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.