Shannan Gilbert Found, death declared an accident. What do you think?

Status
Not open for further replies.

dc20015

Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2012
Messages
188
Reaction score
14
I remember searching for news about Shannan and the other GB4 after Thanksgiving 2011, and I vividly remember the article that was posted, which seemed to indicate that LE had received some sort of 'tip' about Shannan's body being dumped along LIE. It did not take them long to find her belongings, and then her. I still want to know how they knew to look for her there, and who told them to go do it.....

From Newsday article published November 30, 2011 @ 9:45 PM

"A Suffolk police spokeswoman said the commissioner received information from the department's detective division Wednesday morning indicating the "possibility" that Gilbert may be dead, with her body dumped along the parkway."
http://www.newsday.com/news/breaking/cops-shannan-gilbert-s-body-may-be-at-gilgo-1.3357869

It's a strange and interesting tip if you think about it. There's a possibility that the woman is dead and dumped in such and such a place. Hmmm. This can be interpreted one of two ways. Either the tipster found him/herself in the area where her body was and thought it might be her based on remembering the story or somone heard from someone else that something happened (accident or homicide) and was told where she might have perished or been placed.

If it's #2 the question then becomes where did this person get the information and what's the story they heard... Or do they know firsthand...
 

MrsPC

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2011
Messages
1,636
Reaction score
3,062
However, in the recent pdf of statements Dormer made - at a city council or some sort of meeting - he stated there was no tip.
 

Peter Brendt

New Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2011
Messages
2,244
Reaction score
31
Website
www.brendtandbrendt.com
It's a strange and interesting tip if you think about it. There's a possibility that the woman is dead and dumped in such and such a place. Hmmm. This can be interpreted one of two ways. Either the tipster found him/herself in the area where her body was and thought it might be her based on remembering the story or somone heard from someone else that something happened (accident or homicide) and was told where she might have perished or been placed.

If it's #2 the question then becomes where did this person get the information and what's the story they heard... Or do they know firsthand...

No mystery at all. I didn't call them on a tip line, but I (and others) have suggested since Spring 2011 already, to go to where Coletti saw her last, draw from this point a line into the thicket, direction to the road, a second one direction to the beach (where she could hear the sea in the night) and connect the dots. In the resulting triangle, her body would be most likely found. Well, in the resulting triangle her body WAS found. So what? Using basic math makes now suspects?

Peter
 

dcgrumpy

New Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
548
Reaction score
9
BKS - thank you for your two cents about common sense

but Peter Brandt is an attorney and he said that they need evidence a crime has been committed. he's just stating the law.

i would think that the 911 call NAMING her attacker who is trying to kill her would BE evidence... but Peter is pointing out that (i think) the police are going to ARGUE that.... SMG had a history of... bi-polar disorder and/or doing drugs, and so, she was....on a BAD batch of drugs THINKING her driver and her john (but they did not name jb or did she?) could be ANOTHER john in that gated community...were trying to kill her.

how can a woman (who ended up dead) calling 911 saying SO AND SO and also SO AND SO are trying to KILL me NOT be evidence...????
can someone please explain that one?


tkm:what::what::what::what::what::what::what:

It's a hard to say without knowing what else was said on the call. She may have been saying other things that made the police realize she was being irrational and not really in danger.
 

Peter Brendt

New Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2011
Messages
2,244
Reaction score
31
Website
www.brendtandbrendt.com
BKS - thank you for your two cents about common sense

but Peter Brandt is an attorney and he said that they need evidence a crime has been committed. he's just stating the law.

i would think that the 911 call NAMING her attacker who is trying to kill her would BE evidence... but Peter is pointing out that (i think) the police are going to ARGUE that.... SMG had a history of... bi-polar disorder and/or doing drugs, and so, she was....on a BAD batch of drugs THINKING her driver and her john (but they did not name jb or did she?) could be ANOTHER john in that gated community...were trying to kill her.

how can a woman (who ended up dead) calling 911 saying SO AND SO and also SO AND SO are trying to KILL me NOT be evidence...????
can someone please explain that one?

tkm:what::what::what::what::what::what::what:

I am NOT an attorney. But common sense tells me, arresting people without evidence is not, what we do in democratic societies, it's what dictatorships do. We are bound to laws, opposite to them.

And no, it's not what LE argues or not argues. But if you arrest anyone on a 911 call by a person with a history like that and the undeniable facts, that at least during those 18 minutes nobody killed her and she was seen later by a witness, you can see the person, you arrested, walk in about 15 minutes out of the court. That won't even go to a jury.

Peter
 

fred&edna

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2012
Messages
7,095
Reaction score
27,369
1.)

....The 911 call would have been a chance if police would have been on the scene faster, and then only for minor charges. But a call from a person not knowing where she is, 18 minutes long on the phone and alive ... well, that doesn't look too reasonable. Especially not, if there is at least one witness who saw her running in the direction where she was found later. Especially not, if this witness' (Coletti) testimony is consistent with the statements of Pak and Brewer (even under lie detector).

<modsnip>.


I understand what you are saying, I really do ;) But, I don't understand what is unreasonable about a person who didn't know exactly where she was. I think that people who are usually passengers (never or rarely drive) are not completely aware of their surroundings... they are used to drivers who pay attention to street names, exits, etc. The passenger isn't usually concerned with those details unless they act as "co-pilot". And, in a state of panic... well, all the more reason to be unsure of exact location.

Also, Did Coletti, Pal and Brewer all say they saw her run into the marsh "exactly"? I thought Coletti said she could've fallen into any of the many "water" areas around? (loose translation)

It's the basic info... the victim called for help screaming "they are trying to kill me", and her dead body is found... my common sense says "foul play".

Proving criminal action with the facts as they are... I agree, it can't happen. But, it's frustratingly difficult for me to accept :(
 

BKS

Sleuthhound
Joined
Aug 19, 2011
Messages
311
Reaction score
5
BKS - thank you for your two cents about common sense

but Peter Brandt is an attorney and he said that they need evidence a crime has been committed. he's just stating the law.

i would think that the 911 call NAMING her attacker who is trying to kill her would BE evidence... but Peter is pointing out that (i think) the police are going to ARGUE that.... SMG had a history of... bi-polar disorder and/or doing drugs, and so, she was....on a BAD batch of drugs THINKING her driver and her john (but they did not name jb or did she?) could be ANOTHER john in that gated community...were trying to kill her.

how can a woman (who ended up dead) calling 911 saying SO AND SO and also SO AND SO are trying to KILL me NOT be evidence...????
can someone please explain that one?

tkm:what::what::what::what::what::what::what:
Peter is a lawyer? I thought he was a writer.
 

Peter Brendt

New Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2011
Messages
2,244
Reaction score
31
Website
www.brendtandbrendt.com
1.)

....The 911 call would have been a chance if police would have been on the scene faster, and then only for minor charges. But a call from a person not knowing where she is, 18 minutes long on the phone and alive ... well, that doesn't look too reasonable. Especially not, if there is at least one witness who saw her running in the direction where she was found later. Especially not, if this witness' (Coletti) testimony is consistent with the statements of Pak and Brewer (even under lie detector).

<modsnip>.


I understand what you are saying, I really do ;) But, I don't understand what is unreasonable about a person who didn't know exactly where she was. I think that people who are usually passengers (never or rarely drive) are not completely aware of their surroundings... they are used to drivers who pay attention to street names, exits, etc. The passenger isn't usually concerned with those details unless they act as "co-pilot". And, in a state of panic... well, all the more reason to be unsure of exact location.

Also, Did Coletti, Pal and Brewer all say they saw her run into the marsh "exactly"? I thought Coletti said she could've fallen into any of the many "water" areas around? (loose translation)

It's the basic info... the victim called for help screaming "they are trying to kill me", and her dead body is found... my common sense says "foul play".

Proving criminal action with the facts as they are... I agree, it can't happen. But, it's frustratingly difficult for me to accept :(

1.) "consistent" doesn't mean "the same", it means "fitting each other"
Brewer: She ran out of the house
Pak: He searched in OB, but not deep in the reeds.
Coletti: Saw Pak searching SG, saw SG running that direction.
-> consistent!

2.) The more interesting question is, what happened before the phone call. See, SG acted paranoid. So, given the borderline diagnosis, what caused the acute paranoia? My guess is still drugs. Only, SG had no reason to bring out her stash. Maybe pick up something on the way, there is that CVS call. Maybe. But the main stash, I would assume, was Brewewr's. So that would be at least a faint chance to get him for drugs and maybe put him in some responsibility for giving someone drugs and cause as a consequence her death. But I admit, that's a little constructed.

Peter
 

Peter Brendt

New Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2011
Messages
2,244
Reaction score
31
Website
www.brendtandbrendt.com
BKS you seem to be having a problem with the Bermuda Triangle defense. Sometimes 15 or so sexworkers just drop dead from unknown causes after working the night in oak beach. You want to see me flip a coin and get heads 1000 times in a row? I can do it I swear, you don't believe me but I really can... cuz I have a double sided quarter.

Maybe we just have a case of a John with a lethal sex drive who can hump people to death, or a mutant with venomous semen who doesn't mean to kill. I have a method to solve this dilemma, it's a little unconventional but it is certain to work. We just have to take all the male residents of oak beach past and present to my testing facility where my contraption will test for this venom.

You forget to mention, you count all unidentified victims automatically as sex workers, add those found in NYC, on the LI main land and even into Connecticut to your numbers and keep silent that they were killed over a period of at least 15 years. So, the number is not that surprising as you want to let it look.

Peter
 

dc20015

Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2012
Messages
188
Reaction score
14
No mystery at all. I didn't call them on a tip line, but I (and others) have suggested since Spring 2011 already, to go to where Coletti saw her last, draw from this point a line into the thicket, direction to the road, a second one direction to the beach (where she could hear the sea in the night) and connect the dots. In the resulting triangle, her body would be most likely found. Well, in the resulting triangle her body WAS found. So what? Using basic math makes now suspects?

Peter

If what Mrs. PC says is true and there was no tip (and if Dormer wasn't lying) then its a moot point.

The thing I find curious about it is not the idea behind the tip. Of course it makes sense that a woman seen running towards an area might be found in that area. The thing I find curious is why such a tip would be needed 19 months later to finally find her.

Also, again, to clarify, Shannan Gilbert was diagnosed Bipolar and not Borderline.
 

Peter Brendt

New Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2011
Messages
2,244
Reaction score
31
Website
www.brendtandbrendt.com
If what Mrs. PC says is true and there was no tip (and if Dormer wasn't lying) then its a moot point.

The thing I find curious about it is not the idea behind the tip. Of course it makes sense that a woman seen running towards an area might be found in that area. The thing I find curious is why such a tip would be needed 19 months later to finally find her.

Also, again, to clarify, Shannan Gilbert was diagnosed Bipolar and not Borderline.

Great, that makes the call even harder to use as evidence. And if you start to wonder, why things take always long in SK cases, you will never finish. Some PDs just have it.
 

WINDSOR

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2011
Messages
1,345
Reaction score
3,304
Peter,

I agree evidence of a crime is required to charge someone and the democratic laws should be followed.

Here is the New York State Statute

S 230.36 Sex trafficking; accomplice.
In a prosecution for sex trafficking, a person from whose prostitution
activity another person is alleged to have advanced or attempted to
advance or profited or attempted to profit shall not be deemed to be an
accomplice.


The very least MP could and should be charged with: Sex trafficking; accomplice.

MP has already confessed in the media of driving SG to JB's house for the purpose of prostitution. So there is the evidence. JB has admitted hiring SG, and MP has admitted driving her. GC saw MP in Oak Beach. Under S230.36 no money has to have been exchanged for a conviction.

I do not know why SCPD does not enforce this law? Who is being protected?

Bring it to trial and let the judge and jury decide, that is the way things are done in a democracy.

I, like many others on the board believe in the rule of law. Here is a state law, the evidence is in the public domain.

If MP were facing a second conviction for sex trafficking ( he served time for a federal sex trafficking conviction previously) I believe he would be more co-operative with LE and provide more details about the events that night.

BTW this is a misdemeanor offence in New York State, but a lot a people are arrested, charged, tried and convicted for misdemeanors, so MP should not be given a 'free pass' because it is only a 'misdemeanor'

When is LE going to act?

MOO
 

To Kill a Mockingbird

Karma Will Get LISK!!!
Joined
Aug 12, 2011
Messages
963
Reaction score
18
1.) "consistent" doesn't mean "the same", it means "fitting each other"
Brewer: She ran out of the house
Pak: He searched in OB, but not deep in the reeds.
Coletti: Saw Pak searching SG, saw SG running that direction.
-> consistent!

2.) The more interesting question is, what happened before the phone call. See, SG acted paranoid. So, given the borderline diagnosis, what caused the acute paranoia? My guess is still drugs. Only, SG had no reason to bring out her stash. Maybe pick up something on the way, there is that CVS call. Maybe. But the main stash, I would assume, was Brewewr's. So that would be at least a faint chance to get him for drugs and maybe put him in some responsibility for giving someone drugs and cause as a consequence her death. But I admit, that's a little constructed.

Peter

Hey Peter -
sorry for thinking you were a lawyer.... I thought that ...
for some reason????

I've only read that Shannan was a bi-polar and NOT a borderline.
You keep saying she's borderline.

There is a HUGE difference between borderline personality disorder and bi-polar.

Thanx
TKM
 

To Kill a Mockingbird

Karma Will Get LISK!!!
Joined
Aug 12, 2011
Messages
963
Reaction score
18
I am a writer, Mockingbird only made a clumsy attempt to mock ...

i thought you were on the websleuths radio show
and i thought you were a lawyer...

but i wasnt mocking you
please dont think i was
cuz i was only thinking out loud

and now that i'm thinking out loud
now that the family has been to the medical examiners office
why oh why can't the police
a) release the report so we can READ it
and
b) release the 911 call so we can all hear it....

they have the 911 call for TWO YEARS now....
and they have had shannan's body since December - ALMOST
6 months.

thanx...
does anyone know?

tkm
 

En Passant

Inactive
Joined
Feb 10, 2012
Messages
239
Reaction score
4
i thought you were on the websleuths radio show
and i thought you were a lawyer...

but i wasnt mocking you
please dont think i was
cuz i was only thinking out loud

and now that i'm thinking out loud
now that the family has been to the medical examiners office
why oh why can't the police
a) release the report so we can READ it
and
b) release the 911 call so we can all hear it....

they have the 911 call for TWO YEARS now....
and they have had shannan's body since December - ALMOST
6 months.

thanx...
does anyone know?

tkm

Honestly I am sure it is for good reason.These victims families have been victims themselves. there lives have been turned upside down, there daughters have been in the spot light as less THAN savory. I think they deserve there privacy. I respect the decision to release the info if it does not jeopadize the case.

JMO, this is for important reasons & unless the families are getting angry currently, we the public should just respect this.

The families were vocal before but as many have stated it is queit & I just think it is the calm before the storm. They deserve privacy & I think thats happening finally.
 

To Kill a Mockingbird

Karma Will Get LISK!!!
Joined
Aug 12, 2011
Messages
963
Reaction score
18
Honestly I am sure it is for good reason.These victims families have been victims themselves. there lives have been turned upside down, there daughters have been in the spot light as less THAN savory. I think they deserve there privacy. I respect the decision to release the info if it does not jeopadize the case.

JMO, this is for important reasons & unless the families are getting angry currently, we the public should just respect this.

The families were vocal before but as many have stated it is queit & I just think it is the calm before the storm. They deserve privacy & I think thats happening finally.

someone posted here the other day
that she or he spoke to a detective and they said
that since the me said it was inconclusive
that CLOSES this case.

so...i think its quiet forever.
JMO
TKM
 

En Passant

Inactive
Joined
Feb 10, 2012
Messages
239
Reaction score
4
http://justiceforshannangilbert.wordpress.com/

According to Robin Sax, Attorney, former Sex Crime Prosecutor, and expert on human trafficking, Brewer should be held responsible under the Federal Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000.

Just want to say Thank You for linking that article. It sure seems really twisted. I think if that is the case hopefully FBI will be arresting some LE for tampering with evidence. SG family is usually very vocal & this means more is coming. I believe justice will prevail,

Thanks
 

Peter Brendt

New Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2011
Messages
2,244
Reaction score
31
Website
www.brendtandbrendt.com
Peter,

I agree evidence of a crime is required to charge someone and the democratic laws should be followed.

Here is the New York State Statute

S 230.36 Sex trafficking; accomplice.
In a prosecution for sex trafficking, a person from whose prostitution
activity another person is alleged to have advanced or attempted to
advance or profited or attempted to profit shall not be deemed to be an
accomplice.


The very least MP could and should be charged with: Sex trafficking; accomplice.

MP has already confessed in the media of driving SG to JB's house for the purpose of prostitution. So there is the evidence. JB has admitted hiring SG, and MP has admitted driving her. GC saw MP in Oak Beach. Under S230.36 no money has to have been exchanged for a conviction.

I do not know why SCPD does not enforce this law? Who is being protected?

Bring it to trial and let the judge and jury decide, that is the way things are done in a democracy.

I, like many others on the board believe in the rule of law. Here is a state law, the evidence is in the public domain.

If MP were facing a second conviction for sex trafficking ( he served time for a federal sex trafficking conviction previously) I believe he would be more co-operative with LE and provide more details about the events that night.

BTW this is a misdemeanor offence in New York State, but a lot a people are arrested, charged, tried and convicted for misdemeanors, so MP should not be given a 'free pass' because it is only a 'misdemeanor'

When is LE going to act?

MOO

Okay, the can get MP for a misdemeanor. Now that would be some victory for justice. But at the point, they say one syllable about "tell us what happened that nigh" or even worse "did this and that person kill SG, we let you go if you tell us", the case goes down the gutter, and any connected case is in jeopardy from the start.

Peter
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top