As is my way, I scanned the latest drivel on Blinkoncrime.com recently. The website is a ghost town for the most part, with one thread being updated by posters every so often.
The most recent posting has a link to this article in The New Yorker : https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/true-crime-addict-and-the-problem-of-internet-sleuths?verso=true
The article is a review of a book, James Renner’s “True Crime Addict: How I Lost Myself in the Mysterious Disappearance of Maura Murray”, written by a self described internet crime investigator who the article author describes as a “hanger(s)-on”.
I feel like the critical reading skills of the Blink audience, and Blink herself, are likely challenged by the article. At first glance it appears to be a good thing for the book and the author. Upon reading the article, it clearly is not. Shannon Stoy seems to proudly mention on her website that she knows Renner personally, which is just the kind of thing that she likes to do to impress her scant collection of readers. Comically, the author and book that she aligns herself with is described by The New Yorker article as the “embodie(ment of) every problem that arises when online obsessives are infected with delusions of detective grandeur.”
There were some striking parallels between Blink and the description of Renner and the online sleuthing community. The phrase “delusions of detective grandeur” is particularly fitting when describing Shannon Christina Moser Stoy, or whatever alias she’s going by these days.
The New Yorker article accurately described sites like Blinkoncrime.com as “a complicated morass of uncontrolled speculation. It certainly isn’t justice, not for Murray or for her family.”
In my case, Shannon Moser’s ridiculously flawed internet investigating was not justice for my kidnapped neighbor, for her family, for me, or for anyone. It was just a prime example of the delusions of detective grandeur of a hanger on named Shannon Moser.