WS members named in ongoing cases

Discussion in 'Forum Finesse' started by Kimster, Sep 30, 2009.

  1. Kimster

    Kimster Former Member

    Messages:
    58,147
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This past week has brought on the issue of WS members "involved" in cases in one way or another. Both the Caylee thread and the Lindsey Baum threads have had issues with members being named. There is some confusion as to how to deal with discussing cases where members are named in ongoing cases and many of our other members aren't sure how to handle it.

    Can we have some clarification as to what we can and cannot discuss? Especially when sleuthers are named on doc dumps and are even potential suspects in a case?

    Thanks so much!
     
  2. Loading...


  3. SeriouslySearching

    SeriouslySearching Active Member

    Messages:
    35,527
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    36
    I agree this issue does need to be addressed and discussed. With Lindsey Baum's case getting ready to break wide open tomorrow, the question remains of how we are to handle the subject of one of our members being in the immediate family of the POI and subject to LE scrutiny of the searches?

    The member allegedly associated to the POI and the search made it clear in a post he/she no longer wanted to post on WS, I also do not understand why this wasn't a reason to ban as it has been the standard in the past to grant them their wish. It would certainly take care of the issue of us discussing a current member, imo.
     
  4. Kimster

    Kimster Former Member

    Messages:
    58,147
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    TY for the quick response, but I am still confused! Does this mean that we can't discuss a named POI if they are a member here?

    ETA: BBM
     
  5. STEADFAST

    STEADFAST New Member

    Messages:
    9,164
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    In my opinion, if posters post inside information about a case because their real-life identities are involved in or close to a crime, their identities should be verified and revealed. However, if posters want to post anonymously with their opinions and analysis and not reveal inside (unpublished or non-public) information, even if they are the perp himself/herself, their real-life identities should be protected as much as the real-life identities of the rest of the membership.
     
  6. Kimster

    Kimster Former Member

    Messages:
    58,147
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Steadfast, if I'm understanding you correctly, are you saying we can discuss the POI information as released in the media but not link the fact that a member is that person? I hope I am making sense.

    This issue has me very confused! I'm thinking that any POI in the future will be able to sign up and be a member and therefore are protected from being discussed. But I can see that we shouldn't be able to say "Oh, 'so and so' is the perp in this investigation!"
     
  7. STEADFAST

    STEADFAST New Member

    Messages:
    9,164
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes, that's exactly what I think. Of course we can discuss the POI -- in fact, I think if the person is officially a POI, we should be able to discuss them by at least initials even if the info hasn't been published in the press.
    BUT, if they or someone connected to them is a member, even if many other posters know that, I don't think they should be outed as long as they aren't posting AS THEMSELVES. (For instance, "I didn't do it" or "My son was at home during the crime.")
    Look at it this way: let's say Jane Doe is the mom of a POI. She posts here as "XYZ." We are allowed to post about Jane Doe and write, "Jane Doe's son is guilty." But we are not allowed to post, "I bet Jane Doe is XYZ" or "XYS's son is guilty."
    She is allowed to post things like "Jane Doe's son is probably not guilty" and remain anonymous. But if she posts, "My son is not guilty because I know he was at home," then she's outed herself and her real identity needs to be verified and made known.
     
  8. Kimster

    Kimster Former Member

    Messages:
    58,147
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Steadfast, your "BBM" made that clearer for me! :blowkiss:

    So I'm going to make this as simple as I can. Let's say I'm involved in a crime that becomes a thread on WS. My name comes out publicly. We will be able to sleuth my real name in the media as long as no one makes mention of my WS hat or their suspicions that the perp is me, right?
     
  9. Kimster

    Kimster Former Member

    Messages:
    58,147
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    GMTA ! :highfive: My last post went out there at the same time as yours! Okay, we are on the same page now! Let's make sure ****** is with us since he's our fearless leader!
     
  10. STEADFAST

    STEADFAST New Member

    Messages:
    9,164
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes. Actually, that has happened pretty often. It's an open secret that can't be discussed -- not even in PM's.
     
  11. Kimster

    Kimster Former Member

    Messages:
    58,147
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ok Steadfast. I didn't know that and now I don't want to know! LOL
     
  12. Animal04216

    Animal04216 Smiling Again

    Messages:
    1,843
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I agree with ****** posters are members first as far as their "hat" goes. If someone posts here claiming inside information, a mod should be notified because we just cannot read every post.
     
  13. Kimster

    Kimster Former Member

    Messages:
    58,147
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Thank you for weighing in, Animal! So many of us were pussyfooting around not knowing what to do exactly. This makes it a lot easier! :blowkiss: to you and ****** and Steadfast!!!
     
  14. Kimster

    Kimster Former Member

    Messages:
    58,147
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Thank you again, ******! This should be clear as day for everyone now! :blowkiss:
     
  15. scandi

    scandi New Member

    Messages:
    18,228
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hi there, Does WS still have a policy where members who are close to the case in some way being required to register w/ Admin to verify who they are, which then allows them to post? I am not talking about a POI necessarily.

    Thanks
     
  16. scandi

    scandi New Member

    Messages:
    18,228
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes, Thanks ****** xox
     
  17. Tricia

    Tricia Owner Websleuths.com Staff Member Administrator

    Messages:
    23,605
    Likes Received:
    1,685
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Let me tell you why we do this.

    A looooong time ago we would let members pretty much post what they wanted as long as it wasn't porn or other horrible things.

    Posters would come on WS and claim to be detectives, doctors, and such with no worry of anyone checking up on them.

    One time we had a very popular member who claimed to be a cop. Posted incredible stories, very interesting things, he would give us in the inside look into investigations and how cops did things.

    Found out he was not a cop at all and all the stories were just that, stories.

    A member of WS management from years ago told everyone he was a lawyer. Total lie.

    Both of these incidents happened a long time ago. But even as the years went on we didn't verify because we really did not have posters claiming to be professionals or family members. If we had them I don't remember them.

    As we started to grow in 2008 we made it clear we would not allow bullies on WS. We made the rules tighter. The more we came down on posters going off topic or attacking others the larger our membership grew.

    With this growth came lots of posters who claimed to be all sorts of things. Be it professionals or relatives of victims they started to come to WS in droves. Because the word got out the bullies were gone and we only allowed adult conversation people from all walks came to Websleuths.

    When we started noticing so many people claiming to so many things I decided we had to start a verification process. I thought back to the cop and the lawyer and just knew this could easily happen again.

    One of the first verifications I did was a woman who claimed to be in communication with Cindy Anthony. She was telling the truth.

    We cannot in any way shape or form be certain that a poster is not an impostor. I do my best to verify people but it will happen. So please always keep in mind that short of me hiring a P.I. I can only verify someone to a certain extent and just because they are verified doesn't mean they won't lie.

    There have been times when I notify a poster I need to verify them they disappear never to return. That speaks volums.

    So far, we have had wonderful experiences with professionals and friends and family of victims coming to Websleuths. These people have added a tremendous amount of credibility to our forum and have made it more interesting and enjoyable.
     
  18. zadari

    zadari New Member

    Messages:
    2,092
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    and im really grateful that u do that for us tricia its nice to know if your really getting advice from a nurse or dr or lawyer and that is what makes me trust this site and u
     

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