Jane Marie Prichard

 

 

 

 

Found partially-clothed Sept. 20, 1986, in Blackbird State Forest near Middletown. She was 28 when she died of a shotgun blast to her back.

Jane had gone to the state park as part of her thesis research for her master’s degree in biology, campers found her body.

According to the local papers, the area had been full of hunters the day of her murder, so on all likelihood her murder could have very well been an accident. Also according to the media reports, “the last person to see her alive was a squirrel hunter who told police he had seen her speaking to another hunter.”

That witness gave a description of the unknown hunter to police who then in turn came up with a composite of the unknown hunter and released it to the public only to eventually accuse the hunter to report all of this of Jane’s murder because of inconsistencies in his story.  

The charges were dropped against him in August 1987, the case had fallen apart and DNA from samples that were found at the crime scene proved, he could not have done it.

So that would mean the last person to actually see Jane alive still has not been found or has for some strange reason chosen not to come forward.

She was found partially clothed, therefore I’d rule out accidental shooting. Considering she had been shot in the back, she attempted to evade her killer who had been in the process of attempting to sexually assault her.

So who was it?

She had driven that day to the State Park around 7AM and was able to set up her equipment before being disturbed as the campers who found her, a couple from New Jersey found her around 5:30pm sprawled near her truck.

That alone tells you it was not an accident. It was however planned, not well but it was planned.

Someone watched her, they waited for the perfect opportunity to strike. Shooting her in the back was not part of the plan, killing her was but not like it played out. That leads me to believe the individual was familiar with her, her habits, he knew where to find her and what time to find her. A time where not many others would be around, thus not drawing attention to the crime, her cries for help, let alone a gunshot.

The individual watched her several times prior to her murder. She spent quite a bit of time in and around Blackbird, according to friends she loved the area, it was one of her favorite places to be.

Habits, can sometimes become our unraveling if you will. It is the very thing that provides some killers the opportunity they have been looking for. Watch long enough, they find the best, most opportune time to strike.  

That is precisely what this individual did. Finding him will take quite a bit of effort, he was comfortable in this particular area, because he was familiar with it.

The question is, had any other attempts taken place to attack women who were alone prior to this within the area? Not just Blackbird, but the town, the next town over, three towns over. Attempts that were maybe unsuccessful? Or, was this his first? Had he gone on to kill again, or did he find other outlets, did he feed the urge and never do it again? Did he move on to other types of crimes, porn, some type of sexual gratification?

The problem with DNA is simple, you can’t rely on it all of the time because sometimes a killer won’t rape, won’t kill again. He’ll find something else so as to occupy his time, something that would not put him on the radar of anyone.

The only achilles-heel this individual has is simple. He watched Jane for a considerable amount of time before murdering her. That means that the probability of someone being able to identify him is pretty good. Not only did the hunter see him, but so did others. Consider this, Jane was known to be in that area, so to was her killer.

That in and of itself is worth checking back into.

 

Cristal M Clark

@thecrimeshop

IOS users find The Crime Shop on Apple News

 

Cybercrime Continues to Grow

and no relief is in sight

Cybercrime

 

 

Cybercrime is an ever growing and continuing problem, as well as very lucrative business that is plaguing the world.  What’s worse is that not even our own government is immune to it. The issue at hand is how do we combat it? How do we bring cyber criminals to justice?

Prosecuting anyone for a vast majority of it is unattainable to say the least. Today I read an interesting article published by the Daily Dot http://bit.ly/1So305t, where a Florida lawmaker is asking that President Obama devise a seciruty plan in an effort to combat cybercrime.

obama

Republican Rep. Dennis Ross is asking the president to basically devise a plan that creates an agency whose sole responsibility is to take the lead in cybercrime rather than what we have set up today. Many agencies are combatting it in theory, it’s sort of a free for all if you will and in case anyone hasn’t noticed, what we have currently isn’t really working but…is that the fault of our government?

At times, the agencies don’t play well together particularly when it comes to sharing things like intel.

In theory Rep. Ross’s plan is a great one however several steps further need to be taken if we are to truly combat cybercrime. For instance one thought is that other nations need to be major players in this, not merely the US work with them. Many cyber criminals hide in other nations knowing they will never be extradited and in some countries they’ll never even see a trial for such crimes let alone any type of punishment.

It makes more sense to create a multi-nation-multi-government cyber-crime agency.

The other piece to all of this is the obvious the bottom line is simple, people, individuals, citizens and business leaders and owners need to utilize caution and become educated about cybercrime.

The hospitals that have fallen victim (one of them is in Rep. Ross’s district), for instance to hackers who held hospital systems hostage until a ransom was paid are the perfect example of becoming educated about cybercrime and how it works.

Leaders of these organizations can and should no longer be able to rely on ignorance to the problem as a scapegoat and we should not allow those individuals who lead these hospitals to play the victim card. They are ultimately responsible for the problem by not ensuring each respective hospitals data was on a secured network so that it could not be held for a ransom.

We’ve been hearing about cybercrime for a good long while now, unless you live under a rock I am pretty sure you have heard of it. What I am saying is, don’t enable the hospital’s leadership to use a cop-out here. They were put into leadership roles because they are not ignorant, now is one of those times when they don’t get to play ignorant because it’s convenient.  Hacking seems like the perfect scapegoat but in reality, using the excuse “I never thought it would happen to me or our organization,” is bullshit.

Companies, some really good one’s will come into your organization and not only educate you about cybercrime but let you know where your vulnerabilities are, and for a fee, you can pay these said companies to build and maintain a secure network for you. They even monitor your network, the monitoring comes with all the bells and whistles such as 24/7 monitoring so if something is happening they are alerted to it and they stop it.

If your IT partner (s), i.e. the company you have outsourced to isn’t sharing it’s security setup with you, fire them. If an organization decides to cut corners at it’s customers expense they should be held accountable just as organizations who produce cars that are unsafe to drive. This goes for both the IT partners taking care of said companies and the companies/organizations themselves. In business one of the corners cut is more often than not, network security.

Sometimes even a layman can set up a network that is pretty secure, take me for instance. I did not go to school for this but just about every company I have worked for eventually ended up scrapping the IT company that they had and used me as the network guy. Not sure why, but I can tell you plain and simple if your network isn’t secure, you are a prime target, this even applies to fax lines that are run through VOIP.

In an age where everything is for sale or if it can be held for ransom, cybercrime will continue to grow. It is after all a very lucrative business and since we are part of such a digital age, can anyone really ensure safety from cybercrime?

The agencies now who are all responsible for overseeing cybercrime are less than effective let alone impressive. Many of those agencies have been hacked themselves so promoting from within would not do much to make the public feel any more safe. Sometimes bringing in those that haven’t always been so straight and narrow, might just be good for business.

Keeping personal feelings out of it, let’s just say for the sake argument that President Obama is not a stupid man, I’m pretty sure that even he knows what a huge undertaking a bill like this would be.

Given that we live in such a digital era, everything is a smart device, baby monitors, toothbrushes, cars, homes, tv’s, appliances, camera’s, etc, the proposed agency would have to have a very wide range of experts in order to be effective, it certainly begs the question, would the general public and/or congress, let alone President Obama want to spend the needed funds to run such an organization and employ such a wide range of experts? To take it a step further, how would they measure the success of the agency aside from creating bills and guidelines? What about the apprehension and prosecution of cyber criminals?

Some of the items on the bill, like #6 are readily available online and through security companies who are up to date on cyber threats.

I’m just not seeing the meat and potato’s in this bill, but am curious as to where it ends up. It’s currently awaiting consideration by the House Judiciary Committee.

It is below for you to view if you’d like.

 

Cristal M Clark

@thecrimeshop

IOS users find The Crime Shop on Apple News

 

 

F:\M14\ROSSFL\ROSSFL_039.XML

……………………………………………………………
(Original Signature of Member)

H. R. ll

114TH CONGRESS
2D SESSION

To direct the President to develop and submit to Congress a comprehensive
strategy to combat cybercrime, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Mr. ROSS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee
on _____________________

A BILL

 

To direct the President to develop and submit to Congress a comprehensive strategy to combat cybercrime, and for other purposes.

 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,


SECTION 1

PRESIDENTIAL STRATEGY TO COMBAT CYBERCRIME.

Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall submit to Congress a comprehensive strategy to combat cybercrime, which shall include the following:

(1) A recommendation for a definition of cybercrime to be used by the Federal Government.

(2) A recommendation and a plan for which Federal agency should take the lead role in investigating and combating cybercrime.

(3) A review of the strategy on combating cybercrime of each Federal agency engaged in com-
bating cybercrime as of the date of the enactment of this Act.

(4) A review of the efforts to combat cybercrime of the governments of other countries, as determined appropriate by the President.

(5) A plan for how the Federal Government should work with State governments and with the
Governments of other countries to combat cybercrime.

(6) A description of the threats that cybercrime poses to individuals, businesses, and governments, and recommendations for protecting against such threats.

f:\VHLC\042016\042016.279.xml
April 20, 2016 (4:34 p.m.)
VerDate Nov 24 2008

of

16:34 Apr 20, 2016

Jkt 000000

(628578|2)
PO 00000

Frm 00002

Fmt 6652

Sfmt 6201

C:\USERS\MLLEWIS\APPDATA\ROAMING\SOFTQUAD\XMETAL\7.0\GEN\C\ROSSFL~1.XM

 

 

**Update** Murder, March 30, 1991

 

Photo of Rachael Johnson

 

***Update***

As many of you know, I have not written about a cold case in quite some time. Admittedly, I do miss it greatly.

I have recently had some contact with the daughter of Rachael who is seeking additional DNA testing be done so that she, who was three at the time of her mothers murder may finally lay this unsolved case to rest.

She has done quite a bit of her own detective work and has provided authorities with updated suspect information.

I have reached out to the AG in Ohio, the current detective in the case and have urged them to do the DNA testing and/or allow for my team to come in and take a fresh look at the case prior to additional DNA testing so as to ensure the test is not done in vain as only a limited amount of DNA is left.

Unfortunately, the test Rachael’s daughter has requested is time consuming and although only two unsolved cases from Ohio are on the list, her mother being at the top of it, new cases take priority.

Whatever the case may be, I hope that republishing this story gets enough reader enthusiasm so that we may be able to help finally get this case solved and give a young woman the answer she has waited almost all of her life for.

March 30, 1991, 24 year old Rachael Johnson was sexually assaulted, stabbed and set on fire and while police do in fact have DNA, they have been unable to find a match to date.

Rachael was last seen getting into a car — or being forced into a small, faded gray vehicle  — in a convenience store parking lot at Dan Street and Fouse Avenue, in Northeast Akron on March 30, 1991. She had stopped at the intersection after her friend’s car had a flat tire.

The friend drove away on the flat tire while Johnson remained. Her body was found later that day.

Rachael was the mother of a 3 years little girl who has since grown up. They were from Tallmadge, Ohio and from all accounts seemed to live a quiet life. She was a loving, caring mother who had hit some hard times yet according to friends her spirits remained high and positive.

The police file shows that Rachael was raped, stabbed a total of 10 times in the chest, beaten and slashed across the neck, thrown into the street and more than likely still alive at that time. She was then set on fire to burn alive.

It was noted that, several veteran police officers said the slaying was the most vicious murder they had seen.

Rachael and her best friend had just left the El Cid bar on East Tallmadge Avenue at around 2:30am. As the two women headed towards Rachael’s home, her friend ended up getting a flat tire. Rather than wait for help, Rachael decided to walk home since she had been paying a babysitter at the time. That was the last time anyone saw her alive, all save for her killer.

Rachael remained a Jane Doe until a friend saw the news story and got in touch with the police.

Police interviewed several suspects but ruled all of them out. Only one has ever been named publicly and that is Daniel Wilson, who had been tried and convicted of setting one other woman on fire, killing her. His DNA was tested but the results were inconclusive. Wilson was also convicted of killing an 81 year old man while he was under the age of 18.

Daniel does seem like the most likely suspect but that is only because the police never really named any other suspect, so all we have to go off of is his history.

This killer was angry, in a fit of rage and wanted to cause Rachael’s death. He wanted her dead and that does not mean that he knew her well, she was in fact a victim of opportunity.

Police stated that they believed the killer might have told someone since the time of the killing and are hopeful that someone would come forward with information.

That is a very misguided belief. Most killers do not talk about it to anyone unless they are at confession, on his/her death bed etc. The truth is, killers don’t just talk about it. And in this killers case that is very much true.

Killers typically burn bodies to hide evidence, it is also used to cope with the idea they don’t want to remember what they did. It’s a form of guilt. Most killers do not choose burning as the way to murder someone as it is very gruesome even for a killer. It takes time, effort and most killers are not willing to stick around to make sure it actually killed the intended victim.

That does not mean that it doesn’t happen, it’s typically not the prefered method for most killers. This killer more than likely thought that Rachael was dead when he threw her into the street and doused her then lit her on fire.

He was both trying to cover up his crime and using it as a way to cleanse his soul of the crime he had just committed.

Could the killer be found still? He could, if the witness description of the car is accurate. This man was more than likely at the bar when Rachael and her friend were at it. He watched them, waited for the time to strike, and her friends flat tire was most likely not a coincidence.

I believe the killer planned on killing one if not both women. He created an opportunity after having seen them at the bar. Rachael could have identified him, had she lived. He is known in the community so he can easily go about his business unnoticed.

Police are correct in that the guy is still around, he is right in front of them.

Cristal M Clark

@thecrimeshop

crimeshop.wordpress.com

IOS users, be sure to find The Crime Shop on Apple News

Taking a break from my usual cold cases and current events to pay tribute to a true legend.
He inspired so many and not just with his music, Prince dead at 57.

Upon hearing the news at work today, we all sat dumbfounded, looking at one another hoping it was a cruel joke. No words could describe what went through any of our minds.
Prince had a uniqueness about him, it was in his music, in the way he dressed, in the way he spoke, in the way he interacted with others and in the way that he both inspired and influenced many of us.

He truly changed music, he left a lasting impression so deep that his popularity never waned, not one bit through the decades.

He was a pioneer of Minneapolis sound and his music integrated a wide variety of styles, including funk, rock, R&B, soul, hip hop, disco, psychedelia, jazz, and pop.
After several failed attempts to break into the music scene he finally broke in with his debut album “For You” in 1978.
In 1984, he became a household name with the Film “Purple Rain,” where he played a an aspiring musician, with a troubled home life and a budding romance on the horizon.

His popularity with fan’s never subsided no matter what he released or worked on, fans purchased it. From 1985-1992 he released one album per year and landed the score to Tim Burton’s “Batman.”

He went on to start in 2 more movies and released the concert film “Sign ‘o’ the Times” which hit theaters in 1987.
In the 1990’s he changed his name to a symbol (due to a dispute between his then record label, Warner Bros)so the media started to refer to him as “Artist Formerly Known as Prince.”


Prince won 7 Grammy Awards and earned 30 nominations. Prince won an Oscar for best original song score for “Purple Rain.”
His nickname was “His Royal Badness,” due to the rather sexual nature of his songs, yet it never turned off his fans.

Today, stars reacted and outpouring of genuine emotion hit social media over his death. I highlight genuine because we rarely show our human emotions in a genuine nature these days, we tend to hide behind social media, but today the posts had feeling, subsistence to them, which something I have not seen in a long time. It was a true outpouring of human raw-felt emotion and I respect that.
Prince meant different things to different people, he influenced each of us in different ways, he will be missed however the same by all of us.

Tonight I will close without my usual flair for music, out of respect.

That said
RIP Prince Roger Nelson

You will be missed but never forgotten
June 7, 1958 – April 21, 2016

Cristal M Clark

@thecrimeshop

IOS users, you can find me on “The Crime Shop”  @Apple News

 

Who is going to Police the Police

 

 

I keep seeing a steady stream of media reports asking “Who is Going to Police the Police?”

Depending on what part of the country, state, city, or town you are in, you either think it is needed or you don’t. Depending on what news story you just read or viewed, which defendant or defendant’s relatives you heard, you either think it is needed or you don’t.

Let’s forget the bigger cases the media has highlighted and look at a smaller one.  

Take for instance the case of Officer Cynthia Whitlatch’s  with the Seattle police department who on July 9, 2014, placed William Wingate under arrest, an elderly black man, for no apparent reason.

Office Whitlatch later made comments on Facebook where she complained about “black people’s paranoia that white people are out to get them.” The committee of Professional Accountability for the department recommended that officer Whitlatch be more careful when posting on social media.

Here are the details:

Whitlatch arrested Mr. Wingate claiming that the golf club/putter he was using as a cane had been swung at her by Mr. Wingate, regardless of the dashcam video clearly not supporting officer Whitlatch’s account. The worst part about this case is that I am more than sure it also fell into the hands of Internal Affairs with the Seattle police department and no action had been taken, in fact the Office of Professional Accountability didn’t even see the video until January the following year by way of a citizen showing it to them. Taking a look at this incident a step even further (like I have to, but why not put the cherry on top right?), several within the department and the Office of Professional Accountability already had concerns with Whitlatch and sort of sat on it like a bird does waiting for an egg to hatch!

The point is, regardless of the bigger cases we have all seen so many times in the news and on social media, smaller cases like Mr. Wingate’s happen all the time and all over, they clearly illustrate the issues we face with having police oversight.

It’s not well regulated, not well managed, absolutely no one is held accountable, and for lack of better words serves as dis-service in a lot of cases.

On the other hand, when a criminal is arrested or shot and killed during the commission of a crime, of course they are or their loved one’s are going to cry police misconduct. That is just a fact plain and simple. No one wants to take accountability for the actions that led to his or her arrest or death.

While I believe that both IA and police civilian oversight committees are needed and could be beneficial if run more effectively, we should also take a look at police departments who really do get it right.

Take for instance the Arvada, Colorado police department. Back in 2010 I believe they had an issue which made all of the local news in which several officers were involved in excessive force. It was actually captured on video to boot.

The Arvada police department prides itself on recruiting, hiring and retaining model officers that are a benefit to it’s community rather than brutes who wear a badge and gun who go around and instill fear into the citizens of the community.

The department wasted no time what-so-ever in starting an investigation into the accusations of excessive force, they didn’t wait for CNN, Fox News or any other major national news channel to get it, the citizens who caught the incident on camera didn’t cry racism, they didn’t claim the entire department was an issue, they filed the complaint just as they should have, what the officers did was inappropriate and they wanted them to face the consequences of those actions. And, they did. Most resigned knowing in the end, they’d have no other choice.

The reason I bring this case up is because for problem departments as we look to oversight and reform, we need to also be looking at the departments who get it right most of the time as leaders and policy makers. Not just bring in some former chief of whatever city or town. To accomplish an effective way to make sweeping changes, at less cost to taxpayers, start recruiting chief’s in departments to serve as a board to review the issues and help come up with ways to resolve them.  

We can’t rely solely on reform and police oversight if we are not looking at the departments who are doing it right, we are defeating the purpose of reform by modeling it off of what Joe Blow on the fed level thinks this or that department needs and hiring one guy who made some changes that worked in Chicago.

Remove the agenda’s and take departments who are doing it right to take a look at one that’s not doing it right and you’ll get less personal agenda bullshit and more of the actual nuts and bolts of what the real issues are as well as  clear and effective ways to clean that shit up. The departments that are doing it right, should serve as part of a board to assist when we encounter a department in dire need of police reform.

Citizen oversight is a great idea, if it’s managed right. In Mr. Wingates case, the director of the Office of Professional Accountability faced no recourse for the failings in Mr. Wingates case or for sitting on the fact that they knew about issues with the arresting officer prior to that. Ever hear that saying “Shit Rolls Down Hill?” or this one that I love “Crap in is Crap Out?” Well, that’s managment in a nutshell. If management is crap so are the majority of the employee’s, the rest of the employees may be bright and great but they are miserable and will leave eventually, mentally sooner rather than later. Trust in that anyone working today knows this is true.

This is the issue with police oversight, too many oversight committee’s are lead by crap leaders who have become complacent or rely on excuses for poor oversight. Crap in, Crap Out, start rolling heads when one fails, use it as an example. We need to hold anyone sitting on any police accountability or oversight committee to much higher standards and when those standards are not met because things slipped through the cracks or they liked someone, fire them. Plain and simple.

IA in a lot of departments is actually a lot more effective than the oversight committee’s made up of citizens and here’s why: they know the department they investigate, they know police practices and procedure and they actually do investigate just about everything that is reported to IA. They are bound to investigate any and all matters and they take it very seriously they just need to learn to work with oversight groups and include them. The reason we don’t trust them…can anyone guess why we want citizen oversight? It’s because they are all cops.

We don’t trust them because of that, we are accustomed to if we don’t get our way we cry some more for a different outcome. IF it’s not working, change the way you’re doing it type of approach. The problem with that approach here, somehow we have forgotten that we don’t always like the outcome, we don’t always get our way and that’s just that.

When looking at many of the big cases to hit the media where individuals were shot and killed by police, relatives didn’t get the answers they wanted locally, so they took it to the Federal level. After not getting the answers they wanted still, they kept crying for police reform. For what I ask? If at the Federal level no fault on the part of police could be found just what the hell is the family asking for exactly? Not to shoot, sit and have a coffee and cake with the criminal wanting to harm the officer?

We do have serious issues with policing in this country, I highlighted this before in my Ferguson Effect pieces, yet, not all police officers are the problem and not all departments are run by gun toting thugs.

If we want police reform, we should let the departments who are running things right have a much bigger say in it, we must allow for them to become the one and only authority on how it’s done, they learned how to work with the citizens of the communities they police, they are great teachers if allowed those departments a better chance in the spotlight. Using these departments and the leadership as teachers serves as a better way to clean up departments rather than hire in a new chief, no one has an agenda.   

If we are to continue with citizen oversight, it needs a quick and vast overhaul on how it is to handle cases. Ensuring the leaders of citizen oversight are always held to the highest standards and are actually held accountable would be a great start. Additionally, these citizen oversight groups need to learn policing policy and procedures otherwise all you end up with is someone making recommendations based off of his or her personal feelings and beliefs which are not always in line with reality. 

Until we can achieve these simple steps, we are always going to have a chink in the chain and will never obtain the outcome that which we so desire. Then again, we want police reform and oversight, it begs the question, when is it too much oversight and reform?

Cristal M Clark

@thecrimeshop

crimeshop.wordpress.com

IOS users, be sure to find The Crime Shop on Apple News

Now Powered by Death Wish Coffee: http://www.deathwishcoffee.com/

 

Government Bullying in the US

 

CONGRESS

 

The Strong Arm Vs. Encryption

Here are some recent headlines:

US to continue to appeal of iPhone data case in New York – VentureBeat

FBI’s Security Gaming in Hacking iPhone Does Not Justify Low Reward – Stanford Political Journal

Draft of US Encryption Bill Leaks Online, Is Incredibly Stupid – Softpedia

Apple-FBI Encryption Battle Shifts to New York – <re/code>

The New Encryption Bill isn’t Finished and Silicon Valley Already Hates it <re/code>

FBI director: We bought ‘a tool’ to hack terrorist’s iPhone – CNN

Your WhatsApp secrets are safe now. But Big Brother is still watching you – theguardian

FBI Admits They Can’t Hack New IOS Devices – Leaf and Core

This list could go on and on and become rather exhaustive, the point is, we have a Government who isn’t happy about Encryption. Unless you have been living under a rock the past few years this is not new news. On the other side of the coin, we have a media who seems to be hellbent stirring the pot.

Take these two headlines for example:

Leaked Senate encryption bill called ‘ludicrous, dangerous’ by security experts – appleinsider

Congress could force Apple to build an iPhone backdoor – Mashable

If one is paying special attention however, the media in this case is not just stirring the pot, it is attempting to drive home a point and it’s a pretty significant point. If the Government, any branch of our illustrious Government wins the right to force Apple or any other company to create backdoors to encryption, we as a people, as a whole, lose one important thing. We lose the right to privacy.

In other countries Governments do not afford citizens the privacy that we are afforded here in America. Our ancestors came here to get away from bullshit like that. Sorry to be blunt but why beat around the bush and be pretty about it?

Here is the where the fine line gets crossed. Our Government stretching it’s strong arm and bitch slapping Apple from across the table and forcing them to abide by the wishes of our Government. Apple didn’t break the law, what Apple has done is give it’s customers a peace of mind, they protect us and our information from criminals. Apple does not design its products with the idea of protecting some thug criminal. Yet another shining example of a branch of US government acting like a petulant child not getting it’s way.

For those of you that read my piece about the FBI-Apple argument, while I believe I was fair in my assessment of both, I still stand by what I said. Apple has every right to tell the FBI no and the FBI has every right to find another party to help them unlock the iPhone.

As luck were to have it, the FBI did just that. The reason the FBI, CIA, Congress the Senate, etc. are struggling with encryption is because it allows users to hide information.  The reason so many support it is because it keeps our information safe.

If our Government proceeds, sadly they only prove the point of Edward Snowden, which I am sure is the last thing they really want to accomplish.

Now do I believe they will spy on all of us? Hell no. I just don’t believe they have a right to order any company to allow them to have a way in so to speak. If they want that, they should maybe consider learning how to attract, hire and retain the right types of individuals that can get them to that point much like companies such as Apple, Google, Facebook, Twitter, Tesla …just to name a few.

For those of you that do follow my blog, you can skip this part because I say this quite a bit. Just like with criminal investigation, our Government has an outdated way of hiring, profiling, the judicial system, policing, spying, investigations, etc. You get the idea. Just because you are not given your way or don’t like something, it does not afford you the right to stomp your feet, have a tantrum and force someone to do something your way. The judicial system sends people to jail for this very same mindset so why in the hell should any branch of our Government be allowed to behave in such a manner?

If the Government doesn’t like the results, they should practice in the art of getting up off of their asses and doing something productive, not counterproductive, manipulative and destructive about it. Hire the right individuals that would perhaps be of a more equal match to that of individuals at top tech companies around the world, top developers around the world etc.

Hence, our Government would win more support should it learn to better match itself to the intellect of the companies and the public they are going up against rather than utilize its strong arm as a way to force its beliefs, wants, needs and desires onto others.

 

Cristal M Clark

@thecrimeshop

crimeshop.wordpress.com

IOS users, be sure to find The Crime Shop on Apple News

Now Powered by Death Wish Coffee: http://www.deathwishcoffee.com/

 

Johnson County, Iowa ~ April 6, 1968

Was she running to something or from something? At the heart of this case, this seems to be the most pertinent question because the day Geraldine disappeared she was seen with a suitcase.

Here is the history of Geraldine Maggert’s murder:

It was Friday, March, 22 1968 when Geraldine’s parents picked up their granddaughter early in the morning for a scheduled visit to their farm. As far as anyone knew Geraldine was heading to work for the day but had not scheduled a trip out of town.

Geraldine did not show up to work, in fact she telephoned in to say that she was ill and would not be reporting to work that day. It was just before noon when she went to her local bank to withdraw funds suitcase in hand.

Geraldine did not report to work the following week so her co-workers called her parents naturally, her parents as I stated earlier were not aware of any scheduled trip their daughter planned to take  suggesting perhaps that Geraldine had taken a trip to see her ex, her daughter’s father?

Her car was found by coworkers at the Cedar Rapids airport, leaving them to think that Geraldine had in fact taken a trip. It was Geraldine’s mother however who felt something was not right. She drove herself to the Cedar Rapids police department and reported her daughter missing.

During the investigation, the police did not note any signs of a struggle let alone murder in Geraldine’s apartment. They did note that her suitcase was missing just as they had heard it was by witnesses.

At age 25, Geraldine’s almost completely nude body was found April 6, 1968 at a popular picnic spot in Johnson County Iowa. The spot was affectionately called “The Rock,” by locals. She had been beaten and left for dead, the autopsy showed she died from both being beaten and exposure. She was also 3 months pregnant at the time of her murder.

Since her body had been found on Federal land, the Feds lead the investigation and even after an extensive search by land, air and water the Fed’s could not locate Geraldine’s clothing. They also could not locate a single suspect after having interviewed her ex. Her ex was ruled out as a suspect for a couple of reasons, he passed a lie detector and happened to be in another state a the time of her murder.

Who was Geraldine?

Born March 13, 1943 in Elkader, Iowa, those who knew her described her as smart yet very shy. More or less an introvert. She married Richard Maggert and together they had a little girl. They did divorce and it is unclear as to who had gotten Geraldine pregnant at the time of her death.

She worked as a secretary and was last seen alive on March 22, 1968.

What happened?

What was she running to or from?  That could mean many things, for instance she packed a bag expecting a weekend getaway with a secret lover,  a job prospect perhaps, or she was going to have an abortion and expected to have to stay overnight at the facility she was having the abortion in or, she planned to run away from everything.

Running from something or to something in this case is much more important to understand than one may realize. That information and that alone will lead investigators to her killer. The killer wanted her to suffer but for what reason? It was not entirely a crime of passion, that much is clear. Her killer was angry, angry enough to beat her but not angry enough to ensure the beating caused death, overall it seems as if the killer inadvertently went overboard. Meaning simply that he did not intend for things to end up the way that the did. He may have wanted her dead all along but not in the way it happened. Her clothing was taken however for reasons that are unknown. It was either to throw investigators, to cover up something or as a trophy. 

Initially the investigators believed the case might be tied to the murder of Sheila Jean Collins whose partially nude body was found January 28 near Colo, Iowa. Investigators have since said they are 99% certain the two case are not related.

This case is solvable, even without the benefit of DNA once we understand more about where Geraldine was planning to go that weekend. Was she going for fun or was she going in an effort to run from something? That is the key that will unlock the door as to who her killer was. 

Cristal M Clark

@thecrimeshop

crimeshop.wordpress.com

IOS users, be sure to find The Crime Shop on Apple News

Now Powered by Death Wish Coffee: http://www.deathwishcoffee.com/