OR OR - Stephanie Warner, 43, Ruch, 4 Jul 2013 - #1
- Thread starter CatFancier
- Start date
- Status
I'm beginning to think that LE asked them not to. JMO
Me too
BBM
On second thought, I will just let it stand. Fixing it is even messier.:facepalm:
But I would like to ask if our person close to the case feels safe enough to confirm that the Facebook friend who played music on the float in the parade and has the initials JF and was convicted in the same case as Lennie is in fact Lennie's son.
Also, I'm curious if they live together.
Regarding national news coverage, one of Stephanie's friends from New Orleans commented on another friend's Facebook page that he is contacting CNN to try to get them interested.
My personal opinion is that the locals need to give LE as much info, ideas as possible and let them handle it for now, rather than spook a POI. JMO IMO MOO, etc.
My personal opinion is that the locals need to give LE as much info, ideas as possible and let them handle it for now, rather than spook a POI. JMO IMO MOO, etc.
I'm not a mod, and I don't think we've quite crossed a line, but we may be getting close, so I thought it might be good if we all keep in mind the following from the WS Rules under the heading "Victim Friendly" as we sleuth and post:
BBM
"Websleuths is a victim friendly forum. Attacking or bashing a victim is not allowed. Discussing victim behavior, good or bad is fine, but do so in a civl and constructive way and ONLY IF IT IS RELEVANT TO THE CASE. Additionally, sleuthing family members that are not suspect is not allowed. Don't make random accusations or post personal information (even if it is public) like parking tickets, address, or first and last names of all their relatives and their neighbors. Also, never "bash" or attack them, or accuse them of involvement. However that does not mean that family members cannot come into discussion as the facts and issues of the case are discussed."
I'm not sure how this applies to what we have been doing so far since we are technically not talking about "family members". Maybe a mod can give us some guidance? :tyou:
BBM
"Websleuths is a victim friendly forum. Attacking or bashing a victim is not allowed. Discussing victim behavior, good or bad is fine, but do so in a civl and constructive way and ONLY IF IT IS RELEVANT TO THE CASE. Additionally, sleuthing family members that are not suspect is not allowed. Don't make random accusations or post personal information (even if it is public) like parking tickets, address, or first and last names of all their relatives and their neighbors. Also, never "bash" or attack them, or accuse them of involvement. However that does not mean that family members cannot come into discussion as the facts and issues of the case are discussed."
I'm not sure how this applies to what we have been doing so far since we are technically not talking about "family members". Maybe a mod can give us some guidance? :tyou:
I am not new to Websleuths or other sleuthing communities. Ive been piecing together public records for more than a decade on various criminal cases that catch my interest. Ive directly helped in the successful prosecution of a major international criminal case. All data I provided was extracted from public records. I know the law regarding defamation and I act with care in how I present the information to both LE and to forums like Websleuths. But, public records are public records. They can be discussed all day long by anyone, provided the discussion is based on the facts of the record. Finding verifiable facts is what online sleuthing is about. This doesnt make anyone a POI or presume they are guilty. Piecing together facts is not defamation.
These records can provide insight into the missing persons world. The public records I mentioned in the previous post may or may not be relevant to this missing persons case. If the facts do match up, they may shed light on the disappearance of Stephanie Warner -- who she is, who she knows, what events/people/places have filled her world, and where she might be now. Dont be afraid to provide direct quotes (cite the source, dont violate copyrights) and post hyperlinks to public records found online. Dont rely on LE to come up with everything on their own -- they often could use the help in filling gaps in their investigation. If WS posts reference public information that LE doesnt want people to know about well, that goes against the very reason the records are made "public". As the public, we should know about them.
Open for public inspection:
1. A court document is an example of an official public record.
2. Media interviews are examples of a public record given willingly by the subject of the interview (in other words, no one forces anyone to talk to the media). It is common knowledge that the intention of the interview is for the news agency to publish it for public viewing. Even though the media agency owns the copyrights to the broadcast, the audio and images published can be verified by the public. We witnessed this person, whose name is such-n-such, say these exact words.
(Media articles can be quoted, but they can also be factually wrong).
3. Blogs and social media profiles that are open to anyone for viewing are public.
All of the above are fair leads to sleuth.
Neptune
These records can provide insight into the missing persons world. The public records I mentioned in the previous post may or may not be relevant to this missing persons case. If the facts do match up, they may shed light on the disappearance of Stephanie Warner -- who she is, who she knows, what events/people/places have filled her world, and where she might be now. Dont be afraid to provide direct quotes (cite the source, dont violate copyrights) and post hyperlinks to public records found online. Dont rely on LE to come up with everything on their own -- they often could use the help in filling gaps in their investigation. If WS posts reference public information that LE doesnt want people to know about well, that goes against the very reason the records are made "public". As the public, we should know about them.
Open for public inspection:
1. A court document is an example of an official public record.
2. Media interviews are examples of a public record given willingly by the subject of the interview (in other words, no one forces anyone to talk to the media). It is common knowledge that the intention of the interview is for the news agency to publish it for public viewing. Even though the media agency owns the copyrights to the broadcast, the audio and images published can be verified by the public. We witnessed this person, whose name is such-n-such, say these exact words.
(Media articles can be quoted, but they can also be factually wrong).
3. Blogs and social media profiles that are open to anyone for viewing are public.
All of the above are fair leads to sleuth.
Neptune
Thanks for your informative, thought-provoking post, Neptune. Just to clarify, my post about the WS rules was not directed at you or anyone in particular. 
In fact, I'm newer to WS and I wanted guidance from a mod so posts are not removed.
There are facts I've found in public records that I'm not going to post here at this time because I can't connect them to Stephanie's disappearance. They speak more to the character (or lack thereof) of her close associates. But I will include them in my email to local LE investigating the case. That's just my comfort level at this time.
I agree that LE needs all the help it can get. They are overworked and understaffed in our area, and can't be everywhere. So I think it's important to share our findings with them. Every little bit may help. Keep up the good work! :goodpost:
In fact, I'm newer to WS and I wanted guidance from a mod so posts are not removed. There are facts I've found in public records that I'm not going to post here at this time because I can't connect them to Stephanie's disappearance. They speak more to the character (or lack thereof) of her close associates. But I will include them in my email to local LE investigating the case. That's just my comfort level at this time.
I agree that LE needs all the help it can get. They are overworked and understaffed in our area, and can't be everywhere. So I think it's important to share our findings with them. Every little bit may help. Keep up the good work! :goodpost:
Thanks for your informative, thought-provoking post, Neptune. Just to clarify, my post about the WS rules was not directed at you or anyone in particular.
No problem, Lilibet, thanks for the comment -- I actually was responding to earlier posts of people who had info but didn't want to post it. I just wanted to explain why I did post the information. Stephanie seems to have associations with a lot of people who know the forested area -- her friends at the Jackson Fuel Committee, possibly a boyfriend who is a gold prospector. If anyone could find her, it would seem like one of these people could. For example, if she went for a hike or bike ride, where would she go? If she accidentally fell down a ledge or got lost in the woods, I'd think one of these people would be good to call on to go looking for her. So, were they called upon? How wide and far did they search the land they know so well?
How does one disappear and it not get reported in a small town?
CluelessWonder
Former Member
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2013
- Messages
- 1,909
- Reaction score
- 4,513
While all of that is true and important for people to understand, this site has rules that we are obligated to follow. You may not like them. I certainly do not like all of them. But they exist. And one of the rules is that we are not supposed to sleuth individuals who are not missing/victims and who are not named persons of interest. We all know that this is a silly rule that is never followed. In the Alanna Gallagher case, several people had checked out the suspect long before he was arrested. And this was noted after his arrest. Apparently, the real rule is that we can sleuth anyone as long as we don't post about it on the site or make any indication during our sleuthing that we are doing so in relation to Websleuths. That is the impression I get, and I also get the impression that such rules were put in place for multiple reasons, including protecting innocent individuals from having their names tossed around and accusations made and also to prevent Websleuths from being sued, which costs them money even if the lawsuit is superfluous.
BBM
Neptune, I think your questions that I've bolded are really the reason so many of us are looking really hard at the boyfriend! Why wasn't he the one who reported her missing? He's "baffled" by her disappearance?! Wow, can't he come up with a more emotionally intense word than that! Why wasn't he of all people looking for her even if no one else missed her? Grrrrrrrrr! MOO, etc.
Unfortunately, Stephanie seems to have associated closely with some people who probably would not want to involve LE for any number of reasons, even if they personally had nothing to do with her disappearance. I can't imagine these folks leading LE on a trek through the woods in the Applegate. http://www.kdrv.com/fires-uncover-illegal-marijuana-site/ Not saying they grow, but I just don't think they would put themselves in harms way out there in the woods. JMO
I hope Stephanie didn't run across a growing operation on a hike, but anything is possible. On the news tonight was a story about a 15 year old girl in L.A. who was kidnapped and forced to work at a marijuana growing operation.
As far as the Jackson County Fuel Committee goes, I don't know why they aren't being used or making themselves available. Perhaps they are and we just don't know it. They aren't talking publicly and when I drove by their office yesterday, I didn't see a missing poster for Stephanie displayed prominently out front.
All for now.
If you have information on a case that has not been released in the mainstream media or by law enforcement, please go to this link and consider being verified as an insider:
Verification Process for Professional or Insider Posters - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community
Some posts were removed as they are sharing information that has not been in the mainstream media.
Also, we cannot sleuth anyone who is not a named suspect by the mainstream media or law enforcement.
:tyou:
Please contact me privately if you have any questions or I can help in any way.
Verification Process for Professional or Insider Posters - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community
Some posts were removed as they are sharing information that has not been in the mainstream media.
Also, we cannot sleuth anyone who is not a named suspect by the mainstream media or law enforcement.
:tyou:
Please contact me privately if you have any questions or I can help in any way.
AnotherSetOfEyes
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2013
- Messages
- 454
- Reaction score
- 417
That video is interesting. It almost looks like she is ducking out of the camera. Also looks like it is cut at one point just as she gets back to the truck. Is that her feet under the truck walking sideways with it?
Maybe she fell flat over heels in love with some rich man she just met and they got married right away and went on a long honeymoon at some exotic island.I'm thinking maybe she likes sugar daddys since her supposingly current fiancee was very much older then her.
Also ,maybe the man tricked her ,and the honeymoon she is on,is actually a setup for something else.
Also ,maybe the man tricked her ,and the honeymoon she is on,is actually a setup for something else.
I have had 2 long relationships with men much older than myself and can say that neither of them would be regarded as sugar daddys ! LOL. It has been rumoured that the "marriage" stated on Stephanie's FB was a spiritual marriage i.e. not recognised legally. I tend to believe that. (MOO)
AnotherSetOfEyes
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2013
- Messages
- 454
- Reaction score
- 417
I haven't really seen any, Ellie, but I will keep my eyes open. I think the silence is strange too. I really believe LE has requested silence and has some good reasons.
There was a comment by LE in one of the earlier articles posted on this thread (I don't have time right now to look for a link), and the wording jumped out at me). The Sheriff mentioned a couple of possibilities that could have caused her disappearance and then he added "or something bigger." Of course, something bigger could be foul play. But based on what we read earlier in posts that have been removed or mod-snipped, I think the investigation may have taken LE into something bigger than Stephanie.
On her Facebook page she urges everyone to look at YouTube videos posted by 314Helias. If you google 314Helias and Twitter, it leads right to someone close to her. The tone of these videos is extreme religiosity, suspicion of the government, conspiracy theories and promoting a militia. People certainly have a right to their opinions and free speech, but this can be a volatile and dangerous mindset. IMO I really, really hope I'm way off the mark, but it would explain the silence and the "something bigger" comment.
This may not be the cause of Stephanie's disappearance, but in order to solve it, LE may be stepping into something dark and dangerous. JMO Good reason for silence and caution. IMO
:findinglink: I finally found the link that has the "something bigger" comment by the LE, so I wanted to add it.
http://www.ktvl.com/shared/news/top-stories/stories/ktvl_vid_8217.shtml
BBM
"It's still something we're wondering, whether or not Stephanie left on her own, whether something happened to Stephanie or whether it's something bigger than that, we're still looking into all of those questions," said Andrea Carlson with the Jackson County Sheriff's Office.
ktgirl
Verified College Instructor
- Joined
- May 21, 2012
- Messages
- 2,834
- Reaction score
- 326
I keep seeing that Stephanie was from the NO area. Anyone know where in the NO area (which neighborhood, suburb, parish, etc)? I am hoping maybe she's just come back home and is living there under the radar & without contacting friends/family in the area.
- Status
Similar threads
