NY-LI 10 bodies found on Beach-Poss. SrlKlr-12/10-4 id'd; more found 3/11 #10

[svpernin]

In the letter, he claims he did not know JB before the incident. I'd be interested to know if any of his call records can contradict that information also...I would also be interested to know why he told reporters early this year that he never called Shannan's family...

I was wondering the same thing.

This is JMO but it seems as if CPH only admitted to the phone calls once he knew his phone records were going to come out publicly. He needed a story, and instead of telling one verbally, he wrote it in a letter. That gave him time to look at his phone records and craft a story to fit the known facts as best as he could. It also probably allowed him time to have an attorney review the letter before he submitted it to CBS.

I'm very curious to know what story CPH told LE regarding the phone calls and at what point they pulled his phone records to prove the calls occurred. It seems to me all of this was recent... I remember in the press conference in March or April, Dormer didn't seem to know anything about the phone calls and said that story was "debunked" or something to that effect.

 

[truthspider]

Can someone who knows more about profiling/neuro-linguistics than I do explain to me if there is any significance, and if so what is the significance, of Hackett spelling Shannan incorrectly and correctly? I may have answered this myself further down in this post

In the first letter her name occurs three times: correctly, incorrectly, correctly:
Shannan, Shannon, Shannan.

In the second letter (30 days after the first) it is spelled incorrectly all 3 times.
Shannon x 3

We don't all write well, but this struck me as odd, especially for a competent speller. (Anyone, please correct me if I am wrong, but I didn't find any other spelling errors in either letter) hmmm depersonalization....

Also, what if anything is the meaning behind him incorrectly capitalizing "Missing Persons Posters" ? It was the only incorrect capitalization I could find in both letters. Maybe he is trying to stress that Shannan or is it Shannon (joke) is a "Missing Persons" and not a "Murder Victim".

Finally, who the hell calls a "business card" a "calling card"? I'm 34 and from NY, maybe other age groups or some demographic uses that phrase, but I for one have never ever heard of a business card referred to as a calling card.

Look up "Calling card" online, it is much more commonly used to describe a prepaid calling card or a serial criminals signature.. not too many instances of people using it to describe their business card.
"calling card: a signature token or characteristic of a crime used by a serial criminal"

Nice innuendo CPH, but when you say "my calling card", I think of your criminal signature: depersonalization.

"The term Depersonalization is used to describe actions taken by the murderer to obscure the personal identity of the victim" - John Douglas

This is not simply done to avoid detection, but is something SK's are psychologically driven to do. They may say and think they cut off their victims hands so as to make the body harder to identify (fingerprints), but they likely did things to depersonalize their victims that was not for this purpose: pulling out fingernails, cutting off their hair, scratching out a tattoo, removing all clothing and personal effects, covering their face with blankets or pillows, rolling the victims face down on their stomachs... etc. Some forms of depersonalization are more subtle than others.

This SK used to take off hands, head and feet in order to depersonalize, this is his "calling card", sorry, his signature. He has evolved and improved, and found a better way to depersonalize his victims even further: removing all flesh and blood, leaving behind a mere skeleton. (Image attached) Fluke You seems to think he accomplishes this with the constant current of running water and possibly lime. I would call his signature "extreme depersonalization" sometimes dismembering, always removing all personal effects, stripping of all flesh, and still feeling the need to wrap them in burlap and take away their name. It's Shannan Gilbert and Charlie HackUp can't take that away.

watching you through my periscope

 

[waltzingmatilda]

Here's a link to a transcript from the 48 hours show. Interesting opinions in the comments section...

Hope this is helpful to our discussion

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/07/12/48hours/main20078763.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody

wm

 

[21merc7]

truthspider

Look in the 2nd letter, "at no point where we".

Could just be a typo. I am certainly guilty of them all of the time, just thought it interesting then noticed your post.

 

[svpernin]

truthspider

Look in the 2nd letter, "at no point where we".

Could just be a typo. I am certainly guilty of them all of the time, just thought it interesting then noticed your post.

Just a side-note, anyone remember back when we first started looking at CPH there was a listing online where the writer (I assumed it was him) spelled pretty much everything incorrectly?

I can't find it right now, but I remember thinking CPH wasn't much of a speller, so I wouldn't read too much into the errors in the letter. He probably had someone edit it and a few things slipped by. JMO. Anyway, I'll look for that link.

 

[Theforeigner]

LE has voice samples of the killer, recorded from his phonecalls to MB's little sister.

I would assume that they have sent voice samples of:
the Dr., JB, MP, and Alex (SG boyfriened) + every other possible suspect to FBI "voice lab" to check if any of them is a match.

IF any of them was a match, I assume an arrest would be imminent.
LE claimed "no arrest was imminent"

So does this point to that none of the above mentioned, is the killer?

 

[truthspider]

LE has voice samples of the killer, recorded from his phonecalls to MB's little sister.

I would assume that they have sent voice samples of:
the Dr., JB, MP, and Alex (SG boyfriened) + every other possible suspect to FBI "voice lab" to check if any of them is a match.

IF any of them was a match, I assume an arrest would be imminent.
LE claimed "no arrest was imminent"

So does this point to that none of the above mentioned, is the killer?

I heard from a DA that voice line ups do happen, but I think the science of voice identification is somewhat controversial. I think we will end up seeing those tapes play a role in the trial, but I doubt they are going to try to make an arrest solely using those tapes as evidence in a case as important as this.

I'd imagine LE is trying to build a strong case before arrest, and seeing as the case has continued to grow as the number of victims has grown, the complexity in building the case has grown... so we will likely have to give them a good amount of time to thoroughly investigate each victim.

 

[crimesnooper]

After watching the 48 Hours video, I am still confused.

As far as Shannan is concerned: The "they" she speaks of on the 911 call, is that b/c she was not paid? That could cause someone to harm her.

Also, if the jacket and earring were right outside this man's home, I can only think of 2 scenarios. First one is there was a struggle there with Shannan, which makes sense given the 911 call. Second would be she dropped the jacket in her paranoia and removed the earing to make a call, that makes no sense though, b/c if paranoid and running in fear, the last thing on your mind would be to remove an earring.

Haven't read the doctor's letter yet, will get to that.

Another observation from the video, Amber's roommate was very damning of her in my opinion. I did not like the way he was putting her and her work down.

Trying to get caught up, been watching "that" trial for 2 months and way behind.

Me too.LOl. I was also confused by the show. An earning I can understand not finding..but how did they miss a jacket. These are pure random thoughts. Did someone else have the jacket and toss it out? Could the earning have been dislodged when she took off her jacket..but of course why leave it. To me,,if she was running with the jacket but it was off and she got "caught" in a struggle I can see the jacket and the earning go flying. I just don't get that part.

 

[crimesnooper]

I heard from a DA that voice line ups do happen, but I think the science of voice identification is somewhat controversial. I think we will end up seeing those tapes play a role in the trial, but I doubt they are going to try to make an arrest solely using those tapes as evidence in a case as important as this.

I'd imagine LE is trying to build a strong case before arrest, and seeing as the case has continued to grow as the number of victims has grown, the complexity in building the case has grown... so we will likely have to give them a good amount of time to thoroughly investigate each victim.

Could the caller have used a voice enhancer/disguiser? I have not read anything about that as a possibility.

 

[Betty P]

IIRC, Shannan's sisters or mother alleged that she named her attacker on the 9-11 call. There was no mention of that on the show, either.

 

[21merc7]

Me too.LOl. I was also confused by the show. An earning I can understand not finding..but how did they miss a jacket. These are pure random thoughts. Did someone else have the jacket and toss it out? Could the earning have been dislodged when she took off her jacket..but of course why leave it. To me,,if she was running with the jacket but it was off and she got "caught" in a struggle I can see the jacket and the earning go flying. I just don't get that part.

BBM

This I had not thought of. Love it when everyone chips in.

 

[21merc7]

IIRC, Shannan's sisters or mother alleged that she named her attacker on the 9-11 call. There was no mention of that on the show, either.

I thought I read that when this all was first posted. I don't know if that has been debunked or if it is just being kept quiet. I still haven't caught up yet. Anyone know?

 

[Redbird]

It has been stated many times by the family and by LE that Shannan did name her attacker. They are not releasing the name for a reason. Perhaps one of them is legal.

 

[susan1122]

Me too.LOl. I was also confused by the show. An earning I can understand not finding..but how did they miss a jacket. These are pure random thoughts. Did someone else have the jacket and toss it out? Could the earning have been dislodged when she took off her jacket..but of course why leave it. To me,,if she was running with the jacket but it was off and she got "caught" in a struggle I can see the jacket and the earning go flying. I just don't get that part.

And why was the jacket just sitting in JB's driveway for days? That makes no sense.

 

[susan1122]

It has been stated many times by the family and by LE that Shannan did name her attacker. They are not releasing the name for a reason. Perhaps one of them is legal.

Yes, Redbird, I remember it being mentioned many times up here and in interviews by the family, Shannan did name her attacker. Maybe it wasn't mentioned for legal reasons and maybe it is a piece of information they use to weed people out.

I seem to remember someone wrote that it originally was said on an interview (Here Women Speak?) and was taken out. I'll try to find that.

The drifter was never named either? Is that correct?

 

[marie-chantal]

Can someone who knows more about profiling/neuro-linguistics than I do explain to me if there is any significance, and if so what is the significance, of Hackett spelling Shannan incorrectly and correctly? I may have answered this myself further down in this post

In the first letter her name occurs three times: correctly, incorrectly, correctly:
Shannan, Shannon, Shannan.

In the second letter (30 days after the first) it is spelled incorrectly all 3 times.
Shannon x 3

We don't all write well, but this struck me as odd, especially for a competent speller. (Anyone, please correct me if I am wrong, but I didn't find any other spelling errors in either letter) hmmm depersonalization....

Snipped by me

I don't work in neuro-linguistics, but I am working on a doctorate in English as a second language, and I am a teacher. I have taken many, many linguistics classes as well as psychology classes pertaining to language use and language-learning. To me, the inconsistent spellings might be excusable if the writer of the letter did not speak English as his first language, or if the writer wasn't educated. We know that CPH is educated, and I believe that it's probably safe to assume English is his first language (his speech patterns and accent seem to indicate this on the surface). These errors are odd. He starts off in letter 1 by spelling her name correctly, which indicates to me that he is aware of her and has most likely read about her, instead of just watching news reports. Seeing the spelling of her name has stuck in his head. Now, if one uses spell-check, the system will prompt you to change the spelling back to the traditional style of spelling her name, ShannON. If he didn't know enough about her, he would have seen his error in that first paragraph and then thought "oh, I made a mistake" and then corrected it. He then spells her name with an ON in the next paragraph, yet switches back to AN toward the end of the letter. To me, this indicates some level of awareness on his part regarding the situation with Shannan (i.e.-he's read more than the minimum of articles pertaining to this case, or he's taken the time to read signs or internet postings asking for help in finding Shannan).

In the second letter, his style of writing becomes more defensive and he appears to feel the need to give more detail about his whereabouts during the time in question. He misspells Shannan's name throughout the letter, and if you look closely, you'll see that he doesn't seem to mention her as much as he did in the first letter, even though he appears to be elaborating on some of the things he included in the first letter. He's trying to distance himself from her IMO. It's interesting that he goes into so much detail. I recall hearing something about liars using too much detail when they are telling lies.

One other thing that caught my eye was CPH's mention of how MP and Shannan's boyfriend "asked him to call" Shannan's family. Why would they do this? This is the part that really doesn't make sense to me. He states over and over again that he doesn't know anything and wasn't involved or even around when Shannan went missing. Why would he be asked to call her family? This is where my hinky meter goes off. We know that the SK feels a need to be in contact with his victims' family members. There's no logical reason for CPH to be asked to contact Shannan's family in my opinion. This is another very odd statement.

 

[marie-chantal]

Snipped by me

I don't work in neuro-linguistics, but I am working on a doctorate in English as a second language, and I am a teacher. I have taken many, many linguistics classes as well as psychology classes pertaining to language use and language-learning. To me, the inconsistent spellings might be excusable if the writer of the letter did not speak English as his first language, or if the writer wasn't educated./QUOTE]

Sorry for quoting myself, but I wanted to add that other than missing a comma and misusing a semi-colon in one area, his spelling and grammar are consistent and accurate. That red line that comes up under a misspelled word when spell-check is activated on Microsoft Word (and I believe that spell-check is on as a default) would have been noticeable, but for whatever reason, he chose to disregard it. I believe that his misspelling of Shannan's name was intentional (MOO). Now, what this means in the grand scheme of things, I really don't know.

 

[truthspider]

Snipped by me

I don't work in neuro-linguistics, but I am working on a doctorate in English as a second language, and I am a teacher. I have taken many, many linguistics classes as well as psychology classes pertaining to language use and language-learning. To me, the inconsistent spellings might be excusable if the writer of the letter did not speak English as his first language, or if the writer wasn't educated. We know that CPH is educated, and I believe that it's probably safe to assume English is his first language (his speech patterns and accent seem to indicate this on the surface). These errors are odd. He starts off in letter 1 by spelling her name correctly, which indicates to me that he is aware of her and has most likely read about her, instead of just watching news reports. Seeing the spelling of her name has stuck in his head. Now, if one uses spell-check, the system will prompt you to change the spelling back to the traditional style of spelling her name, ShannON. If he didn't know enough about her, he would have seen his error in that first paragraph and then thought "oh, I made a mistake" and then corrected it. He then spells her name with an ON in the next paragraph, yet switches back to AN toward the end of the letter. To me, this indicates some level of awareness on his part regarding the situation with Shannan (i.e.-he's read more than the minimum of articles pertaining to this case, or he's taken the time to read signs or internet postings asking for help in finding Shannan).

In the second letter, his style of writing becomes more defensive and he appears to feel the need to give more detail about his whereabouts during the time in question. He misspells Shannan's name throughout the letter, and if you look closely, you'll see that he doesn't seem to mention her as much as he did in the first letter, even though he appears to be elaborating on some of the things he included in the first letter. He's trying to distance himself from her IMO. It's interesting that he goes into so much detail. I recall hearing something about liars using too much detail when they are telling lies.

One other thing that caught my eye was CPH's mention of how MP and Shannan's boyfriend "asked him to call" Shannan's family. Why would they do this? This is the part that really doesn't make sense to me. He states over and over again that he doesn't know anything and wasn't involved or even around when Shannan went missing. Why would he be asked to call her family? This is where my hinky meter goes off. We know that the SK feels a need to be in contact with his victims' family members. There's no logical reason for CPH to be asked to contact Shannan's family in my opinion. This is another very odd statement.

Thanks, that does make real sense. Come time for the second letter, he has had time to think/worry and wants it to look like "he doesn't even know how to spell the girls name".

do you make anything of the odd capitalization?

 

[21merc7]

One other thing that caught my eye was CPH's mention of how MP and Shannan's boyfriend "asked him to call" Shannan's family. Why would they do this? This is the part that really doesn't make sense to me. He states over and over again that he doesn't know anything and wasn't involved or even around when Shannan went missing. Why would he be asked to call her family? This is where my hinky meter goes off. We know that the SK feels a need to be in contact with his victims' family members. There's no logical reason for CPH to be asked to contact Shannan's family in my opinion. This is another very odd statement.

respectfully snipped

Thank you for the information you shared, and clearly he is distancing.

This paragraph is what bothers me the most too. Why on earth would he contact Shannan's family, for any reason at all? Why would anyone ask him to? Most importantly, why would Shannan's BF and Driver ask him to?

I can see a guilty party that lives in the area asking the head of the Association to make an inquiry just to see how much the family knew. To use the ruse of Doctor and Head of the Neighborhood Assoc. to feel it out. But the BF and Driver??!!! Makes no sense at all.

Do the BF and Driver know him personally? Still, if they did know him, it makes no sense.

 

[marie-chantal]

Thanks, that does make real sense. Come time for the second letter, he has had time to think/worry and wants it to look like "he doesn't even know how to spell the girls name".

do you make anything of the odd capitalization?

Do you mean the capitalization of the term 'missing persons posters'? I didn't notice any other odd capitalizations in his letter. For whatever reason he turned that term into a specific noun, as if those posters were the only posters of that type in the entire world. This could be due to two things: 1. he sees this case as the only missing persons case in the whole world because in some ways it has affected him (which would show extreme narcissism, even if he isn't directly involved IMO), or 2. he's incorrectly trying to make the reader know that he is referring to specific posters. The second example can also be seen when people put quotation marks around certain words for no apparent reason (i.e. an advertisement that says: "sale" today). I noticed that he did use quotation marks around the word 'treated' in the first letter. At first I thought that he might have done this because he is using a word that was reported by others to have been something he allegedly said. If you read further down that first letter, you will see that the next time he uses a form of that word, he does not put quotation marks around it. He may have left the quotes off the second 'treat' because he might have thought that he was now replying directly to whatever allegations were being made against him. If he had put quotes around the word 'treat' throughout the letter, then I would say that there's a definite psychological reason for it; however, since he only did it once, I don't think it's necessarily strange.