Advertisement

Thursday, April 27, 2017

Correction


Correction
Correction: Irwin County Hospital does not provide dialysis treatment as I reported being told in my blog entry "The Stories of Ryan and Bo?" The hospital does not and has never provided dialysis treatment. I apologize for the incorrect information, and it has already been removed from the post. Irwin County Hospital is a fine institution with quality employees, and I definitely never intended to harm the hospital or its good reputation. -- Dusty Vassey

Wednesday, April 26, 2017

The Stories of Ryan and Bo?



Photo: Ryan Duke and Bo Dukes are pictured side-by-side in their high school yearbook.

The Stories of Ryan and Bo?

We may never know what actually happened the week Tara Grinstead went missing, but I think I'm getting a clear picture about the stories Ryan Duke and Bo Dukes have told investigators.

The final puzzle pieces to this picture were locked into place by Payne Lindsey with his Episode "The Deal" which in my opinion was the finest episode of the Up and Vanished podcast. He even managed to make it the most compelling episode despite the glaring flaw of having me on the episode twice.

There were two things about "The Deal" that solidified my beliefs about all the swirling rumors and stories I've heard about potential evidence.

First, Payne made the rock-solid observation that the indictments against Ryan Duke specify that Ryan Duke allegedly used his hand to assault and kill Tara. Hand. Singular. Not hands. Hand.

I had completely missed that distinction. But as Payne pointed out, it is an important distinction. I'll get to that later when I lay out the evidence for my beliefs about what Ryan may have told the Georgia Bureau of Investigation.

The second thing about "The Deal" is that Payne shared all or parts of a conversation from someone he called "Darren," a friend or former friend of Bo's. The conversation with "Darren," which at times raised goose pimples and at times earned my anger, buoyed some of the many rumors I've heard about what Bo Dukes has allegedly said about his role in Tara's disappearance.

I'll start with Bo's story, or what his story seems to be based on talk I've seen on the Up and Vanished Discussion Board, including the posts by "AAA" who claimed to be Bo himself. Also, other sources are people who reached out to me on Facebook or UAV, a list of questions allegedly answered by Bo, and now "Darren's" alleged conversations with Bo.

The reason I give all these sources is to point out that Bo's story, if what I've heard repeatedly is true, is very prevalent. And the details all seem to remain consistent with each other and with the allegations in the arrest warrants and indictments.

But it's also, at its heart, a pretty simple tale, if a horrifyingly astonishing one.

According to several of these sources, Bo allegedly said he drove a white truck, not a black one, and he allegedly said Ryan had borrowed his truck when whatever happened happened. Bo allegedly said Ryan told him and some others that he killed Tara, but Bo didn't believe him, allegedly. Bo allegedly said that he didn't believe until several days later when he saw the body at the pecan orchard.

And then, as the arrest warrants against him claim, Bo is alleged to have destroyed Tara's body.

Or as he allegedly told "Darren": "Please, never bring me a dead body. Although now that I've had some practice..."

Which is one of the most shocking things I've ever heard. If it was truly said by Bo, then that is someone either bragging about covering up a murder, making a joke of it, or both.

Many sources and popular consensus allege fire was used, which only makes such an alleged statement more horrifying.

So what about Ryan's story? Let me take you back 7 or 8 weeks ago, only shortly after Ryan was arrested.

I noticed someone on the Up and Vanished discussion board posting information that seemed right to me based on what little I knew at the time. This person is pretty well known on the UAV discussion board, at least by his or her anonymous screen name, but since I don't know if they want me to publicize their screen name, I'm going to call them "Utopian," just to have something to call them, and even though I have no idea of their gender, I'm going to call them "he."

Utopian posted that he had a source close to the GBI who said bones were found and were at the crime lab. He said Ryan's DNA was found on the latex glove. Utopian said Ryan did not confess to murder but confessed to being in Tara's house.

Utopian said Bo made a deal and was claiming only to be an accessory after the fact. He said Ryan left the body at the pecan orchard the night she went missing and Bo said that Ryan asked him for help disposing of the body five days after the disappearance. Utopian said Bo's arrest was prearranged and he will not serve any jail time.

Other details Utopian added were that the tipster's motive was reward money and that the Grinstead family was unhappy about it because someone that knew for years would be collecting the money. According to the alleged text messages between Bo and "Darren," Bo said that his girlfriend told her mother, who "tipped off the GBI," and that his girlfriend may be getting the reward money.

Utopian said rumors that were circulating at the time about the body being placed in a pond were untrue and that the fire on Snapdragon Road a few weeks after the disappearance were unconnected to the case. He also said that rumors of a third arrest were false, and no third arrest has been made, so that seems to be true.

In fact, almost 2 months later, nothing Utopian said is clearly untrue, although I have my doubts about Bo having a deal, but I'll get to that in a moment.

Since Utopian's information seemed like it could be true and fit a lot of what I was already thinking, I reached out to him on the Up and Vanished board and we talked through private messages. He provided greater detail.

He said there was a confession tape of Ryan that was about 30 minutes long. He said Ryan said he was going through Tara's purse when she woke up, and then he hit her, and that is all he remembers.

Recall how the indictments say hand, singular, instead of hands? Is the prosecution alleging that Ryan killed her with this hit, which we can assume was a punch?

A single punch can be fatal, but it rarely is. I've heard someone say "If that's true. It was one lucky punch." I'd say it was an unlucky one, for all involved.

Interestingly, Ryan's arrest warrants accused him of using his hands, plural, and many speculated that meant strangulation. According to a report of a conversation someone had through the messenger application Wickr with someone claiming to be Bo Dukes, the person who may have been Bo allegedly said that Ryan told him Tara was strangled. Utopian said Bo saw bruising and strangulation marks on her body before he allegedly helped burn it.

I believe, if these alleged reports are true about what Ryan and Bo are saying, that investigators are unsure how Tara died. If the reports are true, the safe bet for the prosecutors may have been to say hand, singular, because whether she died due to a punch or strangulation, a hand would have been used either way.

Utopian also said that law enforcement officers were skeptical about Ryan's story for certain reasons. I am skeptical, too.

That's the bulk of what Utopian told me, and it sounded plausible enough that it has been my working theory of what Ryan and Bo may have told investigators ever since.

Then, after the Grand Jury met two weeks ago, rumors spread on the Up and Vanished board that someone was leaking from the Grand Jury. The rumors about the leak seemed to support Utopian's claims, but I investigated and could not find anyone actually saying that they heard from someone on the Grand Jury the details that Utopian shared.

Then, rumors of another Grand Jury leak began to spread late last week on the board, and I reached out to someone who was posting about them. I will call this person "Esther," just because I like that name, and I will refer to them as a "she."

I spoke to Esther and she told me that someone on the Grand Jury told a family member about the evidence and that family member told Esther. I have no idea who the Grand Jury member is, and frankly, I can't even guarantee this information came from a member of the Grand Jury. All I know for sure is it fits a lot of other things I've heard or know, except for a few parts, but I'll explain.

Esther said she was told that Ryan went to Tara's house late at night and she was already asleep. She said she was told Ryan was going through her purse when Tara woke up and he hit her, exactly what Utopian told me previously.

Esther said she was told Ryan did not remember a lot of details, something Utopian hinted at. Esther said she was told Ryan didn't remember because he was "so messed up," which I take to mean that he was allegedly saying he was intoxicated or on drugs, but she said she did not know what he was allegedly "messed up" on.

Another source told me that they heard Ryan broke in her house to watch her sleep and that he may have done so other times but this particular time, she woke up and began screaming.

Esther said she was told Ryan left Tara's home that night but came back in the morning, and I got the impression she meant during the daytime. She said she was told Ryan wrapped Tara's body in a blanket, put her in the back of a truck and drove to the pecan orchard. She said she was not told if it was supposed to be Bo's truck he was driving.

About Bo, Esther said she was told he bragged about what happened to a friend from his time in the military. She said she was told this military guy is the one who came forward to the GBI, not Bo's girlfriend. This confused me, and perhaps is still confusing, but after listening to "The Deal" episode of Up and Vanished, I wondered if the military friend was "Darren." And I wondered if the Grand Jury was presented Darren's alleged text messages with Bo or other testimony from Darren that a grand juror might have interpreted as Darren coming forward. But that's just my speculation.

Another thing Esther said did not fit what I knew either. She said she was told that Bo did not have a deal.

This conflicts with what I've thought for a while, what Utopian told me, and what Bo allegedly told Darren. But then I thought about it.

Bo allegedly told Darren, "Through a long negotiation between (Bo's girlfriend), the case agent, myself, and eventually my lawyer, and the DAs we worked out a deal," and "It worked out well, for me at least."

"No, I wont' be arrested or prosecuted at all," Bo allegedly said.

But he was arrested. He was arrested and charged with concealing a death, hindering the apprehension or punishment of a criminal, and tampering with evidence.

If these stories Ryan and Bo may have told are the meat of the GBI's official narrative of what happened to Tara, then what else could he have been charged with? No one I know about with actual knowledge of the case is accusing Bo Dukes of doing anything more.

I believe a deal was probably in place, but I think it may have been withdrawn, possibly at the last minute. This is just my speculation, but I have an idea of how it could have happened.

If Bo had a plea deal in place, one of the stipulations of the deal may have been that he had to lead investigators to Tara's remains. This would make sense because I believe the GBI's search at the pecan orchard ended the same day Bo was arrested.

But, I've been told from reliable sources that Bo was not able to find the burn spot, even though it was found without him. It is a huge pecan orchard. I wonder if that simple alleged failure might have been enough to negate his deal.

Of course, that is just my speculation, but a source did tell me that Bo did have a deal at some point but it was revoked. I was told that if he was caught in a lie his immunity would be withdrawn, so perhaps a lie undid the deal.

I hope that everyone involved in Tara's death is punished, so if he was involved, I am glad he will not receive immunity, if that's true, and I do believe the deal is gone.

There are a lot of people crying for justice for Tara, and many are questioning why others have not been charged. Because if what Bo allegedly told Darren is true, several others knew what happened that night. But if all they did was know, if they did not materially participate in the crime or its cover-up, I'm not sure there is any punishment for them, at least not legally.

Somewhere in all this maelstrom of information swirling about this case, I heard that it's not a crime to have knowledge of a crime and not report it. I don't know how to look that up. It's a lot easier to look up what is illegal than what isn't, but I thought about it and it made sense.

Many years ago, I covered a class for mandatory reporters for the newspaper. Mandatory reporters are people like teachers and nurses who have a legal duty to report suspicions of child abuse. If only certain people in certain professions are legally required to report suspicions of child abuse, that amazingly means that the average citizen is not required to report suspicions of child abuse. Shocking, right?

But think about it even further. Should it be illegal to withhold reporting a crime? If you witnessed a gang shooting or a mob hit, should you face criminal charges just because you're scared to come forward?

Obviously, this case is different, and I think anyone who knew had a great moral responsibility to come forward, if not a legal one. Once their names are known, and I believe they will be, they will face a stiff social penalty, and some may already be facing that punishment in the form of suspicion, but I doubt anyone who knew will ever be arrested for knowing.

Of course, many people thought that others would be guilty of crimes if they knew but said nothing for all these years, which made me think, could Ryan Duke have thought the same thing?

Several weeks ago, and a few times since, I was told Ryan spoke to a nurse whom he knew, and she asked what happened. I was told that he told her that Tara wasn't murdered, that she died of an accidental overdose at the pecan orchard and the covered it up. Now, I don't believe for a moment that she overdosed, but that's the story I was told. Tara didn't even drink, so the idea that she did hard drugs sounds preposterous, but just because one thing someone says isn't true, it doesn't mean everything they say isn't true.

And I was told Ryan told the nurse that he was taking the fall for what happened because the others had more to lose than he did.

I have received enough confirmation to at least believe the conversation happened if not the details of what was said. But aside from the multiple reports of this nurse story, I've also heard other reports of him saying he was taking the fall.

I wonder if he might have thought the others would be facing criminal penalties, when apparently no one else other than Bo Dukes is. I wonder if now he is changing his story because he is realizing the ones he was trying to protect did not need his protection.

Everyone knows I question the official narrative that Tara was killed in her house. I won't rehash all of the details about how the idea that she was killed in the house doesn't seem to fit the clues. If you aren't familiar, read my blog post "If I Was On the Grand Jury" or listen to "The Deal" episode of Up and Vanished.

Before I wrote "If I Was On the Grand Jury" I had been planning for weeks to write about my questions and doubts about the official narrative, and I had planned to write a more balanced exposition of those ideas. But then I realized there was a chance I wouldn't be on the Grand Jury and I had so many questions I would have asked if I had been on it that I rushed to write what I did in the hopes a grand juror would read it, but I did not include some of the counterarguments to my doubts.

For instance, if the stories I've been told are true and Ryan was looking through Tara's purse, it might explain why her purse was missing. Maybe he feared his fingerprints would be on the purse, if the story is true.

Then, there's the phone left on the charger. Tara left her cell phone on the charger and of all the material clues about her house, that is the one which does not seem to fit the idea of her leaving her house voluntarily, which is a scenario most other clues fit best. Why would a young woman leave home in the middle of the night and leave her cell phone behind? It was left on the charger which may be indicative that it needed charging or it could be explained that someone planted the phone on the charger after she died so that it would not lead to the location she was killed, but on the surface, the phone is suspicious and does not easily support the idea that she left her home willingly.

Another major problem with the idea that she left her home willingly is why. Why would she have left to go out to that pecan orchard or some other location? If she had regular cell phone communications with any of these people accused of being involved in her death or even those who may have known about it, it seems likely that Ryan Duke would not have been "off the radar" as the GBI said after his arrest. As she was a teacher when these people were in school, even if she may have not been their teacher, she probably knew them to some extent, but would she have trusted them enough to go out with them very late at night? I don't think so, unless there's some big piece of the puzzle we're missing.

One major question people seem to have is why someone like Bo would help Ryan cover-up a murder if otherwise Bo wasn't involved. It's a good question, but someone pointed out to me that from what he knew of Bo, he might not think like most people. He said Bo was someone who thought he could get away with stealing from the Army, so maybe Bo didn't see the risk of helping cover-up a murder because he thought he could get away with it. And for more than 11 years, he did.

And if these other people knew things about Tara's death, such as Bo allegedly suggested in his discussion with Darren, the GBI must have interviewed them. You would think the stories they told must be backing up the stories Bo and Ryan seem to be telling.

Could it all be prearranged? Could everyone who knew or participated have coordinated their stories years ago or even in the months prior to the arrests? It's possible, but it seems unlikely, and it seems like the stories of Bo and Ryan would corroborate each other better than they seem to based on the stories I've been told. Wouldn't a fabricated story be more polished?

If Bo and Ryan are the only ones involved, as the allegations seem to indicate, could Bo have created his story and just gotten lucky that what Ryan said did not contradict it? Again, it is possible but unlikely.

One point about that idea though: For the sake of argument, if both Ryan and Bo were at Tara's house wearing latex gloves, Bo would all but know that the DNA in that glove did not match him. When he was convicted of stealing from the Army, he had to give a DNA sample, which he could have reasonably assumed would have been checked for a link to the latex glove found in Tara's yard.

Remember the woman who talked to someone claiming to be Bo on Wickr? Wickr deletes messages after a time and it warns the other person if screen shots are taken, so she tried to write down her questions and the answers as quickly as she could. She then produced a list of questions and answers.

One of those answers gave me pause.

When asked why not turn the killer in, the answer was, "Then they point the finger at you. Where would the evidence point then if there was (evidence) at her house, which I still don't know."

But everyone knew about the latex glove, and Bo Dukes would reasonably know that it would not point to him.

If Bo lied to investigators, he could do so with confidence that the biggest piece of physical evidence in the case could not be linked to him. So, if both Ryan and Bo were at her house that night or morning in October of 2005, if Ryan tried to say Bo killed Tara, then Bo could be confident the physical evidence would better support his story that Ryan killed her.

But look, even though I have my doubts, what happened to Tara could have happened just as Bo and Ryan seem to be saying, more or less. It's possible, but like so much about this case, it doesn't seem likely. I feel like there is a huge hole somewhere in this story, something we're missing.

As I see it, if there are lies being told then they can only be for two reasons: To protect someone or to diminish the extent of the crimes out of pure shame.

The refrain I keep hearing from people is "We'll probably never know what really happened," but I hope we do. I think the only hope for the real truth and for real closure for this case is a trial.

And people keep asking me when I think there will be a trial. Well, if there is a trial at all depends on whether Ryan pleads guilty or not guilty. If he pleads not guilty, who knows?

On "The Deal," Payne interviewed Colin Miller, a law professor at the University of South Carolina and a host of the podcast Undisclosed, which investigates possible wrongful convictions. Miller noted that in America we have a right to a speedy trial, and he anticipated a trial would come no later than 8 months after Ryan's arraignment, which is scheduled for May 4.

Well, let me tell you a story about justice in Irwin County, Georgia.

In March 2014, my friend, Samuel Chalyse Benson and his friend, Robert Green, were arrested in Irwin County on drug charges. After their arrest, they were each charged with multiple counts of child molestation. About the drug charges, I have no opinion, but after studying the case, talking to people, and because I know almost everyone involved, I do not believe the other, more terrible charges against them.

If I did believe those charges, I'd want them both to spend the rest of their days in prison, but I don't. In fact, no one I've talked to about the case believes they're guilty. In fact, I'm probably the most suspicious of them simply because I tend to be, well, rational to a fault. I've tried to examine the evidence fairly and honestly. Still, I don't think they're guilty of the worst things they're accused of.

But what I believe is immaterial because they are both innocent until proven guilty.

But that hasn't stopped them from sitting in jail, the same jail as Ryan Duke, for more than 3 years now. Three long years. Can you imagine sitting in jail for three years without a trial?

Neither was given a bond, and even now, no trial date has been set. Chalyse told me today that the earliest his trial can be held is November.

I believe Robert has had multiple public defenders through their years of incarceration. And because Chalyse fired his attorney after more than 2 years sitting in jail, he has been assigned an inexperienced public defender he has not even met. And that public defender will have to defend a case the prosecutor has had at least 3 1/2 years to prepare for.

Chalyse and Robert have already lost their right to a speedy trial, regardless of their innocence or guilt. I cannot see how they will receive a fair trial either.

That's an abortion of justice, and something needs to change, but I worry that it won't.

So when I hear that Ryan Duke's case may go to trial in 8 months, I know I won't be holding my breath.

Ryan Duke and Bo Dukes are innocent until proven guilty, too.

Correction: Irwin County Hospital does not provide dialysis treatment as I reported being told in my blog entry "The Stories of Ryan and Bo?" The hospital does not and has never provided dialysis treatment. I apologize for the incorrect information, and it has already been removed from the post. Irwin County Hospital is a fine institution with quality employees, and I definitely never intended to harm the hospital or its good reputation. -- Dusty Vassey

Friday, April 14, 2017

The Grand Jury Decisions


Photo: Vehicles from several television stations are parked outside the Irwin County Courthouse Wednesday, April 12, the day a Grand Jury indicted Ryan Duke in Ocilla, Georgia.

The Grand Jury Decisions

By now, most of you know that Ryan Alexander Duke was indicted by an Irwin County Grand Jury on all the charges levied against him in the Tara Grinstead murder case. The grand jurors voted for true bills on all six counts, which means they found probable cause to move forward with the indictments.

I was personally surprised and confused at first that two additional charges were added, as he was indicted on six charges rather than the four charges that were announced at his first court appearance on February 23. I've since learned a bit more about the two additional charges.

In February, Ryan was charged with murder, burglary, aggravated assault and concealing the death of another. In Georgia, there are primarily two types of murder charges, malice murder and felony murder. The original murder charge was felony murder, although it was not specifically indicated in the warrants issued for Ryan's arrest in February.

Wednesday, April 12, he was indicted on two counts of felony murder and one count of malice murder, so an additional felony murder charge and one count of malice murder were added.

Confused yet?

Let me explain how he can be charged with murder three times, when he is only actually accused of killing one person, Tara Grinstead. I'm not a lawyer of course, but I've covered enough court to have a decent grasp of these charges.

Malice murder includes what other states call premeditated murder, but it can also include other acts that cause deaths in which the purpose of the act was to kill or do harm. Malice murder is a crime when someone intentionally kills someone with malice aforethought. This is probably what most people think of when they think of the word "murder."

By charging Ryan Duke with malice murder, the prosecutors are saying he intended to kill Tara with malice aforethought, although the crime may not have been planned far in advance.

Felony murder is much different. Felony murder is a charge which is applied when someone dies, even unintentionally, during the commission of a felony. If a person dies during the commission of multiple felonies, someone can be charged with multiple counts of felony murder, even though only one death occurred. Defendants can and often are charged with both felony murder and malice murder, too, even when there was only one death.

Felony murder allows for charges to stem from a death that happens because of the commission a felony. If you fatally shoot someone, that might be both malice murder and felony murder because someone died during the commission of aggravated assault. If you fatally run over someone while trying to escape a robbery, that might be felony murder. Even if one of your fellow burglars is shot and killed by a homeowner during a burglary, you might be charged with felony murder.

Ryan Duke is alleged to have committed felony murder when he allegedly caused Tara's death while committing aggravated assault. He is also alleged to have committed felony murder when he allegedly caused Tara's death while committing burglary. The latter was the original felony murder charge that was levied against Ryan in February.

The two new charges, malice murder and the felony murder charge stemming from the alleged aggravated assault, were added as special presentments which were presented before the Grand Jury. Rather than being formally charged through arrest warrants, the Grand Jury was presented evidence or testimony by the prosecution during the closed Grand Jury session.

One of the important differences, from what I've read, with presentments is that they avoid the preliminary hearing in when the accused can question or confront law enforcement officers and other witnesses. Of course, Ryan Duke waived his right to a preliminary hearing, so no preliminary hearing was held anyway.

It may be that investigators determined they had enough evidence to support the two additional charges and rather than formally charging Ryan, they simply brought the evidence to the Grand Jury instead.

On Wednesday, April 12, a bench warrant was issued to arrest Ryan Duke on the two additional special presentment charges, malice murder and felony murder. Since he was already arrested and incarcerated, this seems like it was only a formality.

All three murder charges have a maximum penalty of death, but they can also result in either life in prison without the possibility of parole, or life in prison with the possibility of parole. According to attorney Philip Holloway on the Up and Vanished podcast April 13, if Ryan was found guilty of all charges, all of the charges but concealing a death would likely be absorbed by the malice murder charge. In that instance, he could face one of the three murder penalties plus up to 10 years for the concealing a death charge.

An additional revelation from the indictments was a major change to the burglary charge against Ryan Duke. When he was arrested in February, the arrest warrant stated that Ryan entered Tara's home in Ocilla unlawfully to commit the felonies of aggravated assault and murder. In Georgia, a burglary charge does not necessarily mean that someone illegally entered a place to commit theft. It can stem from an intention to commit any felony.

However, the burglary indictment against Ryan does not mention intentions of aggravated assault or murder. Instead, the burglary indictment states he entered Tara's home with the intent to commit theft. This suggests that the murder may have been a "burglary gone wrong" but also raises questions. It is curious that the prosecution changed its mind about the reason Ryan Duke allegedly entered that home.

I have been asked what Ryan could have stolen. Well, as Philip Holloway pointed out on Up and Vanished, the burglary charge does not require theft, only the intention of theft. But several items were reportedly missing from Tara's home, such as her purse, her keys, and some jewelry, although she may have been wearing the jewelry.

The aggravated assault indictment indicates that Ryan allegedly harmed her with his hands, as did the arrest warrant for the charge. No new details were revealed, and the indictment is vague about how hands were allegedly used to harm her.

The concealing a death charge also did not reveal anything new. Ryan is alleged to have removed Tara's body from her home in Ocilla. Some have questioned why he was not also charged in Ben Hill County, since that is where her body is alleged to have been moved to. My guess is that since the act of concealing a death would be considered a single act, it would only be charged in one county, probably where the act began, even though more than one county may have been involved. Perhaps an attorney who reads this can clarify.

The next step in the legal process is for Ryan to enter a plea. His arraignment is scheduled for May 4, which is when a plea is usually entered. Ryan could enter the plea in person, or his attorney could enter a waiver of arraignment and a not guilty plea without him present, which would allow Ryan to avoid being again captured on camera in a green striped detention center uniform.

Of course, he could enter a guilty plea if he wishes, and I believe he could do that even before May 4 if he so chooses and the court provides him the opportunity.

I have also been asked about the Grand Jury status of Bo Dukes, who is charged with concealing a death, tampering with evidence and hindering the apprehension of a criminal in relation to the death of Tara Grinstead. Note that since Bo's charges are in another county, his charges will be heard by a separate Grand Jury.

The Ben Hill County Clerk of Court office told me that the Ben Hill County Grand Jury has not yet heard Bo's case, so he has not been indicted, if he will be at all. The next meeting of the Ben Hill Grand Jury is set for June 19.

The law is complex, and in the situation where someone can be charged with murder multiple times for only one death, it doesn't make a lot of sense. I could be wrong about some of the nuances of what I said above, but I believe it's pretty close to correct. If you're an attorney, let me know where I've erred and I'll correct it.


Was I On the Grand Jury?

So, was I on the Grand Jury that decided to indict Ryan Duke this week?

No.

Well, more correctly I did not participate in hearing and judging Ryan's case. I don't know if "recused myself" is the correct term, so I'll just say I voluntarily excused myself from that particular case.

It was one of the toughest decisions I've ever made in my life, but I think it was the right one.

For those who might not know, I was selected for the Irwin County Grand Jury for the first time in February, not knowing that just a few weeks later Ryan Duke would be arrested in a case that was incredibly important to me for more than a quarter of my life. Even as I sat stunned in that courtroom on February 23, realizing "I'm on this Grand Jury of all Grand Juries," I didn't know that covering this story would basically take over my life, but it has.

A friend advised me to keep quiet about serving on the Grand Jury because the prosecution would probably strike me from it, so I didn't talk about it a lot. Some folks knew, including even Payne Lindsey of Up and Vanished. I didn't really make it a secret, but I just didn't advertise it.

I was worried that I would be struck from the Grand Jury, and I wanted to serve, but as the date approached, other worries crept in. I worried that serving on the Grand Jury and keeping what happens in the jury room secret, as I swore an oath to do, would make my job extremely difficult. When the arrest was announced, I was just a small-town journalist covering a news story. Two months later, I'm still a small-town journalist covering a news story, but I'm also a surprisingly well read blogger whose posts are mostly devoted to the Tara Grinstead case, a semi-regular guest on one of the most popular podcasts in the nation, and an aspiring author writing a true crime book about the case.

I'm also in a very real way investigating the case and trying to reveal the truth about what actually happened in October 2005. Some of you would say to leave it to the professionals, but when you have people coming to you with information and tips, when people for some reason look to you for answers, and when you care as much about finding this particular truth as I do, you don't really have any choice.

For all of those various hats I'm now wearing, from journalist to investigator, serving on that Grand Jury for Tara's case would make my jobs very difficult. In everything I wrote, in every online discussion or struck up conversation, I would have to avoid my knowledge from the Grand Jury like a landmine. If I learned something independently of the Grand Jury, I could use it for whatever purpose I wanted, but if someone accused me of using my Grand Jury knowledge, I might have to reveal my true source or else face prosecution. Then again, some might accuse me of using my Grand Jury knowledge to ask the right questions or avoid the wrong answers.

I've made it clear that I have doubts that Tara was killed in her home, as the Georgia Bureau of Investigation alleges. If I suddenly changed my tune and stopped questioning whether she was killed in her home, people would be able to guess that I had knowledge that made me believe she was killed there. I might not, in that situation, be intentionally revealing information from the Grand Jury room, but in essence, I would be.

Of course, the fact that the Grand Jury did choose to indict Ryan Duke gives me more confidence in the GBI's allegations, although I still hold onto my doubts and questions. I stated this after the Grand Jury's indictment, and I quickly realized, if I had served on the Grand Jury, I would not have even been able to say that. People would have interpreted that as me revealing what should be secret information.

But I do want to take an aside to say a few things.

Some people seemed to take my last blog post, "If I Was On the Grand Jury," as if I was saying I did not think Ryan Duke was guilty. That is not what I was saying at all. Although at times I have leaned one way or another, I do not currently have any idea whether Ryan Duke killed Tara Grinstead. I am not sure she was murdered at all. I don't know how more impartial you can get than that, had I served on the Grand Jury.

In my years as a journalist, I have sometimes lamented the fact that we usually only present one side of a crime story, at least until the trial. We usually only present the prosecution's side. Whether it's a drunk driving charge or malice murder, we inadvertently support the allegations against the accused by listing the charges against them without any counter-argument. We are careful to put "alleged" or "accused of" to try to seem like we are not accusing people of the crimes they are charged with, but then we present the narrative law enforcement presents, which makes them seem like criminals.

Now, I understand why it's like that. Especially with a small town newspaper you do not have the time or resources to examine every case thoroughly or to learn about every side. And frankly, most of the time, law enforcement's story is right.

But we live in the world of OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony. We live in the world where someone accused of destroying a person's body gets a cheaper bond than someone who possesses an illegal drug for their own personal use. We live in a world where law enforcement can be given a tip about Ryan Duke in 2005 and not make an arrest until 2017.

The legal system, and all its components, can and does make mistakes, and it's my job, in all my hats, to question that system and to make sure it is doing its job correctly. And in this case, if no others, I have decided to dedicate the resources to show all sides.

So I won't feel guilty for presenting information that questions the official story or that might make someone question Ryan Duke's role in Tara's death. The truth is not one-sided, and truth-tellers should not be either.

We ought to tell all sides in all cases; we just simply can't. But I can do my best to do that in this one.

So back to why I excused myself from the Grand Jury...

Monday, I called to ask District Attorney Paul Bowden if Ryan Duke's case would be presented to the Grand Jury Wednesday. He said he would not normally tell the media, but he didn't know how to react since I was also a grand juror. I didn't want to abuse my position, so I told the truth, that I was calling as the media, and I accepted his response, which was no comment.

But it made me think even more about my conflicted role. Bowden's response told me that I wasn't surely going to be struck from the Grand Jury, although it might have still been a possibility.

Tuesday, I tried to sleep and my various worries were weighing on my mind. I started realizing that even if I wasn't struck from the Grand Jury, I might want to ask to be off of it, if that was even possible.

It bothered me that I had such pointed questions that might not be asked if I was off the jury, particularly about whether Tara was killed in her home in Ocilla. If she wasn't killed there, it would mean Ryan Duke might should be charged in another county or might not should be charged at all. I wrote "If I Was On the Grand Jury" primarily to introduce those questions to other members of the Grand Jury, in the hopes they might ask them in my absence.

But I should say that even if the prosecution only has the evidence I have reason to believe they do have, I probably would have voted for a true bill. That possible evidence is a link to the latex glove found in Tara's yard, the testimony of Bo Dukes and a confession by Ryan Duke. Although the glove might have been dropped after driving Tara's car back to her home, although I would not necessarily believe the testimony of a convicted thief like Bo Dukes, and although I think it is possible Ryan Duke is taking a fall since he may have serious health problems and may need the free health care he gets in jail, a Grand Jury does not need the stringent proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a trial jury needs. A Grand Jury only needs to believe probable cause exists to believe the defendant is guilty.

So, then, Tuesday afternoon, I got a message to call Judge Bill Reinhardt, the chief superior court judge of the Tifton Judicial Circuit. First off, I should say that although I don't know the man well, I've always been impressed with Judge Reinhardt in all my dealings with him. I find him to be friendly, thorough and fair-minded. I think he's a good guy and a good judge.

I called him, and we only talked briefly. He said he wanted to put something in my ear, which if you're not familiar with that phrase, means he wanted to inform me of something I might not be thinking about. He said I had done nothing wrong; he just wanted to talk to me. We agreed to meet at 9 a.m. in his chambers on Wednesday, about 30 minutes before the Grand Jury convened.

Honestly, I looked forward to talking to him, because I hoped he might give me some advice on how to handle my strange, difficult situation. I guessed that he planned to encourage me to step off the Grand Jury, but I was actually wrong about that.

After exchanging pleasantries, we talked about the subject. Bowden had sent him a copy of "If I Was On the Grand Jury," and from what the judge read, he thought I wanted off the Grand Jury. I told him I wasn't sure. I had conflicted feelings.

I'll be honest, the part of me that has wanted to know what happened to Tara Grinstead since October 25, 2005 really wanted me in that jury room, hearing that evidence. But that was a purely selfish reason.

More altruistically, I wanted to serve on the jury because I felt like it was my duty, because I thought I would make a good juror who could use his knowledge about the case to ask some questions I believe need to be asked. He even said the questions I had were good questions. He said that selfishly, he wanted me on the jury because I was intelligent, wanted to serve and cared about my community.

Some of you may be saying, "But Dusty knows too much to serve in this case," well that probably doesn't matter. An attorney friend shared with me that according to Georgia law "a person is not disqualified or incompetent to serve as a grand juror by reason of bias or prejudice on his part, by the fact that he has heard or read about the case under investigation or has even formed or expressed an opinion as to the guilt of the accused." And I doubt anyone in the jury room was not well informed of at least the basics of Ryan Duke's case.

I got the impression that the prosecution might ask the judge to strike me from the Grand Jury though, but based on his demeanor, I don't think Judge Reinhardt would have struck me, probably due to the case law I quoted above. There's no way to know because it never got that far, but I wondered then what conspiracy theories people might proclaim if the court did strike me from the jury. I didn't want to be the cause of that sort of chaos.

I was leaning toward asking off the jury, but there was a reason that would have pushed me to stay on it. I asked Judge Reinhardt if what happens in the Grand Jury room is secret until the end of the trial or secret forever. If one day I could have reported on what happened in that jury room, it would have been worth the pitfalls it would create for me as a writer.

"Forever," the judge said, and within moments, my mind was made up. I would excuse myself for Ryan Duke's case but continue to serve for the other cases.

Judge Reinhardt never seemed to intentionally encourage me one way or the other, but he inadvertently did push me one way with something he said. He said that while serving on the Grand Jury is an important duty, my duty informing the public as a journalist might be even more important.

Maybe so. I don't know. I'm proud to be able to do both, even in a limited capacity.

Tuesday, April 11, 2017

If I Was On the Grand Jury


Photo: GBI Special Agent Jason Shoudel leads Ryan Duke into the courtroom for his first appearance Feb. 23, 2017 as Irwin County Clerk of Court Nancy Ross looks on.

If I Was on the Grand Jury

In less than 24 hours, the Irwin County Grand Jury will convene for the first time since Ryan Duke was arrested and charged with the murder of Tara Grinstead.

We don't know for sure that Ryan Duke's case will be heard by the Grand Jury, and if it is, the grand jurors will only hear one side of the story, the prosecution's side. But they can ask questions.

If I was on the Grand Jury, I would have a lot of questions I would want answered.

The first and most important question is "Why?" Why do investigators believe Ryan Duke killed Tara? Why do they believe he did it? What was his alleged motive?

I may be able to answer the first "Why?" I've been told Bo Dukes told investigators Ryan did it. I believe a DNA link was made to the glove found in Tara's yard. I've even been told Ryan confessed.

But I've never heard a satisfying answer to why he may have killed her. Not once.

And even if I'm right with my above assertions what do they tell us? Bo Dukes is someone who stole from our military during war time. Can he be believed? All a DNA link to a glove tells us is that someone was in Tara's yard. It doesn't tell us if that someone killed her or even if she was killed at all.

I would ask for what proof there is that she was murdered.

Even if Ryan confessed, could you believe a man who has kidney problems, who might be slowly dying, might take a fall to protect someone, possibly friends or family or a romantic interest? Beyond the rumors of renal failure, we know Ryan has kidney problems because they were mentioned in reports when he was arrested in 2010.

I would ask if Ryan is dying.

If all the Georgia Bureau of Investigation has as far as evidence linking Ryan to that house is the testimony of a thief, a link to a glove that places him outside, not inside, and the confession of a dying man, then if I was on the Grand Jury, I would have even further questions.

You see, I've heard a few rumors that supposedly originated with Ryan Duke, and in those rumors, if they are true, he told someone he was taking the fall. One of those rumors I consider to be more than a rumor since I can follow a "chain of custody" back to Ryan himself. Ryan told someone who told someone I trust who told me.

And what Ryan told this someone is that Tara died accidentally and some people freaked out and tried to cover up her death. And while I don't believe everything about this story, one part of it rings true in my ears.

Supposedly, in this story, she died in a pecan orchard, not at her home.

I think that before Ryan Duke was arrested most people believed Tara left her home voluntarily when she disappeared in 2005. The evidence seemed to suggest that.

It still does.

If I was on the grand jury, I would have lots of questions about whether Tara even died at her home. I think the evidence strongly suggests otherwise.

Why are there no clear signs of a struggle? Dr. Maurice Godwin's investigation into the case showed things that could indicate a struggle, such as a broken lamp and a broken necklace clasp, but the initial law enforcement officers on the scene said there were no signs of a struggle. At best, we can say the evidence is inconclusive as to whether there was a struggle.

Why are there are no signs of forced entry into Tara's home? Again, Godwin found evidence that suggests it would have been easy to open one of her windows, but I've never heard of any actual evidence that someone used that window or any other to enter her home. Again, at best the evidence is inconclusive.

Why was her purse missing? Would someone kill Tara, drag her body to a vehicle and also take her purse? Why? To make it seem like she left voluntarily or that the crime was a robbery of some sort? It doesn't seem plausible. Could it be to hide DNA or fingerprints? Again, not likely. Without resorting to fanciful thinking, the missing purse strongly indicates that she left on her own.

Why were her keys missing or the pageant tape she was supposed to watch that night? Perhaps they were in her purse? Someone might take the keys to be able to freely enter her house or drive her car, and the pageant tape may not have existed at all, but considered along with the other evidence, it seems unlikely someone would take the time to steal them.

Why did her dog, Dolly Madison, not make a loud enough fuss to wake neighbors if someone was attacking her owner inside her home? Why was Dolly, an inside dog, left outside? Did Tara let her out when she left to go elsewhere?

Why was Tara missing at all? I haven't researched this, but common sense will tell you that most murder victims are left where they die. Why take the risk of moving a body, especially when the killer would have to drive a nerve-wracking 20 minutes to the pecan orchard where her remains were believed to be disposed of.

Furthermore, how could a relatively small man like Ryan Duke carry her body on his own? It would be possible, probably, but also very difficult.

Why was her seat let back in her car? Although this might be explained by an investigator letting it back while processing the car for clues, a more likely reason is that someone taller than Tara, who was short, drove the car.

Why were her tires muddy on the car she kept impeccably clean? She was not known to drive anywhere muddy on the night she disappeared. Did someone drive the car somewhere muddy, such as a pecan orchard with a pond?

Why was $100 in cash found inside her unlocked car? Wouldn't Tara have brought the money inside if she was home for the evening?

One of the reasons I keep asking all these questions is a new clue I recently learned, or at least, it was a new clue to me. An eyewitness told me that she was coming home on the night Tara went missing and she looked over at Tara's house and saw the carport light on, and Tara's car was missing at 1:30 a.m.

Where was her car? Could someone have driven the car back to Tara's yard and worn latex gloves to hide their fingerprints? Could that same person have dropped the glove in Tara's yard as they walked to the road to be picked up, and in a twist of irony, the thing they hoped would disguise their identity would one day be used to identify them?

I think it's possible.

But there could be evidence we in the public don't know, evidence that clearly indicates what happened and why. But we don't know.

And if I was on the Grand Jury, I would want to know, because I am very afraid we were being sold a lie, not by the GBI, but by those the GBI has chosen to believe. I don't know what the purpose of this lie could be, who it could be trying to protect, or what the truth actually is, but the clues do not seem to add up to the picture the GBI, and possibly Bo Dukes and Ryan Duke, are presenting.

If I was on the Grand Jury, I would want answers.

And the thing is, I am on the Grand Jury. At least for now. And I do want answers.

I was chosen for my first Grand Jury in February, not knowing that an arrest would be made in the Tara Grinstead case just a few weeks into my 6 month term. I might be struck from the Grand Jury because of my coverage of the case or I might even ask to be excused because it might complicate my continuing coverage, but right now I'm on it.

Frankly I haven't made my mind up about Ryan Duke, so I would consider myself impartial in that regard, and no one in the jury room will be ignorant of the case, probably in part because they've read articles I've written. I think it might be good to have someone as knowledgeable about the case as me in the jury room, because I will ask questions and seek the truth, but I'm sure I'm not the only one who will be knowledgeable or who would ask questions.

And it's entirely possible the GBI has the right guy and the right story, and that the evidence is overwhelmingly in support of that story, but it's also possible, from what we know, that the GBI accepted an incomplete or even faulty story they wanted to hear to solve a case that seemed unsolvable for more than a decade.

We might know more and already have answers, but a gag order in this case and the usual secrecy of law enforcement investigations have left more questions than answers, and as I've said before, suspicion fills the vacuum left by secrecy.

If I'm not on the Grand Jury for whatever reason, I want the other jurors to know the questions I would ask. Because we need the truth more than a misled conviction.  If the wrong man is convicted or guilty parties go free, then there is no justice.

And everyone seems to want justice for Tara, but there can be no justice without first knowing the truth.

If the evidence is there, then by all means, I hope the Grand Jury indicts Ryan Duke, but the first job of the grand jurors is to make sure the evidence is there. Find the truth, with or without me.

Tuesday, April 4, 2017

Unstung Hero III



Photo: These yellowjackets building a nest on my front porch don't really have much to do with this story, but they certainly don't bode well for the future.

Unstung Hero III

So I just went to the bathroom. Sorry, you can't choose how every story starts.

So I stood up after just finishing my business when I hear a buzzing from my bathroom window. I thought, no I hoped, it was a fly. It wasn't.

There are three things I am deathly afraid of. Actually, there are more than three. The list includes failure, success, women, rejection. There are three types of creatures I am deathly afraid of: Snakes, pitbulls and flying, stinging insects.

Sharks would be on the list but I have the good sense to stay out of the ocean.

Anyway, of those creatures that petrify me, my fear of flying, stinging insects is the one I most regularly face because there are plenty of bees, wasps, yellowjackets and hornets around my house.
My fear of them is not even entirely irrational. When I was a kid, I was stung by a wasp four times and nearly died because of an allergic reaction. I've never been stung as an adult so I don't know if I still have the allergy, but I'm quite satisfied never learning if I do.

But when I stood there, pants down, and looked in my bathroom window, it wasn't a fly. It was an enormous hornet. I mean, this wasn't just a measly little honey bee. This was a full-size, heavy-duty war machine of stinging.

But it was trapped between the blinds and the window, trying to fly through the glass unsuccessfully.
I was suddenly so afraid. I so wanted to get out of the room that I even considered not wiping.

Don't worry. I did.

Since the toilet is beside the window, I had to throw some deep passes, Tom Brady style.

Afterward, I quickly washed my hands, shut the door and strategized.

You have to understand that I really am deeply afraid of these things. A few years ago, yellowjackets at every door left me trapped inside my home. Another time, a yellowjacket building a nest on my front door kept me from going inside. I wrote about these incidents in The Ocilla Star in a couple of stories titled "Unstung Hero."

But this was worse than being stuck inside or blocked out. This was like the moment in the horror movie when you learn the call is coming from inside the house.

For my own peace of mind, I had to become the mighty hunter and kill that damn hornet. We simply could not co-exist peacefully.

I rolled up a softback book, about the size of a magazine but thicker, and I made my approach. I opened the door and peered inside. You've all seen that moment in the horror movie, where the spunky protagonist grips the kitchen knife and steels herself before going to face the slasher psycho.

This was nothing like that.

Instead, I just stood there and looked. I leaned in to make sure the hornet wasn't prowling in the nearby corners or under the shade of my lamp.

I didn't hear any buzzing, so I gingerly entered the bathroom. I saw it, the hornet, just where I left it, sitting at the bottom of the windowsill. It was completely motionless.

I thought, "Is it dead?" Had one of the several spiders in my bathroom killed it?

And yes, I'm not afraid of spiders. I'm not entirely a coward, despite the reputation I've earned over the past week or so.

I like having some spiders in my house because they keep the fruit fly population under control, and fruit flies are a nuisance when you're a slob who leaves Dr. Pepper cans littering his living room. I don't mind the spiders so much, as long as they don't crawl on me, but damn, if I do find one on me it might as well be a hornet because I freak out like I've been hit with a Taser.

Anyway, I had a hornet to deal with, but it seemed like it might be dead. I slowly moved over to the window, and I grabbed the string to the blinds and put just enough tension on the cord to make the bottom part of the blinds flinch.

The hornet's wings popped up in a show of intimidation and dominance. I halted. The hornet began turning a circle until it faced me. I retreated, but the evil little thing just kept on circling.

What was I to do?

If I pulled up the blind, the dastardly creature might charge at me and sting me to my very death. Or I might just have a heart attack and die from pure fright. No, I could't pull up the blind.

Then I realized the heavy bottom part of the blind might work as a cudgel. If I used the book to slam the bottom of the blind into the hornet, I might not have to lift the blinds at all.

So, I did just that. I used the rolled up book to slam the blind forward over and over. I never heard a buzz. I never heard a scream. But when I stopped slamming, the hornet seemed to be dead.

Then, I slammed it a few more times, just to be sure.

I feel like the mighty hunter!

At least until the next time I hear a buzz.

If you're interested in reading my past adventures with the yellowjackets, read Unstung Hero and Unstung Hero II.

Anger Anxiety and Apologies



I should be finishing the paper right now or sleeping or getting well. Instead, I'm bothered and down and embarrassed and feel I must admit my failings and in my own way, repent.

But before I admit my mistakes, I'm going to talk about criticism and cowardice and bravery.

I'm thin-skinned. It's one of my many, many flaws. Some, but not all criticisms wound and consume me.

You might think I'm talking about the person who called my blog circular reasoning, but that one didn't really bother me. It was just the final straw in that relationship. I'm not going to help someone who regularly and needlessly disrespects me.

Then, today with Wendy Floyd… I asked her respectfully not to accuse people on my Facebook page. She did again, while also calling me a coward. Her insults didn't bother me, not much, but I am not going to let her accuse people on my page anymore.

Then, I blocked someone on Facebook for the first time, her. A few minutes later I blocked someone for the second time when she came on with another account. Minutes later, she called me.

I told her to stop harassing me. She insulted and challenged me. I was angry, but I was trying to control my emotions.

Then she insinuated that God took my late nephew because I'm not a Christian.

"He already took your nephew," she said. "What's next?"

I hung up rather than say the nastiest things I have ever said to a human being. I wasn't insulted or wounded. I was just deeply, seethingly angry.

This experience, more than any in my life, has shown me that people are good or evil due entirely to their character, not their religious beliefs. Because I know people who wouldn't lift a Bible if there was gold under it who would have never even thought to say something so vile and despicable.

I'm going to seethe over what she said for some time, and I'm going to explore my legal options to end her harassment, but it's still not the type of criticism that wounds me, which curdles my confidence.

Someone tonight on Up and Vanished said that, to him, reading yesterday's blog was like "a 40-year-old madame reading the sex journal of a 13-year-old virgin." Now, first off, I respect the artistry. That's as colorful and creative as criticisms come.

But I felt run over, crushed. I admired the beauty of the classic automobile that ran over me, but I was crushed just the same.

You can disagree with my assertions, my conclusions or my political beliefs, and it doesn't faze me, but if you criticize my creations or the style of them, I wilt. I can receive 99 compliments, but that one criticism just crumbles me.

It's stupid, I know, but I thrive on honesty.

But that's OK. My friend Daniel keeps telling me that I need to prepare myself for it, and this right here is my way of working through these anxieties. What I'm writing now is my own strange therapy.

But I want y'all to know that even though I call myself a coward, I've seen dozens of sappy adventure movies where the moral of the story is that bravery is not being without fear, it's about having the courage to overcome that fear.

So when I say these things in this public forum, know that the bravery it requires is almost Herculean, because I am deeply afraid of those even deeper wounds I know the next criticism will cause.

But still I keep writing.

And another crippling fear I must face each time I write is the possibility that I'm making a mistake, and already, in the past 5 to 6 weeks, I've made a few. Last night, I did again.

I wondered aloud if someone I called "Courtney" was telling someone named koeli information about me or if they were actually the same person. I was confused because information I had just told "Courtney" suddenly appeared on the Up and Vanished board said by koeli.

Well, as it turns out, they probably had no connection at all.

Someone told me tonight that I was the one who shared the information myself, several weeks ago. If you read last night's blog, you know I briefly joined a private discussion group one night. Apparently, I shared the information with the group then, the information koeli later shared on UAV.

I checked the dates, and I joined the discussion group the day after I heard the information, so it was fresh on my mind. I can't know for sure, but I was probably the source, and it was probably just a damnable coincidence that the information came to light on UAV the day after I told "Courtney."

So, I want to apologize to koeli especially, since I used her actual UAV handle, but I also apologize to "Courtney."

Apparently, I burned my bridge with "Courtney," who told me tonight that they were going to keep their story safe, i.e. they weren't going to tell me what they weren't telling me anyway. I think I may have even been blocked.

That's OK. I still didn't really trust "Courtney" as a source, since I have no idea who they are or what they wanted from me. It's hard to trust someone who won't even share their name.

(My long-time online girlfriend would also find that last statement ironic).

Basically, I'm like a lawyer, who once you pay them they're on the clock and they can invoke attorney-client privilege. With me, once you give me your name and tell me something you want kept secret (usually even if I think you might want to keep it secret without you explicitly saying so) I'm working to protect you.

I guess I'm going to burn bridges as part of this particular job, though. I've scorched at least three in less than 24 hours. I hate it, but I've got to trust my gut, even if it sometimes fails me. I want to do the right thing. I don't want to make people angry or hurt feelings, and I feel like I did with "Courtney," and that's why I feel guilty about it all.

I'm sorry. I really am.

No one ever said that feeling alive wouldn't make you feel miserable sometimes. At least I'm feeling something.

Oh well, I've got a job to do. A lot of them.

Monday, April 3, 2017

The Maddening Role of Social Media


Photo: Pictured is part of my computer desktop showing some the social media I had open as I finished this article, including Facebook and the Up and Vanished discussion board.

The Maddening Role of Social Media

Since the disappearance of Tara Grinstead in 2005, the importance of social media in the lives of people throughout the world has grown incredibly.

Since the early days of the search for Tara, the internet played a steady role, but the role expanded quickly to include chat rooms, discussion boards, and private discussion groups. After the arrest of Ryan Duke was announced, Facebook became my headquarters for information and even allowed me to conduct several interviews, but it also served as a massive distraction that took up hours each day of checking messages, reading comments and responding to them both.

Because I am working on a book about Tara and her disappearance, I want to record some of the strangeness that has arisen in this case due to social media. It's never been as crazy as this week, at least not to me, so the topic is timely.

After I wrote the story "The Day Ocilla Stood Still" for my blog, my life changed due to social media. I went from less than 500 friends on Facebook to almost 1,700. I gained hundreds of followers on Facebook, too. Suddenly, I went from writing for an audience of maybe 3,000 with The Ocilla Star newspaper to having as many as 35,000 people reading what I was writing.

And don't get me wrong, the compliments and encouragement I have received not only touched my heart, I think they pulled me out of a depression that has lasted most of my adult life. I feel like your response to what I wrote woke me up and made my life feel worthwhile again.

But, when someone asked me recently how it felt to be a celebrity, I didn't demure modestly and timidly say that "I'm not a celebrity," which I certainly could have. I'm only famous within a certain group and even now, that minor celebrity is fading. No, I still gave an honest answer.

How does it feel to be a celebrity? "Nerve-wracking," I said.

And it is. I have to worry about the implications of everything I write now. I have to worry about possibly angering people accused of despicable crimes. I have to worry about some of the things I've said shaping public perception. I even have to worry about things I say in private messages being twisted or told to the public at large.

I've always tried to be careful with my writing, but now I have to be careful on a whole new level, and it's not just with my writings. Because I've become something of a public figure in this case, I even have to watch what I say. Very closely.

Am I exaggerating? Not even slightly.

About angering people, I was told this weekend that someone was threatening me on the Up and Vanished discussion board. I was told that someone said I needed to keep the name Bo Dukes out of my mouth or else. Bo Dukes is accused of helping to cover up Tara's murder.

I couldn't find the post where I was supposedly threatened, but there are thousands of posts on the UAV board every day, so it's difficult to be sure it doesn't exist. Whether it's true or not, I already had that worry at the back of my mind. I also have the chain locked on my door, which I don't usually.

About shaping public perception, I've been told by several people in the Irwin County community that most people don't believe the official story the Georgia Bureau of Investigation is presenting through the arrest warrants for Ryan Duke and Bo Dukes. I worry that what I've written may have shaped that perception because I have either questioned the official story or hinted at its weaknesses before.

I really hope I haven't led to this belief, especially since I think the official story makes the most sense right now, from what we know. Of course I'm skeptical, but the GBI must have investigated this story very well. It wouldn't surprise me if there were polygraph results, testimony, DNA and other evidence that point toward the GBI's conclusions.

About watching what I say in private messages, it was just today that I learned just how much I should be watching my mouth, or in this case, my fingers typing. I'll have to start from the beginning, which was only a few days ago.

Friday, I woke up with a scratchy throat and feeling miserable, so I called in to work. It may have just been allergies since by now, on Sunday, I feel almost OK, although my voice is gone. Regardless, I slept till like 7 p.m. Friday, and I noticed a message on Facebook I must have missed.

This person with an obviously made-up name had sent me a message. I'll call this person Courtney, since I don't even know if it was a man or woman and I've heard of both men and women with that name. Courtney warned me about how someone was being rude toward me in online discussions. Since I couldn't verify what Courtney said, I won't say who was supposed to be being rude. Supposedly, this person refers to me as "Dumb Dusty."

Courtney and I had a long conversation in the wee hours of Saturday morning in which we discussed various aspects of the case. Through the midst of the conversation, it was clear that Courtney was, for lack of a better term, pro-Bo Dukes. By that, I mean that he or she believed or supported the GBI's official story and believes that Ryan Duke was the killer of Tara Grinstead.

This put me in the position of playing devil's advocate, which was easy enough since I am somewhat skeptical of the official story, so I gave Courtney some of my reasons for questioning the GBI's story. This was all through a private discussion.

For instance, one of the things that doesn't make sense to me is why Tara's purse was taken from her house. For months now, even before the arrests, I've said that if you could explain to me why Tara's purse was taken, I could tell you what happened to her.

Months ago, before the arrests, I started a blog entry in which I examined three possible scenarios. Tara was last known to be seen at a barbecue in Ocilla. When she left the barbecue either one of three things must have happened. Either she 1. Never went home, 2. Went home and left voluntarily, or 3. Went home and was taken from her home (either alive or dead).

Although I never finished the blog entry, I already knew that the idea that she was taken from her home was the least likely because of the missing purse. Why would someone take her and also take her purse? I can come up with reasons such as there being blood or fingerprints on the purse or that it was some half-hearted attempt to make it look like a theft-motivated burglary, but none of those seem very plausible.

Courtney said to ask if I had any specific questions, and this was the question I posed. Why was her purse missing? Courtney didn't know.

Courtney was very knowledgeable about the case though, or seemed to be. He or she was so knowledgeable that I wondered and still wonder if I was talking to someone very close to Bo Dukes or even Bo Dukes himself.

It may have even been both, as there was some indication that I was talking to two different people. I was told, Courtney "is asleep now" by someone using his or her account. Who was saying that?

Courtney was very adamant that I not expose what he or she was telling me, but this put me in a strange position. I don't know who he or she is. I don't know why he or she was talking to me. I don't know what his or her agenda is.

In my career as a journalist, I've rarely had to protect an anonymous source, at least until the past month or so. But every time I have had to protect an anonymous source, the source hasn't been anonymous to me. It's hard to feel a sense of loyalty to someone who won't even share their own name with you.

(The long-time online girlfriend I never met would find that last statement ironic).

Anyway, after this conversation with Courtney, the next day two of the things I said to him or her in this private conversation wound up on the Up and Vanished discussion board in a twisted fashion. Most prominently, a poster named koeli said that I said Ryan Duke had a child.

What I told Courtney was that someone told me Ryan had a child, but I also said I had only heard it from one person. For what it's worth, I think if he did have a child I would have heard it from more than one person by now. An Up and Vanished administrator said the idea that Ryan had a child was false, too, for what that's worth.

But this led me to wonder how this koeli person knew even that I was told Ryan had a kid. Was koeli Courtney? They certainly seemed different. While Courtney seemed almost pro-Bo, koeli seemed virulently anti-Bo. Koeli claimed not to have talked to me. Did Courtney tell koeli? Or had I told someone else the things koeli seemed to know?

One person contacted me and told me that a woman I know through Facebook told a private discussion board that I told her Ryan had a kid. Since all my communications with this woman were through Facebook, I read through our conversations. I never told her anything about Ryan having a kid, so it couldn't have been her. So why was someone trying to tell me that this woman was the source?

What the hell is going on?!

It really doesn't matter I suppose. Ryan probably doesn't have a kid, and I just need to be more careful with what I say, especially on social media like Facebook, even in private.

It was really my first personal taste of the sort of drama I've read about on the Up and Vanished boards. It seems that this sometimes duplicitous artificial community has grown out of the discussion board. People are accused of being trolls or hackers, people argue, and more than once, I've been told to look out for this person or that.

It really makes you wonder why. I mean, why participate at all? I do, somewhat, because I'm a journalist actively covering this emerging story who is also writing a book about it. I have to participate in the board, at least to some extent. But why do so many other people participate in the sometimes poisonous exercise of posting on the boards?

I really can't answer. I know the level of fascination with this case borders on obsession, and I'm no different than many, many others in that regard. Even if I wasn't a journalist doing all those things I listed above, I think I would still be utterly fixated by this case. It's compelling because it's a mystery and remains so even after the arrests. More than 11 years of speculation have left lots of dangling parts which still fascinate the public like a baby's diorama.

This segues into another interesting story about my interactions with social media in regard to Tara's case. Several weeks ago, I joined a private discussion group, in part due to curiosity. This is a group that requires a password to join, not an open, public forum like the Up and Vanished board. I wanted to know what these people were saying and why they were caught up in the case so deeply that they would spend their Friday night discussing it with strangers.

I was actually interviewing someone on Facebook at the time, and since most people use cell phones to type, the interview was going slowly, so I would sort of spy on the discussion board without actually participating for the first hour or two.

I noticed that some of the discussion reflected something that has become a pet peeve of mine when it comes to Tara's case: Irrationally holding on to past theories about who killed Tara. There's no reason at this point to consider folks like Marcus Harper or Heath Dykes or a few others persons of interest in this case, and unless new, earth-shaking evidence is revealed that points toward them, it's beyond cruel to continue to accuse them. Yet, some people still do. It's maddening.

So, when my interview ended, I was like a dog off its leash. I started tearing into the illogical nature of these accusations, probably a bit too strongly. I said that it was wrong to publicly accuse people without good reason.

One of those who was pointing fingers started arguing with me, and I argued back for a moment, but then I backed off after just a bit. But even after I backed off, the guy continuously said something like, "I wish you could read as well as you write."

I really didn't understand what he meant, at least not at first. I politely thanked everyone and left the discussion group.

After I left, I realized what I wasn't reading. I was saying it was wrong to accuse people in public, but the accusations were being made in front of a private group. How can you accuse someone publicly in private? Fair enough. I get the point.

But, you can have a party with thousands of people that is by invite only and call it private, but if you say something in front of those thousands of people, I still feel like that's saying something in public. This was maybe 20 people, but it still felt like "public" to me.

A friend who is a journalist I respect recently said that my writings are feeding the speculation I despise, but I don't really mind speculation. It's the irrational accusations, especially in public, that annoy me, and I hope I'm not contributing to that.

I think it's worthwhile to explain why accusing people in public is my pet peeve. Some may call me a hypocrite, but I feel like I've learned from my mistakes. It takes some explaining.

I've never thought Marcus Harper was responsible for Tara's disappearance or death. He was probably the most accused, publicly denigrated person in this whole ordeal, since suspicion tends to fall on husbands, boyfriends and exes, but I never thought it was him.

For full disclosure, Marcus and I were in the same class in high school, and I considered him a friend, although we weren't all that close. I was the type of kid who was picked on a lot, and I never remember Marcus being one of those who would do the picking. He was always kind to me. But I had not talked to him in more than 20 years until recently.

My friendship with Marcus is not the reason I never suspected him. The reason I never suspected him is that the idea of his involvement didn't make sense to me. I worked at The Tifton Gazette newspaper when Tara went missing, and on October 26, 2005, a photographer and I came to Ocilla to search for Tara with a couple of Tifton Police officers. One of those officers worked part-time in Ocilla and he knew Marcus and Tara. The officer said that Marcus could have been with Tara if he wanted, that Tara was madly in love with him, and 11 years of studying the case only reinforced those points and provided new reasons not to suspect Marcus, such as the fact that he had alibis for much of the time when Tara went missing.

Of course, I had my suspicions over the years, and since I never thought it was Marcus, you might guess who I suspected, but even then I wasn't convinced. Although I sometimes discussed theories in private, I never got on discussion boards sharing my theories. I never felt sure that someone was guilty, at least until about 5 months ago.

In November, the night before I had surgery to remove a lump on my buttock... I can't make this up... I received information that kept me up all night and convinced me I knew who killed Tara Grinstead. Although it was minor surgery, there's always a chance you never wake up, so there was a part of me happy to know that I wouldn't die without knowing who killed her. After I woke up, I spent the next several months putting together a theory about how, why and by whom Tara was killed.

Of course, my theory was completely wrong.

I realized I was probably wrong the night before Ryan Duke's arrest was announced. I had forgotten that the FBI said Tara was suspected to be wearing jogging pants and a specific pair of tennis shoes when she went missing. I could not make those facts logically fit what was already a convoluted theory.

I thought of this as I went to sleep February 22, and then the world changed on February 23.

And I felt guilty, and I should have, for being convinced someone who was innocent was guilty. But more than just suspicions and speculation, I had told several people about my theory, and since some of the people I talk to most work in a public place, some of those discussions were held where anyone could have overheard.

It's shameful, I know, but all I can do now is try never to do something like that again, and it's why I hate it when people publicly accuse people now, especially those who almost certainly had nothing to do with Tara's death. I despised that I was the kind of person who did that, and I despise it now when others do.

But we hate most the things we hate most about ourselves.

But really, it's just human nature. All nature, human or otherwise, abhors a vacuum, and something always rushes to fill it. A mystery is a vacuum and that vacuum is filled with our suspicions.

I could just as easily rail against people making accusations in private, but that's just completely unrealistic. People are going to judge, no matter what we do, but if they kept their accusations private, at least people could live in peace.

So, now I'm going to lightly touch upon the social media drama I inadvertently caused last week with my previous blog post.

As I said, I had not talked to Marcus Harper in more than 20 years until recently. But several weeks ago, I had just talked to Anita Gattis, Tara Grinstead's sister, on Facebook through her Missing Tara Grinstead Facebook page. Literally minutes later, I got a message from someone named Talbot von Sregor thanking me for my unbiased coverage of Tara's case through the years.

Recognizing that Talbot von Sregor was probably a made-up name and since I had not seen an Anita Gattis Facebook page at that time, I asked, "Is this Anita?"

Talbot responded, "Hell no! This is Marcus!"

Normally, I wouldn't reveal his secret identity, but he made it clear who he was last week on my Facebook page. In fact, several weeks ago, someone asked me if Talbot was Marcus, which put me in a tough situation. If I said yes, then I would have betrayed Marcus' trust. If I said no, I would be a liar. So I said nothing. I just completely ignored the question, even when I was asked again.

These are the sorts of weird decisions I must make lately.

So, then last week I posted my blog entry, "Revelation," and when I woke up the next day, my internet was out. I didn't work that day, so it wasn't until I visited my mom that afternoon that I had access to the world wide web. My mom told me Facebook was going crazy. She was understating.

One of the first comments about the blog entry on Facebook was from Dr. Maurice Godwin, the private forensic investigator who has investigated Tara's case since 2006. He said something to the effect of "Someone is off their medications again." I don't know exactly what he said because he erased it and replaced it with another statement accusing the blog post of being circular reasoning.

I'm not sure how a blog post that includes two stories of completely different natures, one about me overcoming my cowardly inclinations and the other revealing facts and rumors about the Tara Grinstead case, can be circular reasoning, but to each his own.

People will find a way to rationalize why they don't like something when they are unable or unwilling to articulate the real reasons. For instance, about a year ago someone else said they didn't like one of my blog entries because it was "too soap-boxy." All opinion pieces are soap-boxy! It's like saying "I don't like this salt because it's too salty."

Obviously, I'm thin-skinned when it comes to criticism, but when someone insults you or your work in a public forum like Facebook, a discussion board or a comments section, it isn't meant to be constructive. It is meant to tear you down. And when it is someone you have assisted on a number of occasions, it's particularly frustrating.

People on the Up and Vanished board wondered if Godwin's original statement about the medications was some sort of inside joke between friends. It wasn't. At the risk of stirring up drama, this is the truth.

This is not the first time Godwin has been needlessly critical toward me. Once he was critical of a previous blog entry, and though he had some good points in the discussion that followed, his tone really bothered me, particularly the use of SMH, for "shaking my head," in response to me. I wrote a long, polite response, but I held it back with the reasoning that it might burn my bridges with him and that I might be being too sensitive.

Afterward, I was glad I didn't respond because we had several conversations over the past year about Tara's case. We seemed to have a good working relationship, helping each other. Then, on the same day at nearly the same time he was asking me for help on Facebook, he publicly told someone on the Up and Vanished board that you need Prozac to read one of my blog posts. Still I held my tongue, not wanting to burn bridges.

But this was strike three. I've been nice enough.

And Marcus, apparently no fan of Godwin, seemingly rushed to my defense when Godwin made his "off the meds" comment. "Maybe you need another prescription then?" Marcus said to him.

To his credit, Godwin's response to some of the things Marcus said was not rude. He even said he was glad he was wrong about Marcus being a person of interest.

Then, Anita Gattis and others joined in the conversation. And I'm not going to rehash everything that was said. The relationship between Marcus and Anita is long and complex, and they are both adults who can speak for themselves. I'm not going to even touch what they said.

Those are some bridges I obviously don't want to burn, and like when someone asked me if Talbot was Marcus, I think the best thing for me to do in this situation is nothing.

But then Wendy Floyd got involved.

Wendy is probably the most vocal of those who still believe Marcus had something to do with Tara's death. She believes God told her he did. I won't judge her for that, as many people have religious beliefs I don't personally believe, but I obviously don't think that's true.

But I think I need to draw a line. Wendy, if you read this, you can say whatever you want to say, and I won't bother you for it, but please do not accuse people on my Facebook page anymore. Please show me the respect not to do that. Thank you.

Some might say, "Why not just delete what she posted?"

That seems antithetical to my entire purpose of existing, frankly. My job is to record history, not erase it.

But social media has obviously made my job more difficult, even as it is necessary for me to use it for my job in today's environment.

Now, imagine how much more difficult the job is for law enforcement for the same reasons. Not only must they investigate cases in the normal fashion, I wouldn't be surprised if they have someone monitoring the Up and Vanished discussion board right now or even the Facebook pages of certain characters, perhaps even mine.

As someone who has spent a weekend sick and doing almost nothing but monitoring social media because of various hi-jinks, I can guarantee you, that is a grueling, thankless job. But unfortunately, it may now be a necessary one.