Possible Victim: Shannan Gilbert #2

[White_Rabbit]

I think, if I remember correctly, burden of proof is different in criminal and civil cases (?) I don't know what would be required, or if it is possible, to reopen a criminal case with Shannan. Perhaps CPH and Pak would then be a part of that. I don't know what is necessary for that, but I am sure any attorney working on the case would want to reopen criminal, if possible.

I'll need to read up more on the link you posted, I'm not familiar with it, personally.

I don't think, gut feelings only here, that CPH or MP would betray one another in the classic sense. If they were at the same place at the same time witnessing each others's behaviors, that might work. However, if they both contributed toward her death, at different times, while not in the presence of each other, they would only be trying to save their own hide. MP = due to possible contribution to Shannan's death, and crossing state lines; CPH = negligence in the very least.

I think better chance of AD and Pak throwing each other under the bus, so to speak; and CPH and his wife being at odds, if that's what it came down to, IMO.

In a criminal case the burden is on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In a civil trial the verdict is determined by the preponderance of evidence.

I do not think, with the existing evidence, that it would be possible to open a criminal case against either Peter Hackett or Michael Pak.

However, in the civil suit against Peter Hackett I believe there is enough evidence to find him liable. If during the course of a trial Peter Hackett sensed that he could possibly lose, and a settlement were offered on the contingency that he tells the truth, then maybe he would turn on Michael Pak. At the very least Peter Hackett, and possibly Barbara Hackett, would be able to testify that they saw Shannan leave with Michael Pak, and then Michael Pak would have to explain not only why he perjured himself, but where he parted ways with Shannan before she ended up dying in the marsh.

When you say that You think there is a better chance that Alex Diaz and Michael Pak would turn on each other, do you mean that you believe Alex Diaz was involved in Shannan’s death?

 

[Bose]

If the civil suit goes to trial, which based on the preponderance of the evidence it should, perhaps John Ray could offer Peter Hackett a settlement that would make it beneficial for him to state the truth about his interactions with Michael Pak.

IMO, Hackett probably would not accept it. I believe his main concern is his image as a kind of good and helpful, Superman come to the rescue kind of guy. I believe his lying is pathological, and has existed for so long, that he is the type who actually might believe some of his own lies, and would have no problem taking a lie all the way through--even if evidence was presented to him that he did something, would say something like, "It wasn't me," or "I wasn't there," or "I never met her," or even go so far as to say, "your evidence is wrong." I think in his mind, nothing ties him to culpability. The only hint I noticed in any of the court papers were instances of variation of his name, which to me indicates potential obfuscation. If someone were to come back and ask him, "why is your name this, on this document...but this on another?" or "why did you sign your name different from what was printed?" he could say it wasn't his fault, and want the whole thing thrown out due to particulars...laying the blame on someone else for not putting together documents right.

In other words, I think he will lie and/or deflect about this unless there is irrefutable proof, and even then he'd lie. Just my thoughts based on what I've seen of his character.

 

[White_Rabbit]

IMO, Hackett probably would not accept it. I believe his main concern is his image as a kind of good and helpful, Superman come to the rescue kind of guy. I believe his lying is pathological, and has existed for so long, that he is the type who actually might believe some of his own lies, and would have no problem taking a lie all the way through--even if evidence was presented to him that he did something, would say something like, "It wasn't me," or "I wasn't there," or "I never met her," or even go so far as to say, "your evidence is wrong." I think in his mind, nothing ties him to culpability. The only hint I noticed in any of the court papers were instances of variation of his name, which to me indicates potential obfuscation. If someone were to come back and ask him, "why is your name this, on this document...but this on another?" or "why did you sign your name different from what was printed?" he could say it wasn't his fault, and want the whole thing thrown out due to particulars...laying the blame on someone else for not putting together documents right.

In other words, I think he will lie and/or deflect about this unless there is irrefutable proof, and even then he'd lie. Just my thoughts based on what I've seen of his character.

I would have to agree with you regarding Peter Hackett being a pathological liar, but his calls to Mari Gilbert give me the sense that he may have a shred of remorse for what happened, and is afraid of losing everything he has if he admits what happened.

 

[Bose]

In a criminal case the burden is on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In a civil trial the verdict is determined by the preponderance of evidence.

I do not think, with the existing evidence, that it would be possible to open a criminal case against either Peter Hackett or Michael Pak.

However, in the civil suit against Peter Hackett I believe there is enough evidence to find him liable. If during the course of a trial Peter Hackett sensed that he could possibly lose, and a settlement were offered on the contingency that he tells the truth, then maybe he would turn on Michael Pak. At the very least Peter Hackett, and possibly Barbara Hackett, would be able to testify that they saw Shannan leave with Michael Pak, and then Michael Pak would have to explain not only why he perjured himself, but where he parted ways with Shannan before she ended up dying in the marsh.

When you say that You think there is a better chance that Alex Diaz and Michael Pak would turn on each other, do you mean that you believe Alex Diaz was involved in Shannan’s death?

I believe AD knows more about Shannan's situation than he let on, and I believe he did not want to get in trouble, either. He broke her jaw. If Shannan was not a sw, would that fact have been given more weight through the years. It's a very clear sign of domestic abuse.

Shannan was a means for AD and Pak to get money. How much was she an actual person to them, and not just someone who was used?

Do I believe that AD was involved in Shannan's death? Not at the time of her exact death, but I don't rule anything out before and after her death, and involvement with MP.

 

[White_Rabbit]

I believe AD knows more about Shannan's situation than he let on, and I believe he did not want to get in trouble, either. He broke her jaw. If Shannan was not a sw, would that fact have been given more weight through the years. It's a very clear sign of domestic abuse.

Shannan was a means for AD and Pak to get money. How much was she an actual person to them, and not just someone who was used?

Do I believe that AD was involved in Shannan's death? Not at the time of her exact death, but I don't rule anything out before and after her death, and involvement with MP.

Alex Diaz could say whether or not Michael Pak picked Shannan up in New Jersey and then crossed the state line into New York for purposes of sex trafficking. But Shannan would be the only other witness, and it would be Alex Diaz’s word against Michael Pak’s.

 

[Bose]

I would have to agree with you regarding Peter Hackett being a pathological liar, but his calls to Mari Gilbert give me the sense that he may have a shred of remorse for what happened, but is afraid of losing everything he has if he admits what happened

IMO, Hackett didn't have remorse for anyone but himself, and the damage it would do to his reputation. I think he was freaked out and in damage control mode. I think his wife was furious with him, and he was trying to spin a story of what happened (with lies thrown in) to make himself out to be a good person who was trying to help. I think he regretted calling Mari because of what he revealed, which made him start lying about everything he said and did. He said too much and he knew it, the only thing he probably felt he could do from there (from a pathological liar perspective) was lie, lie, lie, no matter how ridiculous the lie, no matter how it conflicted with call records, etc. I do agree he was afraid of losing everything he has if he admits what happened, and I think he's still afraid of that.

 

[Bose]

Alex Diaz could say whether or not Michael Pak picked Shannan up in New Jersey and then crossed the state line into New York for purposes of sex trafficking. But Shannan would be the only other witness, and it would be Alex Diaz’s word against Michael Pak’s.

I have to read back through the papers in the John Ray data dump, I only read them once, but I could have sworn in there I read that there were times Shannan was picked up in New Jersey.

 

[White_Rabbit]

IMO, Hackett didn't have remorse for anyone but himself, and the damage it would do to his reputation. I think he was freaked out and in damage control mode. I think his wife was furious with him, and he was trying to spin a story of what happened (with lies thrown in) to make himself out to be a good person who was trying to help. I think he regretted calling Mari because of what he revealed, which made him start lying about everything he said and did. He said too much and he knew it, the only thing he probably felt he could do from there (from a pathological liar perspective) was lie, lie, lie, no matter how ridiculous the lie, no matter how it conflicted with call records, etc. I do agree he was afraid of losing everything he has if he admits what happened, and I think he's still afraid of that.

The only reason Peter Hackett called Mari Gilbert was because he wasn’t aware of what happened to Shannan at the time, which indicates that Shannan was alive when he parted company with her. The fact that Mari Gilbert told Detective Camacho that Peter Hackett stated he treated Shannan and then she left with her “boyfriend”, and it being clear that Shannan’s path that morning lead her to the vicinity of Peter Hackett’s house, and Michael Pak following Shannan, we have to deduce that Michael Pak is the “boyfriend” that Peter Hackett is referring to. That means that Michael Pak was the last known person to be with Shannan before she met her demise in the marsh.

 

[White_Rabbit]

I have to read back through the papers in the John Ray data dump, I only read them once, but I could have sworn in there I read that there were times Shannan was picked up in New Jersey.

If that is so, and the statute of limitations allows, that is something that could be used to pressure Michael Pak.

Finally, 18 U.S.C. § 2423 makes it a federal felony punishable by up to 30 years to arrange for the interstate or international transport of people for the purpose of engaging in illegal sex (i.e. prostitutes or minors), for commercial advantage or private financial gain.

 

[Bose]

The only reason Peter Hackett called Mari Gilbert was because he wasn’t aware of what happened to Shannan at the time, which indicates that Shannan was alive when he parted company with her. The fact that Mari Gilbert told Detective Camacho that Peter Hackett stated he treated Shannan and then she left with her “boyfriend”, and it being clear that Shannan’s path that morning lead her to the vicinity of Peter Hackett’s house, and Michael Pak following Shannan, we have to deduce that Michael Pak is the “boyfriend” that Peter Hackett is referring to. That means that Michael Pak was the last known person to be with Shannan before she met her demise in the marsh.

How do we know for sure that Hackett only called Mari because he wasn't aware of what happened to Shannan? I believe he did know and was trying to deflect, early on, IMO.

 

[White_Rabbit]

How do we know for sure that Hackett only called Mari because he wasn't aware of what happened to Shannan? I believe he did know and was trying to deflect, early on, IMO.

It is possible that he was trying to deflect, but if he knew Shannan was dead and called Mari Gilbert he would then open himself up to being investigated. If he knew she was dead it would have been beneficial for him to distance himself as much as possible from any connection to her.

It seems like his call to Mari Gilbert was for the purpose of gaining information of her whereabouts and well-being. He knew there were other witnesses (I.e., Joseph Brewer, Michael Pak, Gus Coletti, Barbara Brennan, Thomas Canning, etc.) that we’re aware there was an incident with Shannan that morning. He took a big gamble making that call and lost.

 

[Bose]

Page 12 of Data Dump: PDF Files John Ray Data Dump

AD stated he last saw Shannan on "Friday April 30, 2010 at approximately 20:00 hours." That's 8:00 pm. "He said she was on her way to an escort job in Ellenville, NY. Ms. Gilbert was picked up in a car by a male known only to him as 'Mike.' He could only describe Mike as an Asian man."

In other words, according to AD in police report given to Jersey City Police, "Mike," an Asian man, picked her up in New Jersey for a supposed escort job in Ellenville, NY. Even to do that, he would have been transporting her across state lines. But, whether they went there or not, before Long Island, she wound up in Long Island. According to that statement, her meeting Pak in NYC is beyond very improbable, IMO.

 

[White_Rabbit]

Page 12 of Data Dump: PDF Files John Ray Data Dump

AD stated he last saw Shannan on "Friday April 30, 2010 at approximately 20:00 hours." That's 8:00 pm. "He said she was on her way to an escort job in Ellenville, NY. Ms. Gilbert was picked up in a car by a male known only to him as 'Mike.' He could only describe Mike as an Asian man."

In other words, according to AD in police report given to Jersey City Police, "Mike," an Asian man, picked her up in New Jersey for a supposed escort job in Ellenville, NY. Even to do that, he would have been transporting her across state lines. But, whether they went there or not, before Long Island, she wound up in Long Island. According to that statement, her meeting Pak in NYC is beyond very improbable, IMO.

Great find Bose!

 

[Bose]

It is possible that he was trying to deflect, but if he knew Shannan was dead and called Mari Gilbert he would then open himself up to being investigated. If he knew she was dead it would have been beneficial for him to distance himself as much as possible from any connection to her.

It seems like his call to Mari Gilbert was for the purpose of gaining information of her whereabouts and well-being. He knew there were other witnesses (I.e., Joseph Brewer, Michael Pak, Gus Coletti, Barbara Brennan, Thomas Canning, etc.) that we’re aware there was an incident with Shannan that morning. He took a big gamble making that call and lost.

IMO, at the time CPH made the call(s) he was in damage control mode. I think he asked if Mari heard from Shannan, etc., to already act like he didn't know anything, where she was, but he made mistakes. He was fishing IMO to see who knew what, so that he could double around later and "fix" the narrative, as needed.

 

[Bose]

Thank you, @White_Rabbit, just something that caught my eye at the time. I think the papers in the data dump are important, whether any of them could be used legally at this point, I don't know.

 

[White_Rabbit]

IMO, at the time CPH made the call(s) he was in damage control mode. I think he asked if Mari heard from Shannan, etc., to already act like he didn't know anything, where she was, but he made mistakes. He was fishing IMO to see who knew what, so that he could double around later and "fix" the narrative, as needed.

That means that Shannan would have died in the presence of Peter Hackett, which means that he lied to Mari Gilbert when he said Shannan left with her “boyfriend”, which means that Peter Hackett would have to be the one to dump Shannan’s body in the marsh, which then means that Peter Hackett was trying to frame Michael Pak.

The only problem I have with that scenario is that Shannan’s belongings were discovered in the marsh in the vicinity of Peter Hackett’s house. It would make more sense that Shannan left Peter Hackett’s house alive with Michael Pak, and she either died or became unresponsive in the presence of Michael Pak, and then Michael Pak dumped her body in the marsh, and left her belongings in the marsh in the vicinity of Peter Hackett’s yard, meaning that it was Michael Pak who was trying to frame Peter Hackett.

 

[Bose]

That means that Shannan would have died in the presence of Peter Hackett, which means that he lied to Mari Gilbert when he said Shannan left with her “boyfriend”, which means that Peter Hackett would have to be the one to dump Shannan’s body in the marsh, which then means that Peter Hackett was trying to frame Michael Pak.

The only problem I have with that scenario is that Shannan’s belongings were discovered in the marsh in the vicinity of Peter Hackett’s house. It would make more sense that Shannan left Peter Hackett’s house alive with Michael Pak, and she either died or became unresponsive in the presence of Michael Pak, and then Michael Pak dumped her body in the marsh, and left her belongings in the marsh in the vicinity of Peter Hackett’s yard, meaning that it was Michael Pak who was trying to frame Peter Hackett.

When BB saw Shannan, she had no jacket, and purse (as I recall). She had her cell phone in her hand, though. Her jacket and purse would have been in Brewer's house, likely, once she arrived that evening at his house. Would she have had on her jacket and purse when being told to leave the house? Unknown. Jacket supposedly wound up near Brewer's house/driveway, along with one of Shannan's earrings(?) I don't think she lost those due to her own actions. Perhaps she lost her purse somehow between Brewer's house and BB's house, unless BB definitely saw her with her purse, and Shannan would have been wearing her jeans.

Back to the affidavits. Page 10, JS Sr.'s affidavit doesn't mention any talk from TC that Shannan's driver was there at the same time as TC and CPH were there, after Shannan was at BB's house. It would have been easy for TC to throw MP's name in there to make him responsible, and deflect, but he did not tell JS Sr. that her driver was there, or another unknown male. They would have no reason to protect MP.

IMO, with what we have right now, I (my feelings, only) don't think Pak murdered Shannan. I think CPH medically contributed to her demise, and failed to call 911 for proper assistance. IMO Shannan was placed where she was when she was almost deceased and unresponsive, or deceased. By CPH, or CPH and Cannings potentially helping. Or, after treatment from CPH in presence of TC, at the very least, she ran and hid in the reeds, and died due to a medical reason which could have been in part caused by CPH. Those are just my own thoughts, at the moment, given what we have.

 

[jollypup]

Its gotta be proven in a court of law without reasonable doubt.....easier said than than done.



It could be Pak or Brewer trying to escort her out of the house......she was asked multiple times to leave the house but wouldnt.....also, she sounds intoxicated on something.

Imo, no crime is being committed on the 911 tape from what ive heard.

Thank you. She does not want to be inside or outside the house.

 

[3Patriots]

In a criminal case the burden is on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In a civil trial the verdict is determined by the preponderance of evidence.

I do not think, with the existing evidence, that it would be possible to open a criminal case against either Peter Hackett or Michael Pak.

However, in the civil suit against Peter Hackett I believe there is enough evidence to find him liable. If during the course of a trial Peter Hackett sensed that he could possibly lose, and a settlement were offered on the contingency that he tells the truth, then maybe he would turn on Michael Pak. At the very least Peter Hackett, and possibly Barbara Hackett, would be able to testify that they saw Shannan leave with Michael Pak, and then Michael Pak would have to explain not only why he perjured himself, but where he parted ways with Shannan before she ended up dying in the marsh.

When you say that You think there is a better chance that Alex Diaz and Michael Pak would turn on each other, do you mean that you believe Alex Diaz was involved in Shannan’s death?

You're forgetting CPH would be a GARBAGE witness. Very tough to use him as your star witness.

 

[jollypup]

He could easily be guilty of Felony Murder.

Felony murder is a legal rule that expands the definition of murder. It applies when someone commits a certain kind of felony and someone else dies in the course of it. It doesn't matter whether the death was intentional or accidental—the defendant is liable for it.

Prove it. That would be a hell of a lot better than continuing to slander someone's name who you have no direct evidence linking him to this murder. Do you want Pak to be found guilty or do you want the truth?