Christina Stoy

 

During one of our exchanges, Christina Stoy at Blinkoncrime.com said this to me :

Again, at not time did I allege you abducted the child you cannot refer to by name although you were compelled to look for her for hours, and endure this ” scrutiny”.


Early in our exchanges, and having already read her article and listened to her interview, I was pretty sure that Christina Stoy was an irrational, illogical person. 

This was an insight beyond her lack of reason, and a look at her malicious and exploitative nature. 

In one breath, she defends herself by saying she is accusing me of nothing, and then insinuating I am guilty of something.

the child you cannot refer to by name”


What does she mean by that?

She’s not attacking  my memory.

She’s insinuating that I am guilty and feeling guilty and can’t say the name of the child that I abducted. Of course, I didn’t abduct anyone, and I’m not guilty of any wrongdoing. But that did not stop Christina Stoy from insinuating that I did.

Christina Stoy has a talent for dropping insinuation and speculation in little bits to build an impression or “compelling schematic”, as she calls it. Then, when called on it, as I did, she will reply “I haven’t accused you of anything!”.

If phrasing like “the child you cannot refer to by name”isn’t an accusation, it sure sounds like one. I’d like to know what she did mean, if not accusing me of wrongdoing.

For what it’s worth, in my campaign against the terrible work of Christina Stoy, I’ve never once tagged a post or web page with the name of my nieghbor’s daughter. I cannot, in good conscience, exploit the name of an abducted child for my own personal gain. Christina Stoy and I differ in that regard, she has built her name on the exploitation of the names of the world’s victims. Just look at the tagging on her website :

Aruba,Becky Celis,Beth Holloway,Blink,Dana Pretzer Show,Dave Holloway,David Durham,Dede Spicher,Desiree Young,Gary Schultz,Graham Spanier,Isabel Celis,Jason Wishert,Jason Wishert Wishart,Jerry Sandusky,Joe Paterno,Joran Van Der Sloot,Jossy Monsur,Justin Mastromarino,Kaine Horman,Kristian Horman,Kyron Horman,Laura Rackner,Michael Cook,Mike McQueary,Missing Persons,Murdered,Natalee Holloway,Nathan McDonald,Nittany Nightmare,Penn State University,Peter Bunch,Pima County Police Department,Pumala,Rebecca Snyder,Republic of Suriname,Rodney Erickson,Rudy Sanchez,Scared Monkeys Radio,Sergio Celis,Stephen Houze,Terri Horman,Tim Curley,Tucson Police Dept,Uncategorized

That is the tag at the top of an article simply saying : Editor In Chief,   www.blinkoncrime.com will be on location through Tuesday June 12  to bring you updates in the following cases over the next 2 weeks: (link to previous articles)

Christina Stoy’s website is littered with the names of victims, exploited for hits to her website.

Advertisements

Blink on crime

Blink really cut her libelous teeth on the Casey Anthony trial. She’s rehashed it recently, and a poster on her site had the following comment about about the man who found her daughter, Roy Kronk.

 

I’m at a lose (sic) as to what would prevent someone from helping to discover the location of a missing child.”

 

I think it’s very funny that, on a website prone to witchunting, this comment was made with the follow up :

 

I honestly just don’t know of any reason why he wouldn’t want to offer this theory up …at least no good/honest reason. Any ideas people?”

 


Yes, tiberious, I have a good idea. People like Christina Stoy exist in the world, who will twist benign circumstances to fit her sensationalist agenda. Maybe the thought that people like that exist deter some people from becoming open and active in the search fro victims. While that would never deter me, having been through it with Blinkoncrime.com, I can see why a person might choose to play his cards close to his chest. 

Blinkoncrime.com and speculative, tabloid websites like it which capitalize on the tragedies of others for profit and proliferate trial by media are a huge part of the problem.

Blinkoncrime.com

From her the comments section of her article about me (http://blinkoncrime.com/2012/05/29/isabel-celis-abduction-breaking-news-docs-show-blood-in-bedroom-police-eye-family-and-neighbor/), Christina Stoy posted :

 

It is time for LE to release additional details. I beg them to do better than so many cases we see lately that have released details after 20+ years.

 

Given that she totally botched her coverage of the document dump by Tucson Police, and she has refused to print the exclusive release of the letter from Tucson Police that I gave her, I wonder why she wants more information.

I would think that before moving on to tackle more information by LE, she would be better off correcting her mistakes from the existing release, and publishing the exclusive release I shared with her.

Of course, that is not the MO of Christina Stoy or Blinkoncrime. Rather, she’ll just keep blundering along.

 

At the very least, she had posted her original article as a two piece article, but never followed through with the second piece. She’s like a child who threw part of her dinner on the floor, still has some dinner on her plate, is trying to put her fork in her ear, while asking for seconds.

 

Finish what you’ve got and clean up your mess, then let’s talk about seconds.

What is Blinkoncrime hiding?

After she published this article and interview (http://blinkoncrime.com/2012/05/29/isabel-celis-abduction-breaking-news-docs-show-blood-in-bedroom-police-eye-family-and-neighbor/#more-6208) I contacted the author, S. Christina Stoy.

I identified several factual inaccuracies. I made Ms. Stoy aware of these in her comments section. She refused to publish my correction of her inaccuracies.

Obviously, having someone lie about you as it relates to a police investigation for a young child’s abduction is upsetting. So I contacted Tucson Police. They sent me a letter. I sent that letter to Blink on Crime. Yet again, she refused to publish.

The letter and my correction can be found here : http://www.justicequest.net/forums/showthread.php?t=67045

Reading the letter from TPD, and comparing the reporting of Ms. Stoy to the actual documents she’s reporting on, three things are clear.

1. I had no connection to the abduction of Isabel Celis.

2. Ms. Stoy got a few important things wrong.

3. Ms. Stoy refuses to correct, retract or update her reporting.

Ms. Stoy covered the abduction of Isabel Celis with numerous articles. She identifies herself as a journalist. So when I broke a communication from the Tucson Police Department exclusively on her site, it would seem natural that she’d publish it. And when I contributed exclusive information from the day of the abduction that clarifies and corrects her reporting, it would seem natural that she’d publish. That’s exciting stuff in journalism. Insider information! Exclusive!

Oddly, despite substantial developments (namely, the correction and clarification of key facts to her reporting, and a letter from the head of detectives regarding my association with the case), Ms. Stoy is silent.

Reporters report developments. Reporters correct mistakes. And reporters live for the inside information (such as the letter from TPD). But once her mistakes were pointed out to her, and TPD cast her suspicions away from me, she fell silent.

Ms. Stoy was very vocal when using distortions of the truth to drag an innocent man’s name through the mud. But when the time came use the actual truth with input from the actual police to clear that man’s name, Ms. Stoy is unwilling to contribute.

So, what is she hiding? There must be a reason she’s refused to correct or retract her mistakes, and publish the letter from TPD.

She hasn’t verified authenticity.

This would be the mostly likely response from Ms. Stoy. While fact checking did not prove important for her initial reporting, it may be that she’s turned a new leaf and is actually interested in getting the story straight. Let’s address this directly.

Her mistakes.They are clear and undeniable. It’s a matter of saying 1=1. No witness identifies me as she describes. No where in any documentation can that be found. Her locations of both tunnels and clothing are incorrect. No verification other than simply reading the police documents is required.

The letter from TPD.It’s clearly on letter head. It’s signed. A simple correspondence with TPD would likely verify it.

It’s been 4 months or so. Ms. Stoy has put more content on her website, purporting to have done more research on other stories. I think in that time, she’s had enough opportunity to fact check the letter.

So it must not be a matter of authenticity or fact checking. What else might she be hiding or protecting?

Pride and reputation.

 


That seems ridiculous, but it might be the case. Ms. Stoy made some glaring mistakes, she has egg on her face, maybe she’s just hiding her head and hoping it will go away. The thing I find interesting about that, is that this is a lesson many of us learn as children. When you make a mistake, apologize and move on. It’s the right thing to do. We are all humans, we are not perfect, we get things wrong sometimes. As good people, we apologize, offer to make peace, and move forward. It’s an important part of growing as people.

It seems Ms. Stoy has adopted an alternative approach. Namely, stick to her guns, stick to her lie, and become aggressive. Maybe she feels that by admitting fault, she will appear diminished to her readers. The funny thing about that, is that sticking to her lie diminishes her appearance significantly more than simply correcting her mistakes.

As ridiculous as it seems to most adults, this might be the case for Ms. Stoy. As I said, humans are not perfect. And humans are prideful creatures. Some much more than others. 

While I think pride likely has something to do with it, I think there must be something else. What else might she be protecting or hiding? Or if not hiding, might she have some other motive for maintaining her lie?

She doesn’t care about the truth.

That seems crazy doesn’t it? It does to me. A “news” based website that doesn’t care about the truth. Crazy. But it seems the most obvious answer. 

Ms. Stoy spent a good amount of time publishing, promoting and defending her mistakes. When it came to promoting disinformation and untruths, Ms. Stoy was productive. She created graphics on a map (which were inaccurate). She gave an interview. She published an article. She spent a good amount of energy promoting disinformation.

The exact opposite has happened with the truth. She has devoted no time to promoting the truth in this matter. She has actually defended her disinformation and made no attempt to promote the facts. And by refusing to publish either my corrections of her libel, or the letter from TPD on her website, you might even say she is trying to hide and obscure the truth.

So what does she care about, if not the truth?

I’m going to guess that Ms. Stoy cares primarily about Ms. Stoy. She got what she wanted. She used disinformation and lies to attract traffic to her website, she got what she wanted.

The fact that the content she used to achieve this is false and inaccurate is inconsequential to her. She doesn’t care that she got it wrong.

While this seems disgusting to me, that a person would knowingly smear and demonize a good samaritan for personal gain, I think it’s likely. Her actions here very clearly define her intentions and motivations. Ms. Stoy publishes a website for personal gain, profit, notoriety and popularity. She does this under the auspice of true crime reporting, but in reality, she’s desecrating the names of victims, marginalizing the work of actual journalists and investigators, and actually victimizing bystanders such as myself. From what I’ve read about her around the internet, this is a well known and shared opinion, and rather than notoriety, Ms. Stoy has achieved infamy.

That’s what Ms. Stoy is hiding. She has abused the truth, abused her readers, and abused me. Ms. Stoy is abusive, and I am just another of her latest victims. The worst part about that, is that she doesn’t appear to be doing it unintentionally. She’s doing it on purpose.