Possible Victim: Shannan Gilbert #2

[mage]

There is a god and it's not me.
Loretta Lynch is a goddess, but only did HALF of the right thing in regards to Shannan.
Robert Capers did the right thing, but only HALF

Richard Donoghue did the right thing. Loretta returned to do the right thing.

F-I-N-A-L-L-Y

Shannan's case was a Federal case, not a charlatan handling a civil matter.
The game goes on, it's good to be Irish, and friends with little jimmy.
ON top of the world Ma.

 

[SwitchnSinden]

I mean is not illegal if there was illegal in there such as child sexual abuse etc.—If there was illegal in that bag and it did belong to him I could see him being more concerned about that.

With that said, I would feel the police chief would be far more concerned about a service weapon because that will get you fired for sure, for sure. I don’t even know how someone fires a police chief, but officers underneath them—if that ever happens, they are in TROUBLE.

I mean, there’s a weak chain of custody on that bag taken without breaking and entering to the car. If you’re not familiar with what evidence chain of custody—Is important to maintain a proper chain of custody and whose hands that bag has been in since it left his vehicle and it’s important to document how it was recovered.

I think that the police chief would be less concerned about his fingerprint being on the bag or a DVD in the bag if he sent people to recover it it is likely he opened the bag and searched it. Which would put his fingerprint on the case of any DVD. You got an unlocked car no window was broken to retrieve the bag, the bag could’ve been retrieved and things could’ve been put in there...and they came looking for the gun belt and the gun and found that bag filled with illicit .

Then in his statement he is doing to Chief Burke exactly what he says he’s mad about the Suffolk county police department doing to his heroin dealer friends (who he admits are heroin dealers). Good luck getting your friends off as innocent people or wrongfully set up by the police when you’ve admitted that they are heroin dealers, any evidence that you say was planted on them makes that defense look weak.

With that said I believe the PAL bag could’ve come from the car but what was in the bag might not be reliable. He had a motive to plant evidence because he claims Suffolk county did that to him. What happened here they got Burke on was not setting up innocent people it was beating people while handcuffed—he lost his temper.

Do you notice who wrote that article in VICE, though?

Michael Hayden—do you know who Michael Hayden is? Says he also wrote for foreign policy magazine, too? General Michael Hayden just had a huge stroke two years ago or so did THE REAL “Michael Hayden” actually write this? Michael Hayden was the director of the CIA and the NSA. I don’t know if you know this but he’s kind of a pretty big deal. I would hate for some dumbo reporter to use his name improperly. He thinks the mob and the serial killers are scary, you don’t want to rock the boat, or boats, he comes from.

When was this article written, do you know?

 

[eagleyeseymour]

I mean is not illegal if there was illegal in there such as child sexual abuse etc.—If there was illegal in that bag and it did belong to him I could see him being more concerned about that.

With that said, I would feel the police chief would be far more concerned about a service weapon because that will get you fired for sure, for sure. I don’t even know how someone fires a police chief, but officers underneath them—if that ever happens, they are in TROUBLE.

I mean, there’s a weak chain of custody on that bag taken without breaking and entering to the car. If you’re not familiar with what evidence chain of custody—Is important to maintain a proper chain of custody and whose hands that bag has been in since it left his vehicle and it’s important to document how it was recovered.

I think that the police chief would be less concerned about his fingerprint being on the bag or a DVD in the bag if he sent people to recover it it is likely he opened the bag and searched it. Which would put his fingerprint on the case of any DVD. You got an unlocked car no window was broken to retrieve the bag, the bag could’ve been retrieved and things could’ve been put in there...and they came looking for the gun belt and the gun and found that bag filled with illicit .

Then in his statement he is doing to Chief Burke exactly what he says he’s mad about the Suffolk county police department doing to his heroin dealer friends (who he admits are heroin dealers). Good luck getting your friends off as innocent people or wrongfully set up by the police when you’ve admitted that they are heroin dealers, any evidence that you say was planted on them makes that defense look weak.

With that said I believe the PAL bag could’ve come from the car but what was in the bag might not be reliable. He had a motive to plant evidence because he claims Suffolk county did that to him. What happened here they got Burke on was not setting up innocent people it was beating people while handcuffed—he lost his temper.

Do you notice who wrote that article in VICE, though?

Michael Hayden—do you know who Michael Hayden is? Says he also wrote for foreign policy magazine, too? General Michael Hayden just had a huge stroke two years ago or so did THE REAL “Michael Hayden” actually write this? Michael Hayden was the director of the CIA and the NSA. I don’t know if you know this but he’s kind of a pretty big deal. I would hate for some dumbo reporter to use his name improperly. He thinks the mob and the serial killers are scary, you don’t want to rock the boat, or boats, he comes from.

When was this article written, do you know?

Few points here Switchn:

• No, the service weapon being in his bag would not have got him fired, read this Internal Affairs bureau report from 1995, he rose all the way up the ranks to chief when it was documented he was involved with a drug dealer and prostitute who claimed Burke left her in his vehicle alone, with access to his weapon: http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/808182/excerpts-from-1995-internal-affairs.pdf

• What in the world are you talking about the "REAL Michael Hayden" and why are you insulting this reporter for having the same name as a former CIA director? Please look at the article, the authors full name and date are right there at the top of it for anyone who isn't legally blind to see.... he's contributed to the LA & NY times and National Geographic.

Apologies in advance if this this is taken personal, but for a community called Websleuths, we should be looking a little farther than our nose.

 

[SwitchnSinden]

Few points here Switchn:

• No, the service weapon being in his bag would not have got him fired, read this Internal Affairs bureau report from 1995, he rose all the way up the ranks to chief when it was documented he was involved with a drug dealer and prostitute who claimed Burke left her in his vehicle alone, with access to his weapon: http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/808182/excerpts-from-1995-internal-affairs.pdf

• What in the world are you talking about the "REAL Michael Hayden" and why are you insulting this reporter for having the same name as a former CIA director? Please look at the article, the authors full name and date are right there at the top of it for anyone who isn't legally blind to see.... he's contributed to the LA & NY times and National Geographic.

Apologies in advance if this this is taken personal, but for a community called Websleuths, we should be looking a little farther than our nose.

Yeah. General Michael Hayden who also contributed to foreign policy magazine.

That sounds like the ACTUAL Michael Hayden who works in a job that might write for foreign policy magazine after directing these two national agencies.

Currently, with his recent stroke, he is having a lot of cognitive and physical issues that he is working through as a result. I was actually very worried about Michael Hayden because of the stroke. Worried enough that I don’t want any heat coming to him while he’s vulnerable needs to be healing by some journalist falsifying his credentials.

Why are you upset by this, he *does* work for the media as a consultant but typically he consults on national security issues and foreign policy. It’s just an odd story for him to write about in VICE, I’m not saying it’s not possible but don’t be surprised if somebody comes to identity check that reporter. Actual Michael Hayden is not the one people wanna mess with. He has back up.

Like his grandson having to help him count to five on his hands, I would assume he may have trouble typing an article.

That’s why I asked when the article was written.

People running around the internet cat fishing with his identity directing retaliation to him while he’s in a vulnerable position is very unethical for a journalist. It’s even happened to me where somebody has used my name and my title to write for the press. Which passes me off as un-trustworthy while I’m trying to work with the police and handle matters that have confidentiality requirements. Someone did this maliciously as I was commenting on this specific case because he didn’t exist before I started looking into this case which is why am asking what I’m asking—I don’t work with the press. It caused me a lot of problems.

Believe my concerns are valid for Michael Hayden safety and I see a lot of this identity cat fishing in journalism.

I simply want to know if that is general Michael Hayden the director of the CIA and NSA (ret.), It seems like a very unusual thing for general Michael Hayden to get involved with since everybody is worried about libel and slander in regards to the chief.

On the positive side at least Michael Hayden will be able to take care of it with his back up—for me, I have to hire a lawyer over it. I already had a lot of problems going through background with police department I didn’t need the accusation that I was working for the media on top of that. That makes the police not want to talk to you or trust you.

 

[eagleyeseymour]

Yeah. General Michael Hayden who also contributed to foreign policy magazine.

That sounds like the ACTUAL Michael Hayden who works in a job that might write for foreign policy magazine after directing these two national agencies.

Currently, with his recent stroke, he is having a lot of cognitive and physical issues that he is working through as a result. I was actually very worried about Michael Hayden because of the stroke. Worried enough that I don’t want any heat coming to him while he’s vulnerable needs to be healing by some journalist falsifying his credentials.

Why are you upset by this, he *does* work for the media as a consultant but typically he consults on national security issues and foreign policy. It’s just an odd story for him to write about in VICE, I’m not saying it’s not possible but don’t be surprised if somebody comes to identity check that reporter. Actual Michael Hayden is not the one people wanna mess with. He has back up.

Like his grandson having to help him count to five on his hands, I would assume he may have trouble typing an article.

That’s why I asked when the article was written.

People running around the internet cat fishing with his identity directing retaliation to him while he’s in a vulnerable position is very unethical for a journalist.

Believe my concerns are valid for Michael Hayden safety and I see a lot of this identity cat fishing in journalism.

This is not catfishing. The answer was right in front of you. The article clearly states in black and white "Michael Edison Hayden" with a clickable URL and a date published and you respond with these inquiries.

This Michael Hayden has worked with the SPLC and has been a contributor to many news media outlets over the years. Why you are going down a rabbit hole about a completely different man who clearly DID NOT write this article?

There is also an actor named Michael Hayden. 50,000+ have the surname in the United States alone... Michael is among the most common male names in the country, calling this man a "dumbo" and accusing him of cat fishing?

I thought we were discussing the LISK case.

 

[SwitchnSinden]

This is not catfishing. The answer was right in front of you. The article clearly states in black and white "Michael Edison Hayden" with a clickable URL and a date published and you respond with these inquiries.

This Michael Hayden has worked with the SPLC and has been a contributor to many news media outlets over the years. Why you are going down a rabbit hole about a completely different man who clearly DID NOT write this article?

There is also an actor named Michael Hayden. 50,000+ have the surname in the United States alone... Michael is among the most common male names in the country, calling this man a "dumbo" and accusing him of cat fishing?

I thought we were discussing the LISK case.

If that’s the case they must’ve just updated the article because it didn’t say that when I saw it.

 

[eagleyeseymour]

If that’s the case they must’ve just updated the article because it didn’t say that when I saw it.

You can look at the cached article on Google or go to archive.org and plug in the URL.

Wayback Machine

Facts:

• His full name was always there in the form of a URL
• If you click on the URL , you see his face
• If you search his name, you'll see he is well documented online and has not "catfished" anyone

I shared the link with you yesterday and it hasn't changed since. Your impassioned response while clearly ignoring these facts is bizarre. This journalist is not trying to put the former chief of the NSA in danger. End of story. Back to Shannan Gilbert.

 

[SwitchnSinden]

You can look at the cached article on Google or go to archive.org and plug in the URL.

Wayback Machine

Facts:

• His full name was always there in the form of a URL
• If you click on the URL , you see his face
• If you search his name, you'll see he is well documented online and has not "catfished" anyone

I shared the link with you yesterday and it hasn't changed since. Your impassioned response while clearly ignoring these facts is bizarre. This journalist is not trying to put the former chief of the NSA in danger. End of story. Back to Shannan Gilbert.

You know it’s bizarre. It is bizarre. This case involves organized crime (like “mob people”). When I tell you that somebody created some fake journalist with my personal name and created a whole background report on this fake journalist with my name and title as I was going through police background let’s just say it caused me a lot of problems. Somebody must’ve known that it could cause me a lot of problems. So guess what happened to me during police background? A lot of problems.

I’m sorry for trying to look out for someone who is a high-ranking member of the government who recently fell ill and it would be unfortunate for Suffolk county or the mob to attack someone who is ill and recovering.

Is it not the same Michael Hayden, great...I’m glad we established that...but do not think for one second his people are not going to make sure. Now this fake reporter that recently just was dropped out of the sky with my name and title happened shortly after I began working on this case, specifically. People see Michael Hayden and foreign policy and less you’re familiar with foreign policy you’re going to make assumptions. The weird thing is I can’t see Michael Hayden doing a piece for VICE.

This is the point of my concern.

Your behavior is more suspect if you do not find this concerning as it has apparently happened twice...With this specific case. I’m glad we’ve stated it for the record I’m not with the press and the Michael Hayden that apparently wrote that article is not the same Michael Hayden that used to be the former CIA and NSA director. Do you think the mob is gonna look that closely at it?

We want to talk slander and libel on the chief using Michael Hayden’s name? You might just get that FISA on this case that I was talking about.

Whose side are you on Seymour?

 

[eagleyeseymour]

You know it’s bizarre. It is bizarre. This case involves organized crime (like “mob people”). When I tell you that somebody created some fake journalist with my personal name and created a whole background report on this fake journalist with my name and title as I was going through police background let’s just say it caused me a lot of problems. Somebody must’ve known that it could cause me a lot of problems. So guess what happened to me during police background? A lot of problems.

I’m sorry for trying to look out for someone who is a high-ranking member of the government who recently fell ill and it would be unfortunate for Suffolk county or the mob to attack someone who is ill and recovering.

Is it not the same Michael Hayden, great...I’m glad we established that...but do not think for one second his people are not going to make sure. Now this fake reporter that recently just was dropped out of the sky with my name and title happened shortly after I began working on this case, specifically. People see Michael Hayden and foreign policy and less you’re familiar with foreign policy you’re going to make assumptions. The weird thing is I can’t see Michael Hayden doing a piece for VICE.

This is the point of my concern.

Your behavior is more suspect if you do not find this concerning as it has apparently happened twice...With this specific case. I’m glad we’ve stated it for the record I’m not with the press and the Michael Hayden that apparently wrote that article is not the same Michael Hayden that used to be the former CIA and NSA director. Do you think the mob is gonna look that closely at it?

We want to talk slander and libel on the chief using Michael Hayden’s name? You might just get that FISA on this case that I was talking about.

Whose side are you on Seymour?

I thought we were talking about Shannan Gilbert. Anyone can clearly see this author was someone else, why are you making this about YOU?

Anyone seeking retribution for what YOU are deeming slander isn't going to get this mixed up.

I am here to discuss the LISK case, bottom line. The former director of the NSA and CIA doesn't need you looking out for him.

Can we get back to the thread and it's intended purpose, which is to discuss the victim Shannan Gilbert?

 

[SwitchnSinden]

I thought we were talking about Shannan Gilbert. Anyone can clearly see this author was someone else, why are you making this about YOU?

Anyone seeking retribution for what YOU are deeming slander isn't going to get this mixed up.

I am here to discuss the LISK case, bottom line. The former director of the NSA and CIA doesn't need you looking out for him.

Can we get back to the thread and it's intended purpose, which is to discuss the victim Shannan Gilbert?

That’s funny. Of course we can. But when you have people trying to help being set up to look like untrustworthy people who are with the press? That’s retaliation.

Depending on who it’s done to, it could count as tampering and obstruction of justice. How can we help Shannan when each person who tries to help Shannan gets thrown under a bus. I’m not going to say Burke but...Burke. I’m not going to say Suffolk County but...Suffolk County. I’m not going to say me...but me.

You are all for it if were throwing Suffolk under the bus or talking about snuff films and Burke being a serial killer but when we talk about malicious conduct to people on the forum? That’s an issue. You even said to me in a DM to expect this kind of behavior from the forum!

Everybody wants to talk about serial killer police men but won’t talk about anything but the police did it. With zero evidence that the police did it. Zero evidence of snuff films. Zero evidence.

I’m starting to think that belt in evidence belongs to Pootie Tang and somebody was making a big Sean joke. (Eyeroll)

We could talk about the 911 tapes but Ray has them. That’s evidence. Everything else here is hearsay. And hearsay is interesting but it won’t catch the killer.

You quoted the article. You didn’t write what reporter wrote the article. I did notice that. Why are you trying to avoid discussing the credibility of the author and retaliatory slander? Or that someone did it to me? I hope at the end of the day Burke if he is not guilty of all of this stomps some of you guys for slander and libel.

I'm sorry Burke can't sue me as I have to have a job with assets in order to pay him for engaging in this little police chief witch hunt with you Seymore, but someone ruined my background process and set me up to look like a scheming journalist by merely helping Shannan. I caught some serious heat over it and wasted a year of unemployment for people setting me up to be someone who I was not. Somebody's gonna pay for that.

So guess what? I can't very well help Shannan or any **** body. Keep doing this to people and nobody can help anyone.

I would love to sue for lost wages over it and damage to my reputation. I would love to figure out who did that. Your reaction is suspect. If it's not you, you better watch who might be putting your name out in the press and throwing you under a bus. You might be next.

There is nothing wrong with journalists but cops don't trust them. Good luck, Shannan.

 

[eagleyeseymour]

That’s funny. Of course we can. But when you have people trying to help being set up to look like untrustworthy people who are with the press? That’s retaliation.

Depending on who it’s done to, it could count as tampering and obstruction of justice. How can we help Shannan when each person who tries to help Shannan gets thrown under a bus. I’m not going to say Burke but...Burke. I’m not going to say Suffolk County but...Suffolk County. I’m not going to say me...but me.

You are all for it if were throwing Suffolk under the bus or talking about snuff films and Burke being a serial killer but when we talk about malicious conduct to people on the forum? That’s an issue. You even said to me in a DM to expect this kind of behavior from the forum!

Everybody wants to talk about serial killer police men but won’t talk about anything but the police did it. With zero evidence that the police did it. Zero evidence of snuff films. Zero evidence.

I’m starting to think that belt in evidence belongs to Pootie Tang and somebody was making a big Sean joke. (Eyeroll)

We could talk about the 911 tapes but Ray has them. That’s evidence. Everything else here is hearsay. And hearsay is interesting but it won’t catch the killer.

You quoted the article. You didn’t write what reporter wrote the article. I did notice that. Why are you trying to avoid discussing the credibility of the author and retaliatory slander? Or that someone did it to me? I hope at the end of the day Burke if he is not guilty of all of this stomps some of you guys for slander and libel.

I'm sorry Burke can't sue me as I have to have a job with assets in order to pay him for engaging in this little police chief witch hunt with you Seymore, but someone ruined my background process and set me up to look like a scheming journalist by merely helping Shannan. I caught some serious heat over it and wasted a year of unemployment for people setting me up to be someone who I was not. Somebody's gonna pay for that.

So guess what? I can't very well help Shannan or any **** body. Keep doing this to people and nobody can help anyone.

I would love to sue for lost wages over it and damage to my reputation. I would love to figure out who did that. Your reaction is suspect. If it's not you, you better watch who might be putting your name out in the press and throwing you under a bus. You might be next.

I addressed the credibility of the author ad nauseam.

So you're threatening me now because I want to discuss the victim Shannan Gilbert?

This forum is not for discussing your personal affairs unrelated to the case, you may want to seek some kind of victims advocacy forum because this is not the appropriate place.

There was no malicious attempt, you ran with this cockamamie theory about Hayden and it seems you are enjoying the attention. The very idea that you feel you are in some kind of position to "look out for" a former CIA and NSA director is the icing on the cake and no one here wants a bite of that cake.

Last attempt to discuss Gilbert, the 911 tape and the persons of interest, if you can't refrain from making this about you I'll notify the mods so they can scrub this thread.

 

[SwitchnSinden]

I addressed the credibility of the author ad nauseam.

So you're threatening me now because I want to discuss the victim Shannan Gilbert?

This forum is not for discussing your personal affairs unrelated to the case, you may want to seek some kind of victims advocacy forum because this is not the appropriate place.

There was no malicious attempt, you ran with this cockamamie theory about Hayden and it seems you are enjoying the attention. The very idea that you feel you are in some kind of position to "look out for" a former CIA and NSA director is the icing on the cake and no one here wants a bite of that cake.

Last attempt to discuss Gilbert, the 911 tape and the persons of interest, if you can't refrain from making this about you I'll notify the mods so they can scrub this thread.

Please! Notify the mods that somebody is taking personal information from users on this forum and then putting them at risk and then try to shut the people out there saying something about it up, nobody’s threatening you. Please calm down.

I’m basically saying that if somebody finds out your identity and decides to create an article that could get you sued for slander and libel and put your name at the end of it or to screw up your job by making you come off like a reporter—I asked you to watch out for that.
You’ve been really logical and down to earth us far don’t turn into a purse clutching white girl on me.

If you cannot comprehend that’s what I’m asking you to watch out for and do you want to make it some kind of crazy threat against you, you’re reading comprehension needs work.

Did you see me taking your direct message you sent to me yesterday to watch out for this exact thing as a personal threat to me?

I didn’t misinterpret that is some kind of threat you were making towards me. Had I done so, I would be acting just like you’re acting right now.

By all means call the MOD’s over here and let them know it’s happening we can scrub it down but the mods have to see it’s happening which I guess solves the problem either way you look at it. Their cyber people should probably secure the website.

• I’ll drop this issue now and we can continue talking about other things but if you feel like that you need mob intervention...or mod intervention....you just do what you gotta do, babe.

Like I said your reaction is just weird to me when I brought this up and now it’s a big deal and it’s taken up multiple posts and now you’re accusing me of being distracting—When forced to respond to you about things that you asked me to respond to.

You’re acting like a DA or an attorney the way that you’re twisting words around and accusing me of being distracting while I’m merely answering your questions.

Sometimes, I do not think that attorneys are ever aware of how they do this kind of thing, in some cases they are. It's obnoxious—please stop.

I married an attorney, trust me and I can argue with a fence post all day and win so don’t twist my words around and don’t ask questions if you do not want the questions answered.

But I’m not here to watch you spin out over this issue and then push it back on me like I’m making a big deal out of it.

But when I question and authors credibility And want to clarify who wrote the thing that you’re posting—if you are an attorney you understand credibility has a lot to do with an allegations validity and whether you’re believed in court.

General Michael Hayden has tons of credibility, People know he works with the media and what he did before he worked with the media. Courts are going to believe his allegations but in the court of public opinion they’re definitely gonna believe those allegations...except I know enough about the intelligence community to know I don’t think that he would write for VICE or about this story. I don’t even think the man can type right now without enough physical therapy.

So, in the court of public opinion—the record show that that’s not the same guy as general Michael Hayden and also--I’m not a journalist. Those are some pretty serious allegations that are made in that VICE article—I read it. I would like to clarify who the author was in this form especially if you’re going to quote it.

Now what would you like to talk about regarding the 911 tapes?

 

[SwitchnSinden]

@eagleyeseymour There’s a high probability the fake background and press allegations came from Dekalb County IA who covered up a sexual assault by a police officer against me ALSO working on a DEA undercover task force. I'm really upset about it.

This county is corrupt in GA like people allege Suffolk is. But I can't tell whether it came from Dekalb or this case (as it happened around the same time as I was pulling BGs and going through BGs on this case). Oddly enough, they just Suffolked/James Burked the police chief in Chamblee. The problem is I think it was an inside job, at least with Chamblee. He just issued protocol for take-home vehicles two days before the break in and they used a blanket break in to conceal that they were targeting the chief.

That’s where the cop that assaulted me works now. Oddly enough, that’s where the FBI field office is—is right in the belly of the beast, same county. The county is like the Sodom and Gomorrah of police misconduct I try not to turn back and look at it, otherwise I’ll get turned into a pile of dust.

I can’t ever tell whether the obstruction is coming from a case I’m working on or whether it’s coming from the idiots over in DeKalb, GA.

This is why I know so much about what Loeb is going through and how dirty departments typically work when silencing victim’s allegations regarding police misconduct.

And I’ve listen to John Ray talk about the autopsy and if I said what I think...I think I would be stepping into breaching some kind of safety protocol a confidentiality thing and I simply cannot do that so I don’t know what to say until I hear the tapes. Something about the hyoid bone having a hole drilled in it told me a lot of things based upon that information, I can’t comment further.

 

[Sallyla]

Ray didn't spear head anything. Tapes will never be released, Shannan named too many names for that tape to ever
legitimitely be released. The joke is on Long Island - when it comes to Ray and Spota. The joke is on you Eagleyeseymour and all of Long Island.

This didn’t age well.

 

[mage]

Victim centered is something John Ray is NOT.

The calls will never be released to the PUBLIC, (sorry) that was the most important part of the sentence.

John Ray never advocated for Shannan Gilbert's civil rights. He never had a presser to tell the
public how violent sex trafficking is,
how a victim
is petrified when she knocks on
every door for every john, how
she has been beaten, peed on, pooped on, beaten up,
raped, tortured, and FORCED to
bring home a monetary amount
of money that her pimp demanded she earn that night.

John never produced ONE expert to
tell the world just how horrific a
nightmare it is for a young lady that is
sex trafficked, night after night, week after week,
month after month. John has not one
clue about the LAW regarding
sex trafficking, he only knows
he received money to get rid of
all of the evidence in Shanann's case,
which John did brilliantly. clap clap

Broken Wing John Ray - Burke Spota and McPartland's dog.

Ray is a complete moron who only is a clown on tv for the 3 most
powerful men on Long island who are puppets and pulling Ray's strings
telling him to bark, or what to say at each presser.

Michael Cohen was too stupid to make
it as a real attorney and
Trump saw someone he could push around,
henceforth, the
same goes for Burke, Spota and McPartland
with an imbicile
like Ray. He's nothing more than a
barking dog for the men
who throw treats at him.

 

[Sallyla]

Well then maybe you should have put ‘public’ in your post then?

You seem to be a bit confused about the role of an attorney. They are not campaigners.

 

[mage]

Victim centered is something John Ray is NOT.

The calls will never be released to the PUBLIC, (sorry) that was the most important part of the sentence.

John Ray never advocated for Shannan Gilbert's civil rights. He never had a presser to tell the
public how violent sex trafficking is,
how a victim
is petrified when she knocks on
every door for every john, how
she has been beaten, peed on, pooped on, beaten up,
raped, tortured, and FORCED to
bring home a monetary amount
of money that her pimp demanded she earn that night.

John never produced ONE expert to
tell the world just how horrific a
nightmare it is for a young lady that is
sex trafficked, night after night, week after week,
month after month. John has not one
clue about the LAW regarding
sex trafficking, he only knows
he received money to get rid of
all of the evidence in Shanann's case,
which John did brilliantly. clap clap

Broken Wing John Ray - Burke Spota and McPartland's dog.

Ray is a complete moron who only is a clown on tv for the 3 most
powerful men on Long island who are puppets and pulling Ray's strings
telling him to bark, or what to say at each presser.

Michael Cohen was too stupid to make
it as a real attorney and
Trump saw someone he could push around,
henceforth, the
same goes for Burke, Spota and McPartland
with an imbicile
like Ray. He's nothing more than a
barking dog for the men
who throw treats at him.

Every man loves his dog.

 

[Fabra]

I don't think any of us are naive enough to believe, at this point, that there isn't widescale corruption and a pretty involved cover-up.

But at what point does that make the whole damn argument moot? At what point do we just throw in the towel and say, well, there's no point in engaging in a dialogue about it anymore? Because to me, a lot of these threads re: LISK have gone down a rabbit hole of filibustering, ad hominem attacks, and (as one sleuther called it) "thread jacking." To me, that's just as suspect.

Forgive me, but isn't the point of Websleuths to throw around ideas, listen a little, have new people come forward who may be able to contribute something new, perhaps?...I haven't given up on that. Or the fact that it's possible--maybe not probable--but possible that there will be a crack in the case.

I'm not giving up on Ray, either. Maybe he is as corrupt as the rest of them--but more evidence is needed, and we need to see the issue of these tapes through.

 

[Sallyla]

I don't think any of us are naive enough to believe, at this point, that there isn't widescale corruption and a pretty involved cover-up.

me, a lot of these threads re: LISK have gone down a rabbit hole of filibustering, ad hominem attacks, and (as one sleuther called it) "thread jacking." To me, that's just as suspect.

Forgive me, but isn't the point of Websleuths to throw around ideas, listen a little, have new people come forward who may be able to contribute something new, perhaps?...I haven't given up on that. Or the fact that it's possible--maybe not probable--but possible that there will be a crack in the case.

I'm not giving up on Ray, either. Maybe he is as corrupt as the rest of them--but more evidence is needed, and we need to see the issue of these tapes through.

Ray explicitly said today that the claim the tape showed “Shannan was not about to be murdered in the house at Oak Beach” was false.

In other words, he believes that the tapes prove she was about to be murdered in that house. It sounds like major corruption, I agree.

I also agree about the filibustering. Whether it’s deliberate derailing, self obsession or mental illness I don’t know. The mods should act.

I was watching the A&E series today and it was amazing, what Websleuthers uncovered in the early days. It’s just a mess of largely meaningless gibberish and that type of thing could never happen now. That may well serve the purposes of people who don’t want anyone delving too deeply. I’m saying nothing.

Ray is begging the police chief to allow him to release the tapes publicly. If they show what he’s claiming he should publish and be damned, redacted names or whatever.

Otherwise I wonder if they may be somehow leaked at some point. Hackers and things are very clever today.

 

[eagleyeseymour]

Ray explicitly said today that the claim the tape showed “Shannan was not about to be murdered in the house at Oak Beach” was false.

In other words, he believes that the tapes prove she was about to be murdered in that house. It sounds like major corruption, I agree.

I also agree about the filibustering. Whether it’s deliberate derailing, self obsession or mental illness I don’t know. The mods should act.

I was watching the A&E series today and it was amazing, what Websleuthers uncovered in the early days. It’s just a mess of largely meaningless gibberish and that type of thing could never happen now. That may well serve the purposes of people who don’t want anyone delving too deeply. I’m saying nothing.

Ray is begging the police chief to allow him to release the tapes publicly. If they show what he’s claiming he should publish and be damned, redacted names or whatever.

Otherwise I wonder if they may be somehow leaked at some point. Hackers and things are very clever today.

Well, she did wind up dead. That doesn't necessarily mean the tapes prove she was going to be murdered in that house. I get it theres the "they're trying to kill me" statement and the conclusion we are all aware of. So is Ray saying this based on her statement and the inevitable outcome OR is he saying this because there was additional information on the tapes (ie: a struggle overheard, a man threatening her, etc.) ... this is what the public needs to know.

Here's what I can't wrap my head around, why would Brewer and potential associates kill a woman while her driver sits outside in his vehicle? This is assuming Pak is nothing more than a shady driver who does livery for escorts and not involved in some conspiracy. It doesn't make sense to me that provided Brewer is connected to LISK or LISK himself that he would select an escort with a witness who was waiting outside.... So let's say she was about to be murdered in the house.... What do they tell Pak? She slipped out the back door and took off?

Alternatively, someone could've went into a blind rage. I think what is much more likely is that Shannan either observed something (some kind of 'nasty ') or a statement was made that spooked her. Maybe this was merely intended to be a session where Brewer or unknown persons built rapport with her, hence not caring about Pak's presence but something went south. Someone did or said something impulsive that night, I refuse to believe that she went into psychosis, drug induced or not and decided she was going to be murdered without any other environmental factors or triggers, it's ludicrous.

Shannan was also a smart woman, with a good vocabulary and interested in poetry, music , the arts , you get it. Her lack of ability to elaborate based on accounts from Coletti and Pak make me feel that if it was a drug induced state, it wasn't a party drug that she took willingly. Her lack of coordination and confusion points to a dissociative. I'd bet the farm that she was given GHB, Ketamine, Rohypnol, something of that nature and it was unbeknownst to her at the time of ingestion.

If Hackett is a legitimate POI now that this is being considered a criminal investigation, it would make sense to subpoena the prescription records dating back to the 2000's. What controlled substances were being picked up with scripts with his name on it and by who?