Is it a crime to create a fake unidentified person site?

Edited to add:
Note to new readers: New Info! This is a case of coming across a site that has not been updated (info about this is posted further down). It appears to be a real site, not a fake one.


I'm asking this question as I've come upon a site, that talks about real crime cases. There are a few on this web page, all of the other cases discussed are well known, recognised cases.

Case #1 lists an unidentified woman, found in July 2005, in Tyler, Texas. It includes a sketch of the woman, similiar to the sketches you find on the Doe Network. Problem is I've checked the Texas Clearing House's unidentified listings and she isn't there - also I did some other searches and could find nothing on this woman.

The web page author asks anyone with information to contact him. There is no reference as to where the information is sourced from.

There is no mention of a date of death. She is called an "unidentified" female. So this leads me to think the following:

1. She has been indentified since July 2005 and all traces of her have been removed from the internet.

2. She is a creation of the web page author's imagination. (note: he lists her height as 6'4" - she would be a VERY tall woman)

3. This is a person the web page author met and would like to romantically pursue.

4. The web page author is stalking this person and is looking for leads as to where she might be.

5. The web page author confused some of the information and this is a real case.

6. None of the above, there is another explanation.


The website is: http://www.true-ghost-stories.com/Help.html

A final *curious* thing... you can't copy the photos, they've all been copyright protected....

Some people create sites and use anything they can to generate revenue. Maybe this is the case here. It does have a generate revenue sign from Google Adsense.

By the way... case #6 made me think of the 2 kids remains found in California.

I guess what I have a problem with is "date found". It implies that she is in someone's custody - not a seeking information about kind of thing.

As you know YaYa I disagree about the California case... but that's ok, I respect your input.

I bet that's a typo. and meant to say 64". Which is 5'4", a very average height.

KatherineQ that makes perfect sense!

It will make me if this was set up just to generate revenue! On the one hand I hate the idea that every time someone goes to the link I provided this person makes money. On the other hand I still don't know if this is for real, or a scam. Also, I don't know if its illegal if it is a scam!!!

...IF it is a scam to make money its IMMORAL in my world!

PonderingThings said:

I guess what I have a problem with is "date found". It implies that she is in someone's custody - not a seeking information about kind of thing.

As you know YaYa I disagree about the California case... but that's ok, I respect your input.

Click to expand...

I didn't say I think these are the same kids... just that it made me think of the unidentified kids.

I don't see where the site is asking for donations. Anyone can put anything on the web if it doesn't break certain laws. (even fake information) For instance, if they are asking for donations using false pretenses and the donations traveled through the U.S. postal service that would be a crime.

The thing I do have a problem is that no law enforcement agency is listed for the cases. That information should ALWAYS appear. The web site can take leads and pass them on but the perferred method is to have the tips go directly to the responsible LE.

The site isn't asking for donations. I believe Yaya was referring to the google ad banner at the top of the page - apparently this generates revenues.

Maybe there is reward money offered for the resolution of these cases and it is the site owner's way to try to qualify for any rewards via info sent to him/her.

I am probably wrong but it was just a thought.

Hopefully it is just someone with a calling to help in any way they can....

It would appear that I owe the web site owner an apology!

The problem is that she was identified in August 2005. The web site owner has not updated their information but all other information was removed from google searches.

Also, it would appear that google does not reference the identified/found page on the Doe Network. When I used the Doe Network's search engine it came up right away:

[font=arial,verdana,geneva,lucida][size=-1]http://www.doenetwork.us/cases/found.html[/size][/font]

Teresa L. Bryan
The victim was located on June 12, 2005 in Tyler, Texas. She was identified in August 2005 as Teresa L. Bryan from Waskom, Texas.


So... web site owner, if you ever read this I'm very sorry for casting doubt on your motives. I believe you should be listing the LE contacts though instead of having tips go to you, however, that is a different issue.

I'm still interested in knowing if something *like* what I thought was going on is possible to get away with?


Edited to add: Google does reference that page, unfortunately I was searching for "unidentified" at the time, not "identified". My error

PonderingThings said:

. . .I'm still interested in knowing if something *like* what I thought was going on is possible to get away with?. . .

Click to expand...

Long ago I heard rumors that some missing children agencies and some websites were allegedly being set up by pedophiles but I have never really checked into that as I think that in many cases it would need the powers of L.E. to check up on that.

You do raise a valid point about giving info to L.E. rather than to a website when we do not know the true reasons that websites owner may be looking for someone, especially on family websites. If I was a bad guy & my wife went missing because I was abusive or just because she wanted to start a new life I could start a website up claiming she was lost and probably kidnapped & without her meds etc and beg the public for help. Once I got the info I could do whatever I wanted.

And yes a bad guy also could start up a fake website to help find missing kids and then use that info to find victems.

That is why I prefer to turn any real finds over to L.E. rather than to some website owner.

Side note:I often do a search on missing names and the word "found" just to weed out cases where the person has already been located and I also often run a search on the name and the word "hoax" to weed out hoaxes. I should really do this in all cases but sometimes I get lazy.

Another thing I should always do but don't always do is to search missing person names and "journal" of everyone involved in a missing person case. Sometimes I remember to run a search of "I killed" and the victems name just in case someone felt the need to confess but at the same time would feel safe because of hiding behind a user name online.

PonderingThings said:

It would appear that I owe the web site owner an apology! My error

Click to expand...

OK Pondering... slowly step away from the computer... :slap:

:laugh: We all screw up sometimes.

docwho3 said:

Side note:I often do a search on missing names and the word "found" just to weed out cases where the person has already been located and I also often run a search on the name and the word "hoax" to weed out hoaxes. I should really do this in all cases but sometimes I get lazy.

Another thing I should always do but don't always do is to search missing person names and "journal" of everyone involved in a missing person case. Sometimes I remember to run a search of "I killed" and the victems name just in case someone felt the need to confess but at the same time would feel safe because of hiding behind a user name online.

Click to expand...

Doc :blowkiss:

I'm sorry, I couldn't resist :blushing: I just think you are a sweety.

Yaya tomorrow I will return to reality and give my bleary eyes a rest! I don't think it can come soon enough!

Doc interesting strategies. Personally I don't know how you would have found an unidentified person's identified info by putting found in the search (they are already found!) but then perhaps it would work. Instead if I was going to go that far, and it would be only in special instances, I would use unidentified+tyler+texas+identified ... but I only just learned this strategy because of this instance - don't know if the scenerio will EVER occur again!

Have you ever found a reference to "I killed insert name" that wasn't a joke?

Your reminder about getting lazy is well taken. In the case on this thread I did check MULTIPLE sites with no results. Then, and only then, did I post the question. At no time did I say this is what they were doing, instead I listed 6 possible reasons why it could be something else, and asked others what they thought. Turns out it was the first one I listed.

I believe I acted responsibly, even if I eventually did find ONE reference to the identification. Do you disagree?

Pondering - I'm so glad you posted the update about Teresa. My family is from Tyler, and they still read the newspaper online, and we go through there all the time.

I'm baffled by why there isn't any information about Teresa, and also baffled by how you actually did manage to find her online - because I can't. I can't find anything about "found woman Tyler Texas" or body found Tyler texas with the date, and on and on and the Telegraph doesn't have archives that far back.

She must be a suicide maybe? Why else would she not merit even one newspaper article that is still online - it was 6 months ago that her body was ID'd.

katherineQ I found her by using the Doe Network's search engine.
[size=-1]www.doenetwork.us/cases/found.html[/size]

If you type in Teresa+Bryan+found, or Teresa+Bryan+identified, on google (web) you get the same page (all of the information about Teresa, on that page, is posted above). Google news has nothing as its way too old of a story.

I did find her pic, but nothing more.
http://www.angelfire.com/blues/meyahna/in_memory/index.album?i=5&s=1

that's it. Whether she died of suicide, accident, or homicide, its not information readily available. Perhaps someone who has access to the newspaper archive can find out for you?

As an aside, its interesting to see her actual pic, side by side with the artist's sketch when she was unidentified. The artist did a really nice job!


Pic of Teresa Bryan on left, sketch of her on right

As an aside I also searched www.missingabducted.com and
The Wiki @ missingabducted.com and came up with nothing.

I do a seperate search at these sites as they are not googled for some reason but do hold a wealth of information for recent missing cases.

PonderingThings said:

. . .Doc interesting strategies. Personally I don't know how you would have found an unidentified person's identified info by putting found in the search (they are already found!) but then perhaps it would work. . .

Click to expand...

In the sidenote I was not aiming any remark at you. I was just commenting on my general use of the search terms to help weed out obvious watses of time. Not all searches are about unidentified remains. Many threads on websleuths are about missing people whose name is known but not their location. On those cases adding "found" or "located" in my search about the name can help me, and has helped, me avoid searching for people who were already listed as being found.
Of course this little effort does not weed out all wastes of time but it helps me and so I tossed it in for free. I know I rambled a bit but I didn't think you would mind.

PonderingThings said:

. . .Have you ever found a reference to "I killed insert name" that wasn't a joke? . . .

Click to expand...

No I have never yet found anyone saying they killed someone but that does not deter me from looking just in case. Not everyone is web wise enough to know that even hiding behind a user name may not protect them from the info the put online, as several perps are finding out in the past couple of years.

PonderingThings said:

. . .Your reminder about getting lazy is well taken. In the case on this thread I did check MULTIPLE sites with no results. Then, and only then, did I post the question. At no time did I say this is what they were doing, instead I listed 6 possible reasons why it could be something else, and asked others what they thought. Turns out it was the first one I listed. . .

Click to expand...

As I said above, that was not aimed at you. It was only myself that I spoke of. I am sure you did all that you could to check facts. You seem to be a very intelligent person and even if I had thought you were being lazy I would not have seriously posted it. (Although I reserve the right to joke around a bit someday - lol)

PonderingThings said:

. . .I believe I acted responsibly, even if I eventually did find ONE reference to the identification. Do you disagree?

Click to expand...

Your question sounded like a reasonable question to me and I tried to answer it in a general way (without commenting on the one website you had a problem with.) My answer was, yes it is possible to get away with putting up a fake site in some cases.

Then I went on to ramble a bit on search ideas I sometimes use. That was for the readers in general and was not a hint at you lacking any good search skills. I suppose if I thought anything it was that maybe you were a little harsh on yourself for suspecting the website owners motives. We all make honest mistakes sometimes. Maybe that's why I mentioned some of my own mistakes.

docwho3 said:

Long ago I heard rumors that some missing children agencies and some websites were allegedly being set up by pedophiles but I have never really checked into that as I think that in many cases it would need the powers of L.E. to check up on that.

Click to expand...

It's true. There is a discussion about it here:
http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33092&highlight=puellela

Still makes me :furious: to even think about it!

mysteriew said:

It's true. There is a discussion about it here:
http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33092&highlight=puellela

Still makes me :furious: to even think about it!

Click to expand...

I remember reading a little about that when it was first mentioned. Thanks for reminding me of it.