NJ - " I am the Watcher..." -- A Hoax ?

Discussion in 'Up to the Minute' started by LietKynes, Jun 24, 2015.

  1. Veritas5

    Veritas5 New Member

    Messages:
    25
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It said the DNA found was from an unidentified female, thus eliminating the husband. The article stated the DNA did not match the wife (so she must have volunteered a DNA sample), and no mention was made of any fingerprints on the documents, though I'm sure they should contain at least the prints of whomever opened and handled the letter. Then again, having the husband and wife's fingerprints all over them would not constitute guilt on their part as their prints would be expected since they were the recipients of the letters. Of course I'm sure this article gives only that info which the police made public; sounds to me the police know more than they are letting on.
     


  2. wfgodot

    wfgodot Former Member

    Messages:
    30,166
    Likes Received:
    348
    Trophy Points:
    0
    snip

    On the contrary -- WebSleuths has more than a few threads dedicated to members' experiences in this line. Social media is rich in what once was mainly an oral tradition.

    Other than the fact that both involve allegedly spooky real estate, the "Amytiville" case -- NY -- and this one -- NJ -- have not much in common.
     
  3. wfgodot

    wfgodot Former Member

    Messages:
    30,166
    Likes Received:
    348
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The article does not mention the husband's DNA. How does this "eliminate" him? The article does not mention fingerprints as it concerned information apparently revealed about DNA.
     
  4. Morag

    Morag Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,673
    Likes Received:
    146
    Trophy Points:
    63
  5. wfgodot

    wfgodot Former Member

    Messages:
    30,166
    Likes Received:
    348
    Trophy Points:
    0
  6. Veritas5

    Veritas5 New Member

    Messages:
    25
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hook 'em :D
    I spoke with a lawyer friend of mine about this case, she told me that the "preponderance of evidence standard" is low in civil cases, meaning the "burden of proof" needed to find the defendants at fault is not as high as in a criminal case. She seems to think that as long as the homeowners can prove that the sellers got that first letter (regardless of its source, if unknown) and did not disclose receipt of that letter to the buyer, then they might very well win based on NJ law which generically categorizes an unknown "stalker" of this type as a "disorganized person". To her it seems that particular law is not unlike the car insurance law: when some unknown driver sideswipes your parked car and flees the scene, your insurance company is forced to treat the incident as an "uninsured driver" crime. They pay you simply because they can't legally hang the blame on an unknown person.
     
    cherrymeg likes this.
  7. wfgodot

    wfgodot Former Member

    Messages:
    30,166
    Likes Received:
    348
    Trophy Points:
    0
  8. Veritas5

    Veritas5 New Member

    Messages:
    25
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    One of the photos of the front of the house I remember seeing (from one of the many news articles) clearly showed a blue ADT sign right out in front, by the front porch steps...
     
  9. Veritas5

    Veritas5 New Member

    Messages:
    25
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I agree, the narrative is far too fantastical and far-fetched--while the huge possible "elephant-in-the-room" motive lurks behind the screen. What bugs me is that since the plaintiffs are not on trial, the authorities probably have no right to investigate them.
     
  10. Cappuccino

    Cappuccino Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,938
    Likes Received:
    2,602
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, not much at all. Apart from being totally made up by people looking for money, they have nothing in common at all.
     
  11. wfgodot

    wfgodot Former Member

    Messages:
    30,166
    Likes Received:
    348
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Maybe!
     
  12. Mollyandme

    Mollyandme Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,388
    Likes Received:
    695
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In my opinion this is a hoax concocted by the owners. The story is ridiculous and now they have hired a crisis PR firm....really? I think they are trying to circle the wagons now that people are publicly questioning their claims. I think we will find out within the next month that this is a hoax.
     
  13. HMSHood

    HMSHood Admiral-Class Battlecruiser

    Messages:
    3,986
    Likes Received:
    787
    Trophy Points:
    113
  14. IHAVENOCLUE

    IHAVENOCLUE Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    22,224
    Likes Received:
    3,617
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Touché! :D
     
  15. IHAVENOCLUE

    IHAVENOCLUE Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    22,224
    Likes Received:
    3,617
    Trophy Points:
    113
  16. eileenhawkeye

    eileenhawkeye Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,766
    Likes Received:
    57
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I think that may be their intention, but I can't see them getting a book/movie deal if the story is proven to be a hoax.
     
  17. Veritas5

    Veritas5 New Member

    Messages:
    25
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Wes Craven's NEWEST New Nightmare
     
  18. Veritas5

    Veritas5 New Member

    Messages:
    25
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    One thing I thought of...we always hear of "squatters" moving into unoccupied houses (even though they may be owned)...were the Woods family actually living in the house when they sold it? I had seen a source saying that the Woods' live in Massachusetts; another source claiming that they hadn't lived in the house for 2 years before the sale. Can anyone verify this info?
     
  19. momthebomb

    momthebomb Member

    Messages:
    451
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Yes, I too remember reading an article saying that they have been living in Cape Cod for the last two years. This comment was actually used to support the fact that the Woods were not desperate to sell the house since 2 years had passed.
    This is a very interesting direction you are going in with this. Good thought. Perhaps since the Woods were not living there, someone or several others were squatting there and they are behind this whole letter writing thing. It would be interesting to find out if the neighbor saw any activity in the house since the Woods left. Hmmm,again, interesting Veritas5
     
  20. cutter99

    cutter99 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    794
    Likes Received:
    1,801
    Trophy Points:
    93
    The article I read said that the Woods had purchased the other house, but did not positively state they were living in it.

    I would think squatting in Westfield, NJ not be that easy to pull off, for a couple reasons. You are talking about a prominent $1.35 million house in a great neighborhood, not your average home in a development that turned into a wasteland when the economy crashed.

    My guess would be that the house was shown frequently by multiple agents and not on the market all that long.

    Squatters in that area of New Jersey are not going to be well tolerated. It is a wealthy, upscale area that is heavily trafficked. It is not rural and any suspicious activity will attract attention. Most New Jesersians I know are not wall flowers and if something like squatting is going on in their neighborhood, the police will be informed and expected to do something about it.
     

Share This Page



  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice