Replies

Speaking of danger and legal remedies, if one looks at the DoS attacks Jeff got soon afterwards could be the small door opening to investigate the home. Even if she was not responsible, the authorities could start investigating her for that and perhaps uncover other things in the process. Maybe even child abuse. Unfortunately, there isn't much one can do about cyber threats and cyber stalking, but the DoS is definately a punishable offense and is against the law.

She may have suffered punishment a bit more than she even knows at this juncture because I believe she will never teach again. This doesn't help the child living in the household though and further investigation by the authorities should be conducted.

I was reading some of the history on her too. Kcvl posted some of that over on this thread:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1663481/posts

Some of that is quite obviously libel.

I read on one of the blogs yesterday that someone had their IT people look into the DoS attacks and they linked to her. Don't know how factual that is but it was out there. 1) Is she that computer savvy? 2) Could she have enlisted some of her students? I also understand that she made these stalking posts at Goldstein's site from her university email account. If so, she didn't use very good sense there, and that leads me to believe she's not savvy enough to do the DoS attacks.

I agree, her job options will be limited. They should be. But again, if a child is involved that's sad. But she's the one who put the child's welfare in jeopardy (of course, she'll never admit that).

Oh, one further item about the DoS attacks; she made a post to Goldstein in the course of this where she remarked something about further posts 'if you're still online' or something to that effect. I believe that remark was one of the reasons they looked to her initially for the attacks.

In that other FReeper thread you pointed me to post #97 linked to some photos of the two women in the kitchen photo which appear to have been taken prior to the kitchen photo (judging by the appearance of the women). Here are my remarks to another poster expressing concern about the child in that thread...

Many of us have shared your concern. I've now come to the conclusion that it may not be warranted.

Refer to post #97, this thread. It links to a short series of these two women, Deborah Frisch and Cecile McKee shown with a dog. Judging by the appearance of the two women, these pictures were taken at an earlier date than the one you commented on.

The absence of a child in these earlier photos is interesting. If the photo with child is more recent, then one of the two would have had to have birthed that child subsequent to the earlier photos (if the child was in existence at the time of the earlier photos why wasn't she included?). The fact that they were 'partners' in both sets of photos means that one of the two admitted lesbians would have had to have birthed a child during their relationship; something not very likely IMHO.

Obviously, someone was also in the kitchen taking the photo. We don't know the provenance of the photo, but it's possible to assume that the child belongs to someone else who happened to be in the house when the kitchen photo was taken. Of course, all this is speculation, but makes as much sense as that 'young' child belonging to one of these women.

Just my two cents worth.