Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Let's cut through the bullshit. Why should I care that a certain blogger is a fake? Maybe because he decided to involve real people in his adventure.
On July 17th, "Steve" announced that he had been mugged and that the muggers then went on to attack other people, one of whom was an 11-year-old epileptic girl who was shot after having a seizure. Two days later, on July 19th, he claimed to have attended the girl's viewing: "Additionally, I went to that girl’s viewing (apparently she had an epileptic seizure, which freaked the robbers out; and that’s why they shot her). I had to go. It was difficult. The family was extremely poor, and the mother was in hysterics. One couldn’t help, but cry; in reaction to the mom. I ’looked very rich‘ compared to the other mourners (I, and my friends, were the only ones wearing suits). I was afraid to tell them who I was.". On August 21st, he claimed the first of two trials was starting and in the comments for that day stated: "But my eye did catch the faces of the murdered girl’s parents. They recognized me from being at her viewing. So I walked over, introduced myself; and treated them to lunch. I feel so bad for them."
So back on July 17th I read this entry and then the girl's obituary. Something made me pause and Google the girl's name. No newspaper or television station accounts of her being shot. Not a whisper. To this day, nothing. No news about the "trial" starting. Nada. How likely would it be that the murder of an 11-year-old epileptic girl would not make the news? No police report. Nothing. And by the way, the father of the girl is a building contractor, the mother is a registered nurse, somehow it seems unlikely they are "extremely poor."
Apparently, I wasn't the only person who wondered about this. Yesterday a commenter, Bailey, raised the issue (see comment 27). Within minutes the link to the little girl's obituary disappeared from the original July 17th entry. Bailey was then attacked by "Steve" in a lengthy diatribe and accusations made that Bailey had left comments under multiple names. How likely is that?
So let's look at the facts. "Steve" used the obituary of a girl who may or may not have died from epilepsy to spice up his blog. This girl has a family who are grieving for her death, and he converts her death into a murder. If you were the father or mother of this child, how would you have felt if you came across the July 17th blog entry?
Last night I had a talk with a friend (a real person whose picture has appeared several times on my blog). He is a public defender for major crimes (homicide, attempted murder, etc) for Pima County. I asked him how long it takes for a trial to begin after a serious crime. He told me that it is on average 6 to 8 months and is often much longer. I then asked him whether it was possible for a trial to begin 25 working days after the crime was committed. He laughed and said, "That's totally bogus."
He then went on to list some of the steps needed for a trial to take place, including:
1). the detectives must complete their reports
2). evidence must be processed. DNA and fingerprint evidence has to go to the relevant laboratories and reports prepared.
3). all witneses have to be interviewed, typically on camera, and these interviews have to be transcribed.
4). the defendants lawyers have to receive copies of all of the evidence.
5). a jury has to be selected.
6). and so on.
Anybody who believes that a trial can begin on the 25th day after a serious crime, hey, I've got some swampland to sell you too.
Again, why does this piss me off? Because "Steve" used the identity of a deceased little girl to spice up his blog. Not once, but three different times. How would each of you feel if someone did that to one of your close family members?
So no, "Steve" I'm not jealous of your popularity. I have a strong aversion to liars. I'm also very curious how come no one named Marc (or Mark or Marcus), born in 1975 died on 20 August 2006. That's another very curious and bizarre story, apparently.
And by the way, Jimbo inside's are perfectly lovely.
Newer› ‹Older
On July 17th, "Steve" announced that he had been mugged and that the muggers then went on to attack other people, one of whom was an 11-year-old epileptic girl who was shot after having a seizure. Two days later, on July 19th, he claimed to have attended the girl's viewing: "Additionally, I went to that girl’s viewing (apparently she had an epileptic seizure, which freaked the robbers out; and that’s why they shot her). I had to go. It was difficult. The family was extremely poor, and the mother was in hysterics. One couldn’t help, but cry; in reaction to the mom. I ’looked very rich‘ compared to the other mourners (I, and my friends, were the only ones wearing suits). I was afraid to tell them who I was.". On August 21st, he claimed the first of two trials was starting and in the comments for that day stated: "But my eye did catch the faces of the murdered girl’s parents. They recognized me from being at her viewing. So I walked over, introduced myself; and treated them to lunch. I feel so bad for them."
So back on July 17th I read this entry and then the girl's obituary. Something made me pause and Google the girl's name. No newspaper or television station accounts of her being shot. Not a whisper. To this day, nothing. No news about the "trial" starting. Nada. How likely would it be that the murder of an 11-year-old epileptic girl would not make the news? No police report. Nothing. And by the way, the father of the girl is a building contractor, the mother is a registered nurse, somehow it seems unlikely they are "extremely poor."
Apparently, I wasn't the only person who wondered about this. Yesterday a commenter, Bailey, raised the issue (see comment 27). Within minutes the link to the little girl's obituary disappeared from the original July 17th entry. Bailey was then attacked by "Steve" in a lengthy diatribe and accusations made that Bailey had left comments under multiple names. How likely is that?
So let's look at the facts. "Steve" used the obituary of a girl who may or may not have died from epilepsy to spice up his blog. This girl has a family who are grieving for her death, and he converts her death into a murder. If you were the father or mother of this child, how would you have felt if you came across the July 17th blog entry?
Last night I had a talk with a friend (a real person whose picture has appeared several times on my blog). He is a public defender for major crimes (homicide, attempted murder, etc) for Pima County. I asked him how long it takes for a trial to begin after a serious crime. He told me that it is on average 6 to 8 months and is often much longer. I then asked him whether it was possible for a trial to begin 25 working days after the crime was committed. He laughed and said, "That's totally bogus."
He then went on to list some of the steps needed for a trial to take place, including:
1). the detectives must complete their reports
2). evidence must be processed. DNA and fingerprint evidence has to go to the relevant laboratories and reports prepared.
3). all witneses have to be interviewed, typically on camera, and these interviews have to be transcribed.
4). the defendants lawyers have to receive copies of all of the evidence.
5). a jury has to be selected.
6). and so on.
Anybody who believes that a trial can begin on the 25th day after a serious crime, hey, I've got some swampland to sell you too.
Again, why does this piss me off? Because "Steve" used the identity of a deceased little girl to spice up his blog. Not once, but three different times. How would each of you feel if someone did that to one of your close family members?
So no, "Steve" I'm not jealous of your popularity. I have a strong aversion to liars. I'm also very curious how come no one named Marc (or Mark or Marcus), born in 1975 died on 20 August 2006. That's another very curious and bizarre story, apparently.
And by the way, Jimbo inside's are perfectly lovely.
