The Maddening Role of Social Media

The Maddening Role of Social Media

  3:33 AM    Unknown

---

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.