A question for consideration

I posted this question on Charley’s Facebook page but decided it warranted further feedback and discussion on my blog as well. Feel free to discuss it in the comments, even if you don’t have any strong advice for me.

The other day I posted a case involving a young woman. It was a “few details are available” case, as I had absolutely no info about the circumstances surrounding her disappearance.

However, when doing my usual checking I discovered this MP had had a troubled life prior to her disappearance. I uncovered a series of arrests in two, maybe three different states, for offenses including hard drugs (possessing and selling both), prostitution, driving under the influence, and leaving the scene of an accident. One article said she’d been arrested for possession of heroin and asked to be released on her own recognizance since she was a single mother and had to start a new job, and the judge said that wasn’t allowed and she had to post bond because at the time of her arrest she had already been RORed for possession of cocaine. All of this happened over a period of years leading up to her disappearance.

Here’s the question: in a case like this — when all of these details are about her life before her disappearance, and I have no info about the disappearance itself and what the circumstances were, should I post the info anyway? I didn’t, because I didn’t want to cause pain for the MP’s family for what might be no good reason, and possibly mislead people, in case her disappearance was definitely not related to any of that.

I just wasn’t quite comfortable with saying basically “So-and-so was last seen on this date in this place. Few details are available in her case. By the way, she has an arrest record going back several years for drug- and prostitution-related offenses.”

At the same time though, if I’d found out some more innocuous stuff, like what high school/college she went to, or if she had any particular hobbies or belonged to a certain church or something — that is, details that might be equally unrelated to the investigation and didn’t make her look bad — I would have posted it without hesitation.

Why would I hesitate at summarizing the case like I did above, when I wouldn’t hesitate at saying instead, “By the way, she enjoyed doing this, that and the other thing, has six siblings and belonged to the Such-and-Such Catholic Church”? When her high-risk background is MUCH more likely to be related to her disappearance than her (for example) membership in a particular church would be.

What do you think?

Why not? II

I thought I’d add one more photo of myself, so you can see again what I look like in non-selfie, non-portrait pics. Michael and I having dinner at Tucanos Brazilian Grill. See? Resting frowny face.

medinner

This was taken in June. Michael and I were making a date of it — I even dressed up, see? — and he was introducing me to some new foods. I look absolutely miserable in this photo. But I was in fact enjoying myself.

Why not?

I thought that since I posted the kitty pictures I’d post my most recent photograph. You might recall that I recently stopped coloring my hair red, and this was the result.

Well, Michael took this photo with his phone on December 28, when he and I were eating at Kentucky Fried Chicken with a friend. I don’t think I was even aware I was being photographed at the time. I am one of those “resting frowny face” people, and if I had known he was taking a picture I’d have made sure to smile. But even though I wasn’t smiling, I was having a great time.

kfc

A pair of fuzzy sisters

Back in August Michael and I inherited a kitten. She had been a stray who was adopted by Michael’s friend Ellen, but Ellen was killed in a car accident about a month later. Ellen’s husband did not want to keep the kitten; they already had three cats as it was, and this one reminded him so strongly of Ellen that it upset him to look at her. Michael and I had been in the market for a cat anyway, so we happily took it off his hands. Ellen had named her Smoke. We re-named her Aria.

When we first got her, Aria was tiny enough to squeeze under closed doors. Now she’s, I believe, around eight or nine months old and has graduated from “tiny” to “small.” Michael says she’ll always be small, because she has little paws and he says the size of the paws are a good indicator of the size of the cat. Carmen, our other cat, is huge — around fourteen pounds. Aria weighs five.

Anyway, those two get along great. They groom each other, sleep side by side, chase each other around the house, wrestle, and sometimes fight, just like sisters should. Michael and I really lucked out, I think. We have such sweet, friendly, cuddly cats, when so many cats are standoffish, and they get along so well, when often cats don’t get along with each other. Plus, both of them are absolutely beautiful. Carmen’s fur is so floofy and with beautiful coloring and Aria’s fur is so sleek and shiny and both have big bright eyes. In my totally unbiased opinion they are the most gorgeous cats on God’s green earth.

I took a bunch of pictures of them both with my phone just now and thought I’d share some of them here:carmenaria2

carmen2

aria3

carmen3

aria4carmen4