Post #4: Using social media accounts as stalking evidence

(Original post in Lipstick Alley)

One of the reasons WHY Grant linked other SM accounts to Parker is she needed more evidence in her case because the stalking evidence she was using on Parker contradicted the timing aspect of her motive and it was a year old. 

Grant’s Declaration first states the social media accounts have been identified as belonging to Respondent (I will address how Grant comes to this false conclusion in my next post), then lists the most important photo first.

The first Exhibit attached to Grant’s declaration is a screenshot of a post from the first SM account named as belonging to Parker – YouTube account Catharine1967. 

This is a critical piece of evidence because it attempts to place Parker at Reeves’ house while Grant is there in June 2020 = STALKING. So it’s after November 2019 and recent. There is an issue or two with it though.

1st Issue: Catharine1967 says in the post she thinks someone staged the photo by putting a car that looks like Grant’s at Reeves’ house, then she changes her theory of the photo and says it may be Grant's car and she took the photo to show she is at Keanu's house.

So the logical conclusion is that Catharine1967 (Parker) did not take this photo and she doesn’t seem to know where it came from.

2nd Issue: The second issue is pretty obvious. Grant, by her own admission, has met Parker and heard her speak. She knows Parker is American and speaks English as her native tongue. Someone who speaks English as a second language wrote this post. Grant should know the person she met did not write this post. 

Grant’s attorney attempts to fix the first issue by offering another theory of how the photo was taken by stating, “or coordinating with others to do so.” So his take is that Catharine1967 (Parker) had someone else take the photo for her and then she posted it online. That still doesn’t answer why Catharine1967 doesn’t seem to know the provenance of the photo. If she was involved, she should know. 

In conclusion:

Catharine1967 did not take this photo and does not know the person who did;

Catharine1967 does not write English like she is American; and 

Parker is American – so Catharine1967 is NOT Parker.

Also, Grant’s attorney accuses Parker of “encroaching or trespassing on Mr. Reeves’ home or property” in order to take the photo. This is an attempt (usually made by police or prosecutors) to stack charges against Parker and scare her with the additional allegations.

ONLY Mr. Reeves can make the determination that someone is trespassing on his property. I won’t go into the point that “encroaching” is used incorrectly here and does not apply in the least to this situation. 

As far as the provenance of the photo, this is important. Grant includes a photo of Parker twice in this filing via the LA Times article so this is the person she is accusing of trespassing on Reeves’ property -- a 67-year old convicted felon from the worst photo perspective imaginable - a police mug shot.

However, the provenance of the car at Reeves’ house photo is actually a beautiful, young fan of Reeves, nothing to do with Catharine1967 (Parker). 

Reeves is known for being kind and considerate to his fans and even compassionate to a stalker who entered his home. Whatever else you may think of Reeves, he is a generous and good-hearted human being according to hundreds (thousands?) of stories over the decades.

I find it difficult to believe he would charge this adoring fan with trespassing and ask for a RO. 

If I am wrong and Mr. Reeves’ has changed so much, then LA County Family Services Court should hire another judge whose sole responsibility is to process RO request paperwork against the thousands of female Keanu uber-fans who drive by his house and take photos. Maybe two judges.