The local media in Steubenville, Ohio has published an article updating developments in the lawsuit against Alexandra Goddard.

The most interesting development reported in the article thus far is that the Plaintiff atty has obtained the ip information sought from

What is interesting is that another blog, in posting this information seems to be discounting the fact that the atty has this information, implying that it is not that useful. Oh really?

If this is the case, then why do Blog hosts such as and have in their terms of service, restrictions AGAINST giving out this information? 

The blogger may be trying to give a false sense of security to those unidentified defendants that might be reading her blog or at the least trying to mislead her readers. 

The simple fact of the matter is that once those numbers are obtained, they provide a lot of useful information to someone who is expert at deciphering what that information holds.

The atty can now take those numbers and then go to the individual providers and ask for the identities of those associated to each of those numbers.

I would remind some who read this blog, of the incident where “someone” created a fake Myspace account having Josh Duckett write his ex-wife Melinda Duckett a threatening post. Law enforcement was able to obtain the ip address of the person who created that account. It turned out that the account was created through the ip address of Melinda Duckett. 

Melinda Duckett was about to be charged with federal crimes related to this incident when she committed suicide.

Blog administrators also understand that certain relationships develop between members of their blogs. As a result sometimes PERSONAL information gets shared between users.

The same blogger has posted several articles in relation to the passing out of ip addresses implying the ramifications of doing so. This begs the question as to why the blogger now discounts the fact that the atty now has this information.

I found a quote in the article appearing in the newspaper today rather interesting:

 Blake voluntarily dismissed four “John Does” from the initial lawsuit.

  ” Blake did not list the reason for the dismissal.”

Anyone care to guess why?

Stay tuned