2 25 year olds both identified by dental records by the same officers

both officers have lied to me infront of my lawyers

now my lawyer is stuffing me around

something stinks bigtime

i am fighting for my daughter, but who is fighting for i dont believe her boyfriend killed her , just go ask him

[...] the journalist that copied and pasted from the teenage Doofer forum about the girl that disappeared at a doof party?  That was in 2006. What do you think that forum [...]

[...] Facebooking and MySpacing their condolences and memorials. And the press are reading it. Remember the doofer who disappeared at a concert? The journalist printed the comments and discussions from a very small, out-of-the-public-eye (or [...]

The journalist went to a forum, read that a couple of “doofers” said that Daneeka’s disappearance “must’ve been those deadbeats that showed up to the party” and then he cited the gossip as a pseudo insider story.

Using gossip from an almost empty online community forum to give a ‘scoop’ on a disappearance/presumed murder is like giving credibility to a girl’s virtue based on what’s written on the school toilet walls. Wishful thinking plays a greater part than real facts.

My main issue is that journalists are starting to beef up credibility for flaky investigative reporting by citing what forum posters in online communities say as if they are experts. It’s a growing trend and no more worthy of journalistic ethics than claiming ‘everyone knows he done it’ or ‘word on the street is…”. From the school of ‘no smoke without a flame’ journalism, the musings of 2 or 3 forum posters lacks credibility and yet the journalist implies that these kids have real information.

I’m concerned that as journalists become aware that online communities are privy to conspiracy theories, they will cite them as ‘experts’ to improve tabloid circulation. Ack, I’m probably still not clear. I think I’ll give up.

So now I know the meaning of doof and psytrance … but I really don’t understand the rest.