Jill Meagher Body Found

Another sad ending. There are so many evil folks out there raping and killing. It is as if there is no value on human life anymore.

I ASKED if he was a POI. You do know the difference between questions and interrogative statements, right?

Sorry, but the statistics rarely lie, and it's always important to look at the statistical probabilities while analyzing or investigating a crime. Why do you think the police searched the home twice? They were eliminating the husband as a POI.

All of this led to the discovery of the killer.

This stuff really isn't rocket science, Scott.

http://news.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474981660518

"Officials were seen carrying more items in paper bags away from the property -- some reports indicating a car on the property had some evidence taken from it. Was this the car driven by Mr. Meagher?"

I'm done. Btw, isn't Glenn Beck's favorite line, "I'm just asking questions?"

There is nothing wrong with asking the obvious question while explaining the statistical facts regarding these types of crimes. If your reading comprehension can't grasp the difference between that and accusing someone of being a suspect, then that's your problem.

I just wrote this but it didn't show up so let's try again. Look -- Gather ranks pretty high in news searches. Wasn't hard for me to find your column, so I wonder how many of Jill's friends or even her family in Ireland were able to "absorb" your speculation about the house search while they were still wondering what happened to her. I wonder how many of Tom's family got to read your 'questions' despite the fact that law enforcement had never indicated he was a suspect or POI and that they thought he had never left the house. I suppose her coworkers and pretty much anyone else were able to wonder. "hmm.. maybe he did it! The statistics and all.." I said I was done and obviously I had to add another .02, but *be responsible*. You can delete this comment and the others, my intention is not to bash you for posterity but I HATE this Nancy Grace style stuff, wherever I see it. Be responsible. Your words mean something.

I don't write for the families, I write for the victims. So it truly isn't any concern of mine if a family member of anyone i write about sees what is written. These are cases that are discussed in the media and far worse is said about this case on Twitter, Topix and other forums than the very reasonable question regarding whether or not LE considered Tom a POI -- which, btw, they publicly addressed that question hours later. Would they have, had the question not been asked?

If you think anything pertaining asking questions about public cases is "Nancy Grace" style stuff, then you obviously lack an understanding of what analyzing crimes like these is for and what it achieves. But you're more than entitled to your opinion, as ill-informed as it may be.

Even though she says she doesnt write for the families, she writes about the victims for so long and keeps their cases alive, that families of victims start depending on her to analyze and ask these questions, questions that nobody wants to ask themselves.

Chelsea is the reason why so many of these cases are kept open, and when she sees a case go cold she brings back up, and keeps it in circulation because if she doesnt, who will? Families get close to Chelsea, they call her, they are interviewed by her, and they ask her for help. She doesnt just sit behind a computer and speculate, she gets involved when its appropriate. Shes become an important part in some cases. Its unfortunate that Jill has passed in such a horrific way, but wouldnt you rather all the questions be on the table then just speculation of one area? The police are asking the same questions Chelseas asking, and they arent caring about whose feelings they hurt at that point, they care about solving a murder. You have to develop a thick skin, you cant bawk at every speculation, you have to understand and let people do their jobs.

Chels, keeeeeeep doing your job please. Youve become more dependable then the local news paper here and you know that.

aww you are just so sweet <3

Chelsea, you wrote: "If you think anything pertaining asking questions about public cases is "Nancy Grace" style stuff, then you obviously lack an understanding of what analyzing crimes like these is for and what it achieves. But you're more than entitled to your opinion, as ill-informed as it may be."

I'm interested, then - what was achieved by the blog post speculating on the husband's involvement? I'm sorry to say, but unless you are an investigator working the case in Melbourne, Australia, then you are not any more informed than anyone else, necessarily, and you are not essentially "analyzing the crime." All you are really doing is reporting things that have already been reported by other media. Which, I also note, I don't think you properly source in some cases. But that's neither here nor there.

Reporting on these types of cases IS important and I don't discount that you do a good job gathering (hence 'Gather.com' I suppose) lots of information and present it, with your analysis, in way that provides some understanding. That's a good thing. I was unfair to not recognize that and to just come off rudely from the start with my criticism. However, there is still a clear sense in many ways that you seem to be feeding a 24-hour news cycle by presenting every twist and turn and unfounded speculation that serves no one. That's the Nancy Grace way. You say you don't write for the families. No, but it might be nice to keep them in mind once in awhile.

We could just agree to disagree and that's fine. You can also call my opinion ill-informed, and that's fine too, but in the case of Jill Meagher, I followed the case very closely, myself, and I'm as informed on it as anyone - save those actually working the case in Melbourne, and those close to Jill with whom they've shared information.

Amanda: I appreciate you defending Chelsea in a respectful and polite way. I will say I wish I had been more respectful in my opening post. I won't disagree with anything you've written.