Boy, I am tired of doing other people’s jobs

It’s got to the point where, when I start looking at the people on NamUs who went missing just over a year ago and can now be added to Charley, or at the runaways listed on the NCMEC (most of which are missing two years before I add them to Charley), I am initially unsure whether these people are REALLY missing or not. I would estimate 10% of the time or sometimes more, those people were found long ago and have just not been removed from the databases. A simple Google search will reveal that these people are not missing.

Given how well-funded and famous both NamUs and the NCMEC are, this is really inexcusable. I should not have to be checking on this; they should be at least reliable enough that the people they say as missing are, in fact, missing. I have written before about the real-life consequences this could lead to for the no-longer-missing person.

Honestly I don’t think it’s appropriate for NamUs to have people added that only disappeared a couple of days ago. It’s very unlikely that the NamUs database can assist in cases as recent as that, and very likely that the person will turn up one way or another, and often when that happens, for whatever reason they don’t get taken off NamUs and a year or more later they’re still on there.

I don’t know why it happens, whether it’s lack of money, lack of staff, some kind of bureaucratic tangle, just plain laziness, or what. I don’t know that much about the inner workings of NamUs or the NCMEC. I just know that this is completely unacceptable and a waste of everyone’s time and effort.

There’s nothing I can do about it, I suppose, and NamUs and the NCMEC definitely don’t listen to me, seeing as how I’ve been complaining about this issue for months. Just wanted to vent. Again.

Height/weight uncertainties

I’m never too sure about a missing person’s height and weight, since most people don’t know it for sure about themselves, never mind about other people. I think a lot of times the police go off of whatever’s on the person’s driver’s license, but it’s not like the BMV measures you; they go off by what you say, and people fudge that all the time.

This came to my mind today. I had a gentleman who was on my site already, and I decided to look him up and see if he’d ever been arrested. It turned out he had been, less than a year prior to his disappearance, and the arrest record gave his height as 5’9 and weight as 154 pounds. Which is a significant difference from what NamUs said; they had him listed as 6’2 and 189 pounds.

So which is correct? And how could anyone think a 6’2 guy is 5’9, or vice versa? In these cases I try to include a range obviously, but a five-inch range is quite a difference.

It’s something to think about when you’re trying to decide whether a particular MP might be a particular UID.

Jayme Closs and other things

So I’m on a downswing, in terms of my mood. I’m bipolar. This is my life and it will never change, though the five psychiatric medications I take daily mitigate the downswings.

It’s just been kind of hard to get anything done. I will decide to do some thing or other, then I’ll find myself just sitting there staring into space as I’m trying to get myself to move. Even something as simple as picking an object up off the floor.

The Jayme Closs thing has kind of gotten to me. Of course I’m delighted that she’s been found alive. That’s not what’s getting to me; that part’s great. What’s getting to me is what some people have been saying. It’s really hard not to take that personally because of what happened to me back in the day.

(If you haven’t read that far back in my blog, what happened to me is this: in 2009, while I was on a trip to Virginia, I got lost and a stranger offered to give me directions. Instead, he took me into the woods and beat the crap out of me and raped me multiple times. Then he gave me the directions he’d promised and let me go. In the aftermath of the attack, there were a bunch of people on the comments section of this blog, and in email, who accused me of making the whole thing up for who knows what reason. It was very hurtful, obviously. After almost a year the rapist, a serial offender, was identified through DNA and he’s since been deported.)

I was just writing on here about how people can make speculations online about cases, speculations with no evidence to support them, and how this isn’t helpful and can indeed be harmful, especially if the victim or their family sees it.

And some people are doing that about Jayme Closs now. They’re outright accusing her of the murder, or at least complicity to the murder, of her own parents. And the police have said they believe her abductor acted entirely alone, and that he did not know Jayme (who, I will point out, is thirteen years old), and that he had been stalking her, and that Jayme is a victim and not a suspect.

These people think they know better than the cops, I guess. Why? Because Jayme took a selfie after her reunion with her aunt and dog. Because she was clean and looked okay in the selfie. Because she was smiling.

OF COURSE SHE WAS SMILING. She’d just been reunited with her dog and what’s left of her family, after she thought she’d never see them again, and the monster who did this to her is locked up! Why shouldn’t she smile? Why wouldn’t she have gotten herself cleaned up, showered etc.?

At what point is a crime victim “allowed” to smile and act happy and still be considered a “legitimate” victim?

One of the so-called reasons people were calling me a liar about my rape was because I didn’t act “traumatized enough” to suit them, when in fact they didn’t know the first thing about it. They were only seeing words on a screen, on my blog.

And so some people, on the basis of a “feeling” or a “hunch”, and a photograph, are making dreadful accusations against a thirteen-year-old child who saw her parents get murdered and who spent the last three months, I’m assuming, as Jake Patterson’s sex slave, thinking every day would be her last.

Frankly it makes me sick. I hope Jayme’s aunt and other caregivers make sure she does not see those accusations. I’m not seeking them out myself, but when they get posted on the Charley Project’s Facebook page I kind of have to read them, though I delete them as quickly as I can.

Theories versus “theories”

In scientific discourse, a theory is a hypothesis that has not been proven but which does have considerable evidence to support it. An example of a scientific theory would be the Theory of Evolution. A hypothesis that doesn’t have considerable evidence to support it remains a hypothesis.

I kind of take the same approach on the Charley Project when it comes to what might have happened to an MP. I only have so much time and would prefer to spend it wisely, and if I’m going to update a casefile with a suggestion as to what may have happened to the MP, it’s not going to be something a random person suggested on their blog.

In my mind, a valid theory either has to come from someone in a position to know what they’re talking about (such as the police investigating the case, or someone else very close to the case), or, if it comes from elsewhere, it has to have some evidence to support it. Any suggestion that doesn’t meet either of those criteria falls into the realm of speculation, and I don’t have time for that.

For example, virtually every female who disappeared during the sixties or early seventies and had long hair parted in the center has been pinned on Ted Bundy by somebody at some point. But while Bundy was a very prolific killer who racked up quite a body count and probably had victims no one knows about, he wasn’t the only serial killer operating during that period and his time was not infinite. He had to sleep, eat, hang out with his friends, attend work and school, etc.

If the person pinning Bundy on an unsolved case could, for example, at least show that Bundy was in that town at the time, that’s one thing. But trying to blame Bundy for every missing or murdered woman who even remotely fits his victimology, particularly ones in states he is never known to have visited, is basically seeing hoofprints and pinning them on zebras rather than horses.

I’m not just talking about Bundy here, but about any kind of speculations without evidence. Regarding a case of two MPs who were sailing alone and got lost in a storm, and whose boat was later found adrift, someone told me “theories” that one or both of the people had survived and either had amnesia or felt too guilty to come home. These “theories” had actually no evidence at all to support them and were just people grasping at straws hoping the MPs were still alive.

I don’t think it would do any good for me to put such speculations on my site and it might do some harm.

Orville’s on the fritz

Yeah, so this afternoon Orville failed to restart after a Windows update, by which I mean the screens are both black, the keyboard doesn’t seem to be working either, and I can’t even get a restart in Safe Mode.

I can’t think of anything else to do but drag him to the shop tomorrow. Perhaps nothing in particular is wrong. Perhaps Orville is just sulking and they can fix him in a jiffy, or perhaps it will be an intensive and expensive repair. I have no idea; computers mystify me.

It costs $50 for them to even look at it, and things go up from there. Money will be tight this month anyway, as my car insurance is due. Any donations towards the cost of the repair will be appreciated.