Throwing her clothes out the window and dumping her nude corpse sort of hints at removing her clothing.
Before or after he killed her? Does it matter?
If he undressed her before he killed her, that might be an indication that he intended to rape her. If he did it after, that might indicate he was trying to get rid of evidence. If course it could indicate far worse things as well.
The whole thing seems so fucked up.
Hide her in the woods? Where? Were you just going to leave her tied and gagged in the woods? How long was that heinous shit supposed to go on before you found her? Days? A week? What was your plan? How do you leave a 15 year old girl, scared to death, alone in the fucking woods tied and gagged and expect her to be just find days later when you “find” her? You piece of human shit.
http://www.wlbz2.com/news/article/245547/3/Affidavit-released-in-Kyle-Dube-case
Yeah, that’s what you told your girlfriend. Because you couldn’t very well tell her you kidnapped, raped and accidentally killed a 15 year old girl. Sure you probably didn’t mean to kill her. It was just a tragic accident.
I wish there really was a hell so people who do this shit could burn in it.
I’m in the camp of thinking the headline implies participation by the hostage in staging the kidnapping.
Yes, I see the alternate meaning is within the available definitions of all the words, it just wasn’t the default meaning I took for it. Monstro’s headline above, to me, conveys the same information, just as interestingly with clearer meaning.
It does, but the guy isn’t worth arguing about. I did find a cite about her clothes being removed and thrown out the window, though.
In that case, then, the headline was good enough. It drew your attention sufficiently to read the story. It’s the actual article’s job to clear up any such ambiguities.
Sorry, nope. 
I won’t disagree that to “stage” a kidnapping could mean
1 - devising a kidnapping plan that has thought-out steps to take, then successfully executing said plan.
2 - devising a fake kidnapping, which logically requires that the “victim” be in on the plan as well (either an abductor and abductee planning it together or the person/people “kidnap” themselves (geniuses, truly)).
But first off, we’re talking about the HEADLINE, which must be concise and attention-grabbing (Gawker’s owner recently reiterated this exact point). You just DON’T use unnecessary words.
If they meant “staged” like 1 above, they should simply say kidnapped. The only people who should waste headline space saying “staged a kidnapping” for that scenario are in the Department of Redundancy Department.
Second, since the victim wasn’t in on the plan, it’s impossible for it to be a fake kidnapping (as others said).
Third, it’s bizarre that multiple outlets are taking his confession at face value considering that there’s a metric assload of hinky shit (as miss elizabeth alluded to).
And FINALLY, Neetzan is Gawker’s shittiest writer EVAR. If he can proudly show his incompetence, he will, in between bursts of scouring Reddit content to gank for his posts.
Well, it didn’t because I’ve still never actually read the the story.
I’d argue that it is the story’s job to provide details and the headliners job to not mislead or confuse. If it weren’t then every headline would be “This story has pictures of Eva Mendes giving Channing Tatum a blow job!” and then when you click to see “The Nikkei was down 1.3% is heavy trading today as word came of a collapse in free trade talks between Singapore and Sri Lanka…”
It’s not the worst headline ever. It could just have easily been better.
How about a real headline for this story?
Accused murderer created fake Facebook account to kidnap girl, stage fake rescue
See, I really cared for the minor and wanted her to fall in love with me. I kidnapped because I cared.
When she died, I dumped her body because… ummm…
She mentioned to me once that she didn’t want a burial and would like to be eaten by carrion animals. Yeah, that’s it!
I don’t think anyone needs to do that. Gawker (and apparently a number of more legit news sources) had a choice between an accurate headline that didn’t immediately give credence to the killer’s story about how he hadn’t really meant to kill her, and a dishonest but attention-grabbing headline that did buy into that story from the get-go.
Faced with that choice, they made what a number of us here (obviously including me) view as the wrong one. Just because we are arguing that it was the wrong choice doesn’t obligate us, as part of that argument, to come up with a headline that would have spared them that choice in the first place.
I think the story Dube has told is so ridiculous. The headline (and others like it) have presented this piece of ridiculousness in a factual manner and in a way that minimizes what he is accused of. It all comes across as “he didn’t mean any harm; he just wanted to look like a hero.”
It would be like a headline for Jodi Arias that reads “Kinky sex goes overboard, man accidentally stabbed to death.” Potential jurors skimming the news who come across this line have the potential to be biased towards the defendant’s version of events.
This case has been going on for a long time. This not the only story or headline that had been or will ever be written about this. This particular article is about the guy’s alibi. This one headline is not obligated to take on the entirety of the whole case. There is no reasonable expectation that one newspaper headline relating to an ongoing story will offer a comprehensive description.
There are plenty of headlines out there just like it.
I’m not sure what the significance of that is.
The significance is that the Gawker headline is not an isolated case. Other media outlets are presenting the accused murderer’s excuse for what happened as though its fact, in a manner which diminishes the brutality and potential maliciousness of his actions. This has the potential to skew public perception of what happened.
If there’s an inaccurate story out there, criticize the inaccurate story instead of blowing up over an arguably adequate headline on an accurate story.
Why? Because you say so?
Yeah, I’m the boss of you.
I’ll admit I’m startled by the acceptance that simply because link bait headlines are successful that makes them ok.