Taryn Wright gets it all wrong again

Taryn Wright is at it again. And as usual, she got almost everything wrong.

Here are some key snippets from her latest post on November 17, 2015. Words in italics are hers, with my comments below them:

“Ines Rocha claims that her mother died in the Twin Towers on 9/11. I searched the list of victims from that day. There were no women killed in the World Trade Center with the last name Rocha, Amorim, or Amori.”

Did it occur to you that her mother’s last name might be different from hers? Just because you can’t find something on the internet doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, Taryn. Your failure to find the truth does not constitute evidence of falsehood.

“The rose is placed on the name of Danielle Kousoulis, a 29-year-old Cantor Fitzgerald employee who was killed when the towers collapsed. Danielle didn’t have any children, let alone an adult child named Mary or Ines or Maria.”

Did it occur to you that the rose might not have been deliberately placed on any particular name? For that matter, did it occur to you maybe she visited the tower memorial, saw the rose there, and took a picture of it because it spoke to her emotionally? Or that she might have just come across that picture and decided to post it to her facebook page because she thought it was poignant, or for whatever reason? Not everything is evidence of deception, you know.

“Ines, or Mary Amorim, as she called herself when she lived in Indiana, wasn’t listed in his obituary, although Ruth and Ines both say that Ines was adopted, unofficially, by the couple before Jeffrey’s death.”

Did it occur to you that the absence of someone’s name being mentioned in an obituary does not constitute evidence that the person isn’t real? Or is it possible that you might be confused, and that obituary was for someone completely unrelated to the person you’ve called out here? Sometimes more than one person have the same name, and sometimes they even live in the same state as someone with the same name. Did that possibility even occur to you? Or did you just discount that possibility because it was inconvenient and interfered with your predetermined conclusion (see this post)?

“As you can see, some of the children Ines/Mary claimed to have are listed in this memorial. Other children that she claimed had died aren’t named, and a few new names have been thrown in for good measure.”

Did it occur to you that Mary Kirsch and Ines Roccha might NOT ACTUALLY BE the same person? Or that there might be more than one person in the world with the same name? Or that maybe you’ve conflated multiple people, multiple families, different people with similar names, and got confused when some details didn’t add up? You can’t find everything on the internet, you know. You can’t know everything about someone from a few pages on facebook. The real world is much more complex.

The stuff you wrote about the stolen photos is incoherent at best. I can’t figure out who stole photos from whom, who was stalking who, or who called who an ugly monster. You need to write more clearly. I’ll leave that part alone until you clarify it. I will say that the picture you describe as “obviously photoshopped” is obviously a montage, not intended to be passed off as a picture of two people together. To pretend that’s evidence of deception is disingenuous at best.

“Ruth’s biological daughter is listed in Jeffrey Kirsch’s obituary, leading many to assume that Ines Rocha is a pseudonym and that Ruth’s real daughter is the person behind these hoaxes. This is not true. I spoke with Ruth’s biological daughter and she knows nothing about this.”

Because she told you she knows nothing about it, so it must be true. But all the other conclusions you inexplicably jumped to must be true, because you said so. You offer no explanation for how you claim to know that Ines Rocha, Mary Amorim, Maria Amori, Mary Kirsch, Mary Rocha, Ines Noche, Nocas Rocha, Ines Amorim Rocha, and Mary Dawson are all the same person. But somehow you know that the person you spoke to was really Ruth’s daughter, and that Ines Rocha is the real name of the real person behind all this. Your psychic powers are quite impressive, Taryn, but here in the real world actual evidence is generally preferred over clairvoyance. You know nothing about any of these people, or even if any of these people are real or fake. You don’t know who is lying to you and who is not. You don’t know who you actually spoke to. If the person you spoke to wasn’t really who she said she was, how would you know? You don’t know anything about any of this. And for the record, you got almost all of it wrong. I won’t tell you how I know this (yet. Maybe later).

“For the record, I can’t find any records of twins named Juli and Zina being daughters of any September 11th victims either.”

Oh, you can’t find any records, so they must not exist. Okay. See the first point above. Just because you can’t find something on the internet doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, Taryn.

Everything is wrong here, all at the same time. There are only three ways to draw conclusions this stunningly misguided: you are either blissfully unaware of the facts; or you have no idea which facts are relevant; or you know the facts and are deliberately misrepresenting them in order to pretend they support your conclusions. I’m betting on a combination of all three. The third being quite disturbing, considering that you call yourself an investigative journalist. This is some of the worst “investigative journalism” I’ve ever read. Don’t quit your day job, Taryn. You suck at this.

Posted in Bad Research | Leave a comment

Unnecessary Drama?

Apparently Taryn Wright has created a long list of people who are pissed off at her and sick of her getting away with the constantly changing stories and telling only the parts that make herself look good. Nikki, who was one of her victims from a long time ago, wrote this on her tumblr:


It questions all the lies and half truths Taryn has told about Nikki in her attempt to make a good story and paint herself as the hero.

Which Taryn responded to with:


At the end Taryn says “This is all I’m going to say about this matter, since this is unnecessary drama about posts I took down a full six months ago.”

Unnecessary drama? People are questioning everything your blog represents and you’re going to try and dismiss it as ‘unnecessary’ drama? I’m sorry, but if you’re making things up and changing your story when people question it, and people are pissed off about that, any resulting ‘drama’ is completely necessary. You can’t just pretend it doesn’t matter. You have a blog where you call people liars, and you lied about one of them. You got called on it, and your only response is more hand waving and dismissing it as ‘unnecessary drama’? What else have you lied about? What other half truths have you told? What other information have you left out because it might have revealed that you don’t know half as much as you like to pretend you do? What other ‘facts’ have you presented that weren’t really facts at all, but just things you made up to fill in the holes in your story?

Posted in Taryn Wright, Warrior Eli Hoax Blog | 4 Comments

Why does Taryn Wright think it’s any of her business?

This came up in comments recently, and Heather raised a related point in her blog. I want to expand on it a little bit here: why does the warrior eli hoax group think it’s any of their business what other people do on the internet?

If someone creates fake profiles, fake blogs, fake facebook pages, whatever – they have their reasons. As long as they aren’t scamming people for money or trying to profit from it, what’s the harm? Taryn Wright and her group say it hurts people who are really going through these things – cancer, sick child, whatever – but does it really? In what way? No one has ever suffered irreparable emotional harm from reading a fake facebook page. I see tons of feigned outrage and “OMG what kind of person would DO that?” comments, but never any real emotional damage.

Taryn and her followers are trying to turn this into a battle of good against evil. How ridiculous. To mark the people who create fake profiles as ‘evil’ is just being grossly over-dramatic, but I guess that explains why there’s so much war in this world – there’s always some zealot somewhere enlisting people to fight against some imagined evil. Why can’t they just let other people live the lives of their own choosing?

There’s nothing wrong with creating different identities on the internet. Is it wrong to take other people’s pictures and claim them as your own? Sure it is. Is it a crime worth ruining someone’s life over? No. People have many reasons for creating different identities. For some people maybe it’s just a way to play a different part in life and see what it feels like for a while. For some people maybe it’s a way to get away from the boring mundane world they occupy in real life. Maybe they’re lonely and create a group of online friends to help them deal with their loneliness. Real or fake, if it helps them deal with it then it helps them deal with it. I’m not going to sit here and judge them or say how sad or pathetic it is that someone would do that. They have their reasons and it helps them in some way, and that’s all that matters. What’s wrong with that? The internet is many things to many people. People use it for different reasons, and some people use it to role play or participate in a fantasy because it makes them happy to do that, or it eases their loneliness, or whatever. When someone like Taryn, without any diagnostic credentials, comes along and tries to diagnose them with ‘Munchausen By Internet Syndrome’, she’s in the wrong. She has no business diagnosing anyone with anything. She has no business judging anyone for what they do on the internet, and she has no business stalking and publishing the real names of people doing it.

Here’s an analogy: I’m walking down the street and I find someone’s diary or personal journal laying on the ground. I read the diary and discover that this person has some really weird thoughts in their head – not dangerous thoughts, not threats of violence, just weird thoughts, or ideas that are outside the realm of what would be considered ‘normal’ in our society. On closer inspection I find the author’s name written on the inside of the front cover. I do some more digging and discover that this person lives in a small rural town in southwest Idaho. Would I be justified in publishing this diary on the internet along with the name and home town of the person who wrote it? Would I be justified in stating publicly that this person has a mental illness? Of course not. Maybe they wrote in their journal because it helped them deal with their crazy thoughts by getting them down on paper. Or maybe it gave them comfort to see their thoughts in writing, or it helped them separate the crazy thoughts from the ‘normal’ ones, or it helped them figure out what’s real and what’s not. Or maybe they just like writing and they wrote down whatever thoughts popped into their head at the moment when they had a pencil in their hand. Or maybe they had some other reason you or I can’t understand, but it made sense to them at the time. It doesn’t matter WHY they wrote in their journal, it only matters that it helped them in some way, and that’s why they did it. It’s no one’s business to judge them for it or publish their name for public humiliation, and it’s no one’s business to diagnose them with any kind of mental illness because of it. Yet that’s exactly what Taryn and the warrior eli hoax group are doing with their blog. They’re taking something someone does in private, for the benefit of their own sanity or to help them deal with their own private reality, and posting them up there to be laughed at and humiliated for it. Who really has the right to be outraged here?

One more thing: This Dr. Marc Feldman who Taryn says she’s working with…Can you believe she doesn’t see that he’s just using her to sell his books? I mean, come on. As a licensed practitioner of clinical psychology, I’m sure Dr. Feldman knows that even HE has no business diagnosing people with any kind of mental illness based on a tiny sample of things they write on the internet. Taryn says this guy is willing “to provide a psychological consult to any hoaxer who wants his help”. Yea. I wonder how many have taken him up on that offer. What a joke. He’s latching on to some free publicity to sell his books, and that’s all. How much more transparent can it be? Taryn’s not so good at figuring out the obvious, it seems.

Posted in Uncategorized | 6 Comments

Taryn Wright Thinks She’s Smarter Than The NSA

The U.S. Government is authorized to spy on people. Whether you agree or not, the Patriot Act that was signed into law in 2001 gives the FBI, CIA and NSA the power to intercept email, eavesdrop on instant messages and spy on internet communications in general. They have that authority by law.

Some people think that’s OK and some don’t, and I’m not here to debate the merits and pitfalls of the Patriot Act. Like it or not, the government has that authority.

Taryn Wright doesn’t. She doesn’t have the authority or the ability to intercept emails, eavesdrop on instant messages, or spy on internet communications in general. Doing so requires the government agencies to apply highly specialized equipment with full, unrestricted access to the servers of Google, Facebook, Yahoo, and others, as well as logs and personal information about customers directly from the internet service providers. Those companies are legally required to turn over the requested information to the U.S. government on demand. Taryn Wright can’t get access to that kind of information.

Yet even with all that power and technological ability, the NSA had this to say about the prospects of matching internet communications to the real person responsible for them:

“Current technology simply does not permit us to positively identify the persons or locations associated with a given communication. It is hard to know the ultimate source or destination, or more particularly the identity of the person represented by the TO:, FROM: or CC: field of an e-mail address or by the abstraction of an IP address.”

– Judith Emmel, NSA spokesperson (June 8, 2013)

Source: ABC News

Even with completely unrestricted access to all the confidential information they can get their hands on, straight from the ISPs and companies that run the servers, the NSA can’t positively identify the specific person an email address or IP address belongs to. But Taryn Wright thinks she can? Is she smarter than the NSA? The FBI? The CIA? Does she have access to some kind of secret worldwide database of all users of the internet that somehow positively identifies anyone she thinks is lying? I bet the NSA would love to get access to that database, because they don’t seem to have that kind of technology at their disposal.

Posted in Bad Research, Taryn Wright, Uncategorized, Warrior Eli Hoax Blog | 12 Comments

Giving Credit Where Credit Is Due

Taryn’s latest post is a little different from most of them. She exposed another hoax, but this time chose not to reveal what she believes is the real identity of the hoaxer.

Fair is fair, and I want to give props to Taryn for doing the right thing for a change. I’m not sure why she feels it makes a difference that the hoaxer is under 18 this time, but I guess it’s about looking all shiny and virtuous to her fans, as usual – picking on kids under 18 wouldn’t make her look very good, that’s for sure.

But here’s my suggestion to Taryn and her group: Why not do it that way every time? Expose the page as a fake, tell everyone how you know (with a preference for REAL evidence, of course), make it clear that you know the real identity of the hoaxer, and then contact them privately to let them know that you know who they are. There’s no need to put their names up there for public ridicule. There’s no need to humiliate them. It just makes you look like a bitch, and if you’re wrong it opens you up to all kinds of legal complications. If your trying to stop the hoaxers from hoaxing, then exposing the page as fake is all you need to do. Why go any farther than that, unless you have an ulterior motive to make them suffer the consequences?

Do you want to stop them, or do you want to punish them? If you want to look shiny and virtuous, stopping them should be enough.

Posted in Taryn Wright, Warrior Eli Hoax Blog | 8 Comments

Taryn Wright assumes too much again

Taryn Wright posted this yesterday.

How come when Taryn and her gang of super sleuths investigate a suspicious page they start with the assumption that the creator of the page isn’t who they say they are, but when they hear from someone out of the blue with a ‘confession’ they automatically assume the person confessing is who they say they are?

What if the person who contacted Taryn and said they were Manny Munoz, founder of Gamerosity was really someone else pretending to be Manny Munoz? What if the person who contacted Taryn and said they were Antranette Nolan, creator of the ‘Emily Is Strong’ page was really someone else pretending to be Antranette Nolan? What if both of them were just someone fucking with Taryn to prove the point that you can’t really tell for sure who’s who on the internet? What if both of them were me? They might have been. They might not have been. I’m just saying. How would Taryn know for sure?

She wouldn’t. She also wouldn’t know if she has it all wrong and Antranette Nolan doesn’t really exist at all. What if I created Antranette and made it look like she was the real person behind the hoax, and then created the fake page just to fuck with Taryn? How would she know for sure?

She wouldn’t. Unless she sees an actual person typing at a keyboard in their home with a varifiable name and address, and she looks over their shoulder and reads what they’re typing, she really can’t know for sure who typed what on the internet. Period. Any other ‘evidence’ is just an assumption. Period. It’s the internet. You can’t assume anything you read is true, you can’t assume anyone is who they say they are, and it’s very irresponsible to throw accusations around when they’re just based on bad assumptions.

Posted in Bad Research, Taryn Wright, Warrior Eli Hoax Blog | 4 Comments

Collateral Damage

While stalking researching Taryn Wright and the damage she’s done with this obsession hobby of hers, I found this:


It’s the resume of a woman named Emily Dirr in Cincinnatti, Ohio. It’s NOT the same Emily Dirr Taryn blogged about, but do you think that matters? Do you think this innocent woman has any hope of ever landing a job when potential employers google her name and find this:

http://google.com/search?q=’Emily Dirr’

So Taryn has not only ruined the life of the Emily Dirr she set out to ruin, she also ruined the life of a completely innocent woman who happens to share the same name. Sucks to be her, right Taryn? Your just a journalist, right Taryn? It doesn’t matter who gets hurt, as long as you get to say whatever you want, right Taryn? Bully.

Posted in Taryn Wright, Warrior Eli Hoax Blog | Leave a comment