precautions, but that doesn't mean that we should have to do so. There's a bigger picture here, much bigger than "she should have investigated him more." Balderdash.

For what it is worth, I was Googling this guy before his name hit the media (or WS), albeit I knew almost nothing about him other than what a friend of hers posted on FB. I found no major red flags. Now that his name is in MSM, of course, it is obvious that a normal woman would never want him in her life.

 

[PLT]

Hopefully this won't get deleted as a victim blaming post, but the way I see it, where Ingrid's "online dating" went wrong was not looking for info about his background before meeting him. It only took people minutes after learning his name to know he had a violent criminal history. I seriously doubt she'd have ever met him in person if she'd known his history. So I think the lesson to take away isn't to avoid online dating, but to be skeptical of anyone you meet and do some research to help eliminate the undesirable ones immediately.

Even that won't be 100% effective, but we can't be naive in the world in which we live today.

YES! Totally agree. I keep wondering why (out of curiousity even) that she didn't do some googling of his name. She probably was too busy - work, kids, etc. and maybe didn't have much time to sit on a computer. Also, could it be he gave her a phony last name - friends said they just had heard of "John". Her sister found his Facebook page when googling his phone number. But as I'm typing this, I think someone here said they saw her on his FB page as a Friend but has since been removed (???). If that is not the case....maybe she didn't have a correct last name. But the phone number would have her led her there...just rambling out loud. I don't take your post as blaming in any way....there are so many "what ifs" and "I wish she had" that run through my mind for Ingrid - and it's with the intention of saving not blaming. The average person may not be aware of sleuthing someone as others here may be.