GUILTY AR - Beverly Carter, 49, Little Rock, 25 Sep 2014 - # 9

[mpnola]

Whoa. Who reactivated his FB profile??

And is posting for him???? Are they NUTS!!!!

 

[concernedmother]

WHAT THE WHAAAAAAATTTT?????
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=836216983087227&id=100000967980610

Doesnt surprise me. Jodi A had someone tweeting for her. I think we can expect more of the same things from AL as Jodi. jmo

 

[beaglebrd]

And is posting for him???? Are they NUTS!!!!

Jodi Arias had, may still have people tweeting for her and handling the online sales of her "art."

 

[mpnola]

Anyone who writes to him better get a PO Box! He has a documented history of stalking!

 

[concernedmother]

Anyone who writes to him better get a PO Box! He has a documented history of stalking!

Do we need to send him a stamp so he can write back? In that last court filing he doesn't have any money left. That $50 CL gave him may be the only money he has gotten since he has been incarcerated.

 

[SavvyRose]

Rumor is not allowed guys. If you are going to post something a VI has said then link to it and quote it. Attacking a member even a former member is not allowed. If you disagree with something a VI is saying then links are needed to back up what you are saying. Its fine to disagree, you can do this without attacking.

:tyou:

I'm sorry! I wasn't attacking, and I apologize if it came off like that. I was responding to the conflicting statements in the beginning .
VI was not the only one who stated things that we now know are not correct. I was explaining why some of my posts may have misinformation. I was told things that have turned out to NOT be true such as AL owned the truck seen by neighbors at the house. Not true to the best of our knowledge.
The difference is that most of my posts were deleted as rumor as well they should have been. When going back to read now to see if we missed anything, there is a LOT of misinformation and it's confusing. That's all I was saying.

I hate it that I messed up and put our Mods to work. (Love y'all! )

Crawling back under my lurking rock now.

 

[concernedmother]

That is AL original FB reactivated . Someone spent alot of time deleting everything and cleaning it up for him. I wonder who did that? They don't get internet privileges in prison do they?

 

[mpnola]

That is AL original FB reactivated . Someone spent alot of time deleting everything and cleaning it up for him. I wonder who did that? They don't get internet privileges in prison do they?

Yes. That is just his Facebook page that has reopened.

 

[concernedmother]

Yes. That is just his Facebook page that has reopened.

Stunned. Guess I shouldn't be. But hey. He is in a relationship and its complicated. Id say it sure is. jmo

 

[ConnectZDots]

Yep, think I will become a lurker too, Savvy. Don't have the time to cobble together such carefully worded posts time and again.... just to have them completely cut away without explanation. Time and again. Why bother with all that effort when it's just pulled down? *I didnt attack anyone. There are over a hundred links to support what we have all noted here, most have been repeatedly posted. I use thread & post numbers to reference them, and if a ways downthread I'm still discussing the same previous post...zzzzap. Gone. Too exhausting in a busy world. And yet, everything I write that's deleted ...is oddly ok when others say ...the same thing! Lol. How are we supposed to understand that?

Being a Realtor is frustrating enough, not looking for more aggravation typing on a message board. This case remains deeply important to me and to hundreds of my colleagues. I think of Beverly Every. Single. Day. Every single time I show a house I think of her, and countless times during each showing, each new face I meet at a property, each door I walk through with them, each new room we enter, then each time I hear them drive away -- I sigh. And think of Beverly. Not exaggerating.


Writing here I often think of her loved ones left behind. As if they're invisibly hovering around the monitor like little dust particles that might maybe find and absorb some tiny spark of concern for their Beverly that we share as a group. Nothing I say is precious and could care less if I'm the favored one to chop up & out of the conversation, it's not about that. But the mutual concern of this group for that woman is precious and it gets so buried and lost in a mountain of deletions and distractions, sadly. I've honestly lost track of the myriad of things that cannot be mentioned or referenced.

Sorry, it makes me sad on a number of levels. And sorry Mods for whatever the heck I seem to be doing that keeps warranting this. My heart is in the right place. My keyboard appears to be misplaced however.

And just when AL springs back to life on fb...!!!

Savvy, see you under the rock!

 

[NWLady]

Please STOP discussing former members. Next person who decides to continue this discussion will receive a long vacation from me.

Rumor is not allowed guys. If you are going to post something a VI has said then link to it and quote it. Attacking a member even a former member is not allowed. If you disagree with something a VI is saying then links are needed to back up what you are saying. Its fine to disagree, you can do this without attacking.

:tyou:

Could you please answer a few questions regarding this so then maybe it will be clear as to what is and isn't allowed?
For example:
1) In regards to what we can and cannot discuss - Does it matter whether the poster is a "former member" or current/active member as to whether or not their posts can be discussed?
2) Does it matter whether they are a VI former member, current VI, or just a regular poster?
3) If we provide a link to the post we are discussing/referring to, then is it okay to post/state our opinions/thoughts/and/or state that we disagree with what has been said in that post? Regardless WHO the poster was or is? Not attack, but be able to state that we disagree and put our reasons why?

There have been a lot of discrepancies posted throughout Beverly's thread which makes it very difficult to try and make sense of what has actually taken place. I understand that VI's don't need to provide links. However, am I correct in understanding that just because a post is made by a VI (former or current) we do NOT have to take it as truth and also just because it has been posted by a VI does not mean it is a FACT. Do we as posters have the right to disagree and question what is posted by VIs? If I understand correctly, We, as posters, have the right to believe all of it, none of it, or some of it.

Hopefully some answers/clarifications on these questions could clear up lots and lots of confusion and need for reviews. JMO.

 

[Tricia]

Thank you for asking these questions NWLady. My answers will be in read however, since the mods who usually handle this case are not on the board things may change a bit when they read this. I am going to answer to the best of my ability but I want the mods to weigh in too.

Could you please answer a few questions regarding this so then maybe it will be clear as to what is and isn't allowed?
For example:

1) In regards to what we can and cannot discuss - Does it matter whether the poster is a "former member" or current/active member as to whether or not their posts can be discussed?
Their posts can be discussed as long as they are quoted. You cannot discuss the member however. Or say anything derogatory about the member or what the member posted. You can disagree with the post as long as it is done in a civil manner. It's not the member that is up for the discussion. It's their post. Since we are talking about a VI yes their posts are OK to discuss but not the VI herself/himself.

2) Does it matter whether they are a VI former member, current VI, or just a regular poster? As long as you stick to what they posted, quote it, and do not use derogatory language or discuss the poster themselves then it's fine to discuss

3) If we provide a link to the post we are discussing/referring to, then is it okay to post/state our opinions/thoughts/and/or state that we disagree with what has been said in that post? Regardless WHO the poster was or is? Not attack, but be able to state that we disagree and put our reasons why?Absolutely. This is what we want to happen at Websleuths. Discuss what others have posted. Just remember do not use derogatory language or discuss the poster personally and there will be no problem.

There have been a lot of discrepancies posted throughout Beverly's thread which makes it very difficult to try and make sense of what has actually taken place. I understand that VI's don't need to provide links. However, am I correct in understanding that just because a post is made by a VI (former or current) we do NOT have to take it as truth and also just because it has been posted by a VI does not mean it is a FACT. Do we as posters have the right to disagree and question what is posted by VIs? If I understand correctly, We, as posters, have the right to believe all of it, none of it, or some of it. Yes, you are correct

Hopefully some answers/clarifications on these questions could clear up lots and lots of confusion and need for reviews. JMO.

What I have seen happen with a VI is posters start to get nasty or discuss the VI in a personal manner. That is absolutely not allowed.

You can disagree with anyone, but you can't call them names. Let me give you an example:

"You are a liar" would not be allowed,

"I disagree with what you are saying and I believe..."

See the difference? It is really that simple.

Thank you,
Tricia

 

[NWLady]

Thank you for your reply, Tricia. It is appreciated.

When the Mods do weigh in on this, hopefully they will let us know if they require/request anything be done different than what you have requested/instructed. Thanks again.

 

[Coquette]

In response to a post that laid out very specific and at times contradictory information that a former VI provided, I said I personally did not believe any of it. By this I meant the information quoted. It was my opinion. I see my post was removed. My apologies if it seemed attacking.

It appears I will be joining others back under the lurking rock. At least I'll be in good company.

 

[bessie]

Keep in mind that if you quote a post which must be removed, your post will be removed, as well, even if it's in line with TOS.

 

[arkansasmimi]

Ken Buffa, reporter for KARK / Fox16
Video taking Arron Lewis to be booked on the Kidnapping charge (12:42am was booked) This was shortly after BC was located in a shallow grave. Here he is asking who BC is when asked. https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=745138878881260 the reporter writes a transcript

The video where he says BC was a rich broker is when they after they showed him pictures and he was charged with the Capital Murder, Robbery and 4 firearms charges

 

[beaglebrd]

WHAT THE WHAAAAAAATTTT?????
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=836216983087227&id=100000967980610

A couple of thoughts: 1) Anybody could have made this facebook page. It could be new; 2) When we were looking at his mother's FB page she had three friends that were all Arron. He must have taken them down and then started new ones each time he was incarcerated. Seeing as this link has no friends and only that picture of him shirtless, I tend to think someone just made this one. It could be someone he knows that he asked to do it; or it could be someone who is just playing around and wants to see what happens. He definitely needs people to write him so that he can spend his time writing letters instead of filing in court. :/

 

[jstkiddn]

You can have friends and just not have them visible. My FB account is set the same way. I figure the identities of my friends are nobody's business. Lol. He has to have some friends or else those people would have never seen his post in order to reply or been able to reply. When I go to it, I don't have the reply or like options because I'm not his friend.

I think it is the same account reactivated for no other reason than the pictures. They are the same profile pictures he had before and I would bet the original of those photos were on his phone which I'm pretty sure is in police custody. He has a friend on the outside that has done this for him. He simply gave them his log in info.

Edit to add: plus it says the cover photo was updated Nov. 2, 2013. That's an old account...not a new one.

 

[KayKay.85]

You can have friends and just not have them visible. My FB account is set the same way. I figure the identities of my friends are nobody's business. Lol. He has to have some friends or else those people would have never seen his post in order to reply or been able to reply. When I go to it, I don't have the reply or like options because I'm not his friend.

I think it is the same account reactivated for no other reason than the pictures. They are the same profile pictures he had before and I would bet the original of those photos were on his phone which I'm pretty sure is in police custody. He has a friend on the outside that has done this for him. He simply gave them his log in info.

Edit to add: plus it says the cover photo was updated Nov. 2, 2013. That's an old account...not a new one.

I agree it's the same FB account and someone has spent some time making things private on there that weren't private before. I'm sure there is a previous link on here somewhere (dig dig to find a link) to his original FB account. Betting this link found by mpnola will match up to the earlier FB link.

 

[KayKay.85]

I don't know how to link from a previous thread on my phone, but I found his old FB link (by googling arron lewis facebook link websleuths) posted by GrilledCheezy 9/29/14. It's the same link/account. Arron.lewis.16