The Internet & Kyron's Case - Helping or Hurting?

[TrY]

Like others have said on this thread, the internet is a double edged sword. The internet is how I get my news, I don't wait until the 5 pm or 6 pm news or news updates on 24 hour cable tv networks anymore. As to blogs, bulletin boards, and social media sites, I've been around the internet long enough to cut through any BS, ignore any trolls, and pick and choose where I want to visit and post. I like Websleuths because it's moderated.

What is amazing to me is how much information people put on their social media web pages -- once it's public and out there, it's pretty much fair game for people to talk about.

Now does the internet help in this particular case of Kyron Horman? I don't know but I think the media coverage doesn't make Kyron's family look very good.

With the media coverage of this case, what does stand out to me is that the stepmom Terri has not made any public statements about her missing stepson Kyron -- she said not one word at the press conference.

 

[STEADFAST]

If you define a witch hunt as a mass movement of irrational behaviour that results in the victimisation of innocent people, then the most recent witch hunt was the housing and financial sector fall beginning in 2006. Four years ago. Well into the age of the internet.

In 2005, I was one of the very, very few people who looked at the housing market and the credit default swaps and said "this is very, very wrong and it is gonna hurt a lot of people." Mortgages were freely available to anyone with a pulse (and for all I know, a pulse wasn't strictly necessary either). Housing prices were going up like mad. Wall Street was making bets that anyone could see they could not possibly cover or recover from making. Seemed clear to me that disaster was on the way.

In 2005, I came down with necrotising fasciitis. I was in ICU for four weeks and in the burn unit for almost four months. I was lying there in that hospital bed shooing my parents out of my room, telling them "don't waste time visiting me, get that house on the market and sold NOW."

The house they were living in was the one they built when their children were young. In their late 70s, it was just too much house for them, so they decided to sell it but they weren't in any great hurry. They admit that due to my advice, they got that house on the market a year or more sooner than they had intended to. They made a lot more money than they thought they would by selling it to a couple who thought they would MacMansion it, then flip it for even more money.

Well, that couple was dead wrong. They still have the house and the last time I saw it advertised, they were asking for less money than they paid for it. I imagine they're probably upside down on their mortgage and I do feel sorry for them. I'm not at all sorry, though, that my parents heeded my advice and were not the ones left holding the bag.

The information I used to predict what was going to happen was all from the internet, from mainstream media sites (mostly The New York Times). I myself have no special education in anything, I'm just a high school graduate. Who knows how to balance a chequebook, a skill that I have to wonder if Wall Street bankers possess.

If the internet can prevent irrational behaviour (aka witch hunts), why did the vast majority of the people in this country have access to all the same information I had and yet completely miss the prediction? I honestly don't know, I'm still stunned that so few people could see what was so glaringly obvious to me.

I do know one thing for sure though: the internet did not stop people from making incorrect predictions that disastrously affected their financial wellbeing.

I am a history buff. After every wave of mass hysteria, no matter what form it takes, people shake their heads afterwards and say that it will never happen again.

So far, those people have been wrong every single time.

I know which way I'm betting on whether witch hunts will never happen again.

Don't you agree, though, if someone was on something called, say, "The Mortgage Discussion Forum," that they would end up with a pretty good picture of the state and trend of mortgages, even though some of the posts would contain wrong information and bad advice, as long as there were thousands of people on the forum? The bad information would be corrected and argued against, and the information would eventually be honed to something a close to the truth as humanly possible. The people who ended up with bad mortgage problems didn't have enough information or input from others or were guided by motives that had nothing to do with mortgage-trend information.
It's hard to picture a crime-sleuthing site that would not have any analysis of the behavior of people close to a crime or not allow members to draw conclusions based on what knowledge they have. Yes, it can get out of hand, but because of the moderators imposing some rules of decorum and the sheer number of posters arguing against individual outlandish or unfounded conclusions and honing the details, the forums tend to focus on reasonable, even if completely different, theories of the crime.
As you pointed out, even waves of mass hysteria eventually recede, and I believe they do when enough people weigh in on the issue.

 

[kbl8201]

i just dont think people see this from the family's perspective. and i hope they never have to some day

 

[sorrell skye]

I see it as a double-edged sword.

For instance: when "information" regarding a case is posted anywhere on the internet that has not been verified to be factual, here or elsewhere, rumors begin to circulate in the public domain that may influence potential witnesses, which ultimately affects LE's ability to investigate & gather accurate data.

I'm glad this site goes to great lengths to quash any & all rumors, and insists on verification of info with LE & media statements.

Anonymity on the internet is both a blessing (in which privacy is protected, as it most definitely should be) and also a curse, since not only can someone make claims as to their alleged identity & proximity to a crime and/or a crime victim's family/friends, but they can also post "information" as a so-called "insider" that may or may not be factual. IMO, this can do much damage - especially in terms of the influence it may have on jurors when a case goes to trial.

There is also the situation of when a skilled or just downright lucky sleuth discovers or stumbles upon that important piece of information that LE has had all along (but has not made public, in order to protect the investigation) and that person decides (irresponsibly) to post it on a message board somewhere for all the world to see - without taking into account how posting that piece of information on a public forum might affect the investigation and/or potential successful prosecution of the perpetrator. In other words - while that person is busy patting him/herself on the back, he/she may have unwittingly given a heads-up to the perp.

There is an incredible amount of sleuthing that goes on behind the scenes all over the internet, some of which is never posted on any public board, for valid reasons.

Responsible posters know what info to post & what info to forward to LE.

 

[greenbean]

I find this kind of hard to put into words so please forgive if this strays a bit.

I would like to think that most people that post on crime or murder forums are well meaning but I have to wonder if there isn't also some attraction to people with more nefarious hobbies than background searches. What better place for a child molester or murderer to read (and on some boards, see) incredibly graphic details and descriptions of a crime? Couple that with the posting on some boards of suspected individuals' (and sometimes even, minor children) locations, full names etc and it kind of makes one wonder. Well, I know it makes me wonder...

There is also the inevitable fall out that families are going to eventually encounter. While I feel like celebrities understand that this kind of dissection comes along with the paycheck I don't think that should apply to people that find themselves thrust into the public eye on the worst day of their entire lives. I shudder to think of the concerned phone calls suspected folks must eventually get that go something like:
"Look, I found this message board and they are all over your facebook page and they think because you harvested your soybeans the day after your kid disappeared you must be connected or at least really calloused."
Then I imagine that person, who might have been just idly clicking on the web to make the seconds that eek out slightly less excruciating, frantically trying to figure out facebook's settings to make their stuff private. All the while wondering how those drunken Christmas party pics might be twisted. For a long time facebook's privacy controls were multi-layered and hard to navigate. It kind of seems wrong to me on some level to use that information to somehow gauge a situation happening to strangers possibly hundreds of miles away.

There is also the telephone aspect of it, or the possibility that a lie told by a perpetrator will be taken as truth and then an innocent person's life will also be subject to inspection by hundreds and even possibly thousands of people. Again, I mention Zaneida Gonzalez. I was only reading when most of the stuff with Casey Anthony happened but I did see Zaneida's myspace openly posted on a number of boards. She didn't have anything at all to do with what happened to Caylee yet her life was dissected by tons of people. Granted, Casey put that name out there but is it really the public's right to conduct their own investigations? I wonder about that and I struggle with that. I also wonder about speculation that ends up being carried over almost as fact. I would bet money that someone will come along and actually think Kyron's glasses were found when it was just conjecture that was repeated.

Lastly, there is the calling in of tips. Although I believe that the public has a duty to report I wonder how many "tips" are visions or dreams that also have to be sifted through. I know there was a document release in the Anthony case and I was flabbergasted at how many tips that were then released that were visions or hunches.

I wonder about the internet and these cases. I am aware it's not going away. I just hope most people try to have some empathy and do as little harm as possible. I appreciate this forum giving me a place to talk about this and I appreciate the work that so many put into this place. It makes for fascinating reading.

 

[GrainneDhu]

Don't you agree, though, if someone was on something called, say, "The Mortgage Discussion Forum," that they would end up with a pretty good picture of the state and trend of mortgages, even though some of the posts would contain wrong information and bad advice, as long as there were thousands of people on the forum? The bad information would be corrected and argued against, and the information would eventually be honed to something a close to the truth as humanly possible. The people who ended up with bad mortgage problems didn't have enough information or input from others or were guided by motives that had nothing to do with mortgage-trend information.

And yet, the proof is out there: they didn't. For one thing, most people got hooked into discussing the individual details of the overall picture. It was like watching people discuss one single leaf in the picture of a forest. They didn't see the big forest fire coming because they were immersed in the details of the one leaf.

People talked about mortgages. Or they talked about Wall Street moving into the mortgage market. A very tiny number of people talked about credit default swaps. I don't recall anyone besides me who looked at the overall picture and said "there's a big depression/recession coming and it is gonna hurt."

Even Alan Greenspan admitted he didn't see it coming!

It's hard to picture a crime-sleuthing site that would not have any analysis of the behavior of people close to a crime or not allow members to draw conclusions based on what knowledge they have. Yes, it can get out of hand, but because of the moderators imposing some rules of decorum and the sheer number of posters arguing against individual outlandish or unfounded conclusions and honing the details, the forums tend to focus on reasonable, even if completely different, theories of the crime.
As you pointed out, even waves of mass hysteria eventually recede, and I believe they do when enough people weigh in on the issue.

Calliope, belimom and others have given examples of how people widely suspected in specific cases by WebSleuths members were innocent.

 

[GrainneDhu]

Don't you agree, though, if someone was on something called, say, "The Mortgage Discussion Forum," that they would end up with a pretty good picture of the state and trend of mortgages, even though some of the posts would contain wrong information and bad advice, as long as there were thousands of people on the forum? The bad information would be corrected and argued against, and the information would eventually be honed to something a close to the truth as humanly possible.

I hit the submit reply button and then realised I had a better answer. Darn.

What you're talking about is called the emperor's nose fallacy. The fable runs thus: back before the last emperor of China was deposed, a great survey was undertaken to discover the length of the emperor's nose. They questioned every single Chinese person and asked them how long the emperor's nose was. Then they averaged the millions of replies and published that number, proclaiming it to be the length of the emperor's nose.

The only problem was that when someone measured the nose of the actual emperor, it turned out to be quite different.

In other words, when there is too little factual information known, speculation based on that information is likely to be wrong. No matter how many people do the speculating.

 

[oxymoran]

I'm trying to understand why people believe reviewing posts that were made on a publicly available face-book should be considered part of a witchhunt .

 

[greenbean]

Hey, I just know how I would feel if it was my facebook. I also know that when facebook's privacy policies recently changed for, I don't know, the 350th time it made information that was not visible visible. Here is just a tiny, tiny bit I want to quote from fb's privacy page. Go read the whole thing, if you have a day or two.

“Everyone” Information. Information set to “everyone” is publicly available information, just like your name, profile picture, and connections. Such information may, for example, be accessed by everyone on the Internet (including people not logged into Facebook), be indexed by third party search engines, and be imported, exported, distributed, and redistributed by us and others without privacy limitations. Such information may also be associated with you, including your name and profile picture, even outside of Facebook, such as on public search engines and when you visit other sites on the internet. The default privacy setting for certain types of information you post on Facebook is set to “everyone.” You can review and change the default settings in your privacy settings. If you delete “everyone” content that you posted on Facebook, we will remove it from your Facebook profile, but have no control over its use outside of Facebook.

http://www.facebook.com/policy.php

I recommend everyone I know familiarize themselves with their privacy settings and check and re-check their settings often on facebook. Why? Because I read message boards and I would be horrified and insulted if the info on my facebook became fodder for strangers that are curious. Facebook and Myspace are intended to enable people to connect with their friends and families, not to provide total strangers grist for the rumor mill.

True, many people probably don't feel like snooping on someone's Facebook is tantamount to a witch hunt. I have to ask those people though, what is it that you do hope to accomplish with that information? Does it ever make you feel like you are invading someone's privacy? Would you want the same to be done to you? What about your child or an elderly relative?

The Facebook thing is touchy with me and I hope my opinions don't offend anyone. I have a number of family members older than I am that have had a hard time understanding and manipulating their own privacy settings and have unknowingly opened themselves and other people on their page up to total strangers.

So yes, while it might not be a "witch hunt" it sure doesn't seem fair or decent to me.

 

[oxymoran]

Thanks for your comments Greenbean. I think your view is running counter to what is already considered acceptable practice. According to this article http://www.kgw.com/video/featured-videos/Missing-boys-family-keeping-in-touch-by-social-media-95822609.html

Other than Facebook, several chat rooms, along with YouTube and Twitter pages were filled with messages of courage and tips for investigators.
Detectives also said they were following the online messages the best they could, in search of possible clues to the boy’s whereabouts.
“They now go into Twitter, anything that people voluntarily put on and becomes public record, they [detectives] can go in there and they can access that information,” explained criminal expert Larry Rasson, who is now retired from the Portland Police Bureau

The attitude seems to be Poster beware...if you don't want it in the public domain don't post it publicly anywhere on the internet.

 

[greenbean]

I thought her facebook was originally public and then made private? Is it still public? That article is from June 7. Was the family communicating with the public through their facebooks? The above article references twitter for tips and mentions friends and family keeping in touch through facebook.

I also enjoy your comments, Oxy!

 

[human]

1. I read on here because I am freaked out by missing children

2. I think LE has not helped in getting the focus off of SM. I think that they have fanned the flames.

I know some people believe her to be innocent. I have no idea who could be the perp.

I just think if LE thinks that the public is unfairly targeting SM, then they could give info that she is not even being considered or whatever they could say.

I realize that some people would still think that it is SM and LE is being deceptive, but their actions appear to be focusing on her to many people.

I think families have always been looked at as the first suspects and nothing new there.

It's just that the rumors are more widespread now because of the net. The rumors were always out there in the past.

 

[oxymoran]

I thought her facebook was originally public and then made private? Is it still public? That article is from June 7. Was the family communicating with the public through their facebooks? The above article references twitter for tips and mentions friends and family keeping in touch through facebook.

I also enjoy your comments, Oxy!

Thanks Greenbean

My understanding is that it was public thru around June 8 and then made private.

I believe she fully removed her FB account on or around June 13...I no longer get a link to her name. But I made that comment on WS...and someone else disagreed with me. Perhaps someone else can add a datapoint to say whether she still has a private account on facebook.

 

[human]

Thanks Greenbean

My understanding is that it was public thru around June 8 and then made private.

I believe she fully removed her FB account on or around June 13...I no longer get a link to her name. But I made that comment on WS...and someone else disagreed with me. Perhaps someone else can add a datapoint to say whether she still has a private account on facebook.

I thought that maybe I had been mistaken that her FB acct had been deleted as I looked later (don't know when) and it was made private.

Because I had looked and it came up deleted for me on some date (don't remember what date)

But then it came up later (at some date that I don't remember), as private.

Therefore, I believe at some time it was deleted and then returned as private.

How does that work?

Delete it and then what?

 

[Charlie09]

I thought that maybe I had been mistaken that her FB acct had been deleted as I looked later (don't know when) and it was made private.

Because I had looked and it came up deleted for me on some date (don't remember what date)

But then it came up later (at some date that I don't remember), as private.

Therefore, I believe at some time it was deleted and then returned as private.

How does that work?

Delete it and then what?

You can delete it and then add it back.
I have never not been able to access the photo album I bookmarked from when it was public.

The current profile picture is Terri and the 3 kids - I am not a friend and don't have access to the wall or any of the other photo albums, just the one I bookmarked.

 

[kgeaux]

There have been several articles about the internet and Kyron's case, with commentary on whether it's helping or hurting, and how it's helping or hurting. I thought we could use a thread to discuss this.

Not discussing case related info we find on different sites - we have topic threads for that - but just the internet in general and how it's helping and/or hurting Kyron's case.

Maybe we can focus on ideas for how we at WS have helped LE for years in many cases, and how we can apply that to what we can do specifically for Kyron.

Here's today's article:

Web chatter can aid or impede investigations
Boy’s case shows how social media helps – and how it hurts
The Portland Tribune, Jun 24, 2010

Yet, this week Knowlton found herself confronting the unseemly side of social media: the inability to control the “trolls” – Internet slang for people who leave inflammatory comments on discussion boards.

Trolls on the Facebook page – as well as those who comment on various news sites and on independently run blogs across the country – have tried to indict Kyron’s family members for the crime and made mean-spirited remarks about Kyron’s physical appearance.

When Knowlton told her readers she would be deleting those types of posts without warning, people accused her of being biased and unfair and violating their free-speech rights. They asked her to relinquish the site.

They also alleged she was defending Kyron’s family because she must be the mother of Kyron’s stepmom, Terri Moulton Horman – because Moulton rhymes with Knowlton.

“I have never met Mrs. Horman and I am not her mother, nor am I related in any way to this family,” Knowlton wrote. “I have tried to explain that I have been with the Child Seek Network since it was founded and that I am just a mom, grandmother and lady who is passionate about missing children!”

http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=127732859244956200

I don't necessarily agree that it's "trolls" who are doing the damage. Some of the most horrible, speculative, subjective postings I've seen on various websites have been made by long term members.

There are always people who are anxious, eager and ready to tear others apart, and to try to disguise their shredding as "my opinion."

 

[GrainneDhu]

I thought that maybe I had been mistaken that her FB acct had been deleted as I looked later (don't know when) and it was made private.

Because I had looked and it came up deleted for me on some date (don't remember what date)

But then it came up later (at some date that I don't remember), as private.

Therefore, I believe at some time it was deleted and then returned as private.

How does that work?

Delete it and then what?

During the last Facebook privacy flap a few months ago, I decided to delete my all-but-unused account (I just couldn't get into it and had posted literally nothing there).

At that time, when I deleted my account, I got a message saying that it was deleted but if I logged onto Facebook at any point during the next two weeks, my account would automatically be restored.

And I have to say, figuring out how to delete and actually doing it were incredibly complex, time consuming and just plain frustrating.

I'm truly not sure if my account has been deleted or not.

All this may have changed. I say that because Facebook has a long history of confusing and seemingly random changes of policy and procedures.

 

[kgeaux]

RSBM & BBM

Seriously?? People have made remarks about Kyron's appearance?! OMG!! He's a beautiful child of God! Shame on anyone else who says differently.

We're pulling for you, Kyron.

Have there ever been comments about his appearance! The one that stands out in my mind is "OMG!!!!!!!!!! Kyron's ARM IS MISSING!!" as though SM would have amputated his arm, dressed him up in his CSI shirt, taken him to school----on THURSDAY (because look how very few people are in the photo) snapped a quick pic of him and then done whatever it is speculated she did with him.

The way I look at it is that internet chatter is the voice of our society.

I also think that if huge numbers of people think you're doing something suspicious, you probably are.
.

snipped your post a little....I must say that if the internet chatter I've been reading is the voice of our society, I am ashamed beyond belief of "our society." To insinuate a person's guilt in a matter as serious as a missing child, based upon nothing more than "my feelings" is unacceptable, indefensible and inexcusable. God deliver us.

"huge numbers" of people thinking someone did something wrong may not indicate guilt. It MAY indicate that the huge number of people are gullible enough to believe that what someone posts on the internet is true.

Talking about a case and getting the word out and keeping his photo out in the public can't hurt a case. IMO

Keeping his photo out in public surely can't hurt. Unfortunately, if the "talking" about the case is nothing but gossip mongering and rumor, then that absolutely will NOT HELP the case and in fact may cause harm to not only the case but the innocent family members.

Like others have said on this thread, the internet is a double edged sword.

You don't go to forums to get your news, surely. You go to reputable, nationally known news sources, don't you?

What is amazing to me is the sheer volume of the people in USA who DO go to forums and blogs, etc. to get their "news"

 

[greenbean]

During the last Facebook privacy flap a few months ago, I decided to delete my all-but-unused account (I just couldn't get into it and had posted literally nothing there).

At that time, when I deleted my account, I got a message saying that it was deleted but if I logged onto Facebook at any point during the next two weeks, my account would automatically be restored.

And I have to say, figuring out how to delete and actually doing it were incredibly complex, time consuming and just plain frustrating.

I'm truly not sure if my account has been deleted or not.

All this may have changed. I say that because Facebook has a long history of confusing and seemingly random changes of policy and procedures.

Bolded by greenbean.

This is exactly what I mean. And as far as a photo album still being available that must be because the owner of that FB did not realize you have to go in and manually set all of your individual albums. How awful is that? Pretty awful!! Can you even fathom being a suspect on the web and then going to see that the people that are saying such things may even be using a picture YOU TOOK as their avatar?! Is that not copyright infringement? Am I just insane? As a professional photographer I would be livid!

If his step didn't mind the interaction with strangers on her facebook why would she have made it private?

And, this is obviously my opinion, but internet chatter is not the voice of our society. There are many, many people that have an opinion or a feeling about situations such as these that do not spend their time on message boards.

 

[SleuthyGal]

At this point, with most effort by Internet & ChatHounds being expended to speculate and spin yarn after yarn of what could have or might have happened to Kyron, based on nothing but imagination and projection of what the poster would do in situation x, y or z, I'd say it's hurting a lot more than helping.

Pointing fingers without knowing the details, random speculation, passing along rumors or even creating new rumors...none of it helps Kyron. All it does is fan the flames of random rumor flotsam and ultimately create more junk in the sphere.

Kyron needs people to search inch by inch through that county, he doesn't need gossipmongers spreading rumors. And when they're done with that county they need to move on to the next one, and then the one after that. THAT would help Kyron more than spewing theories into the ether, IMHO.