Slashdot Mirror

1. The Franklin Cover-Up by John Decamp
2. Cornwall Ontario Sex Abuse Scandal
3. Marc Dutroux
4. Ted Gunderson
5. Conspiracy of Silence
6. The Finders
7. Elm House
8. Jimmy Savile

http://www.crimelibrary.com/cr...

The most reliable research available indicates that there are only 100-130 cases of stranger abductions a year in the United States. The F.B.I. handled 93 cases of stranger abductions cases in 2001. That figure is actually a decrease from years past, especially during the 1980s when the average per year hovered around 200 incidents a year.

There hasn't even been a spike in "disappearances" of people or content online.

I know it isn't what you were getting at, but here's a thing you may find amusing..in a country allegedly obsessed with surveillance.
Missing Britons and this is from 2009.
At this point I should punt you in the direction of the works of Robert Rankin..
For the US, try here for a start.

"Only about 100 missing-child reports each year fit the profile of a stereotypical abduction by a stranger or vague acquaintance." Those are the real kidnapping cases, and there's usually no identified suspect whose phone law enforcement could dump.

So these people are nobodies now (this one just happened by the way, complete with a Gadsden flag)?

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/06...

Whataboot this (spread of American values north)?

http://www.theguardian.com/wor...

And this?

http://www.crimelibrary.com/te...

Of course, this -

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/p...

Soviet / Russian agents were engaged in the most subtle intelligence operations long, long before that.

The Real James Bond

As to "sheltering" Snowden, it seems he was in contact with the Russians before his arrival in Moscow, and that his arrival was no surprise. In the view of a number of former Soviet bloc intelligence officers, Snowden was collaborating with them for some time.

Let me get specific: I guy who had an office near where I used to live, pissed somebody off, and got a parcel bomb. He now has no hands. I guess you think that's a big joke. He doesn't.

And I had just left the Mansion House Garage on October 16, 1981, when âoeSonnyâ Faheen's Volkswagen Beetle blew up. You can still see the soot on the ceiling where he died.
http://www.crimelibrary.com/gangsters_outlaws/family_epics/louis/9.html

No, I don't think that it's a big joke, but that doesn't mean that I accept anything that a public official says when someone may have over-reacted to a situation. Well over a hundred death row inmates have been found innocent due to DNA testing that didn't exist at the time of their convictions. In most of those cases, the other evidence didn't fit, either, but the prosecutor's office didn't want to back down after accusing someone. The Moonite bomb scare showed the same pattern of behavior, and this case has some disturbing similarities.

E) After getting the money the 3rd strike felon shoots you anyways to 'eliminate witnesses'.
F) The Mugger, feeling brave, forces you to take him to his house, where he proceeds to beat, torture, and rape you, your wife, and your kid, etc...

Note, my default action would be to hand over the money - but if I think it's going to go beyond mugging I'm going for the gun.

Not to be confused with Javid Iqbal or Javid Iqbal.

...rifles and bell towers?

Too soon!

You're right, but only if you're moving in geologic time. The referenced event was the University of Texas sniper

...rifles and bell towers?

Too soon!

You're right, but only if you're moving in geologic time. The referenced event was the University of Texas sniper

...rifles and bell towers?

Too soon!

You're right, but only if you're moving in geologic time. The referenced event was the University of Texas sniper

The only reference to satellites in this case seems to be on par with what Google Earth could provide. The location of the hut in the trees, as well as topology of the land.

I'm not sure what purpose turning satellites towards the country would achieve (when Google Earth probably provides a similar service)? Maybe they have worked out how to zoom in on a very narrow area with 100% satellite stability and watch the area in near-realtime (or even 1 frame an hour would help)? But still, this is a capability that the US probably wouldn't want to advertise and waste on low grade criminals.

Well, it cant be worse than the inaccuricies of human eyewitness testimony.

Second off, we're already in a war, and people are dying now. Releasing more classified information might increase that total, but not perhaps, more than making uninformed or misinformed decisions. See: Invasion of Iraq, part II, faulty intelligence, current death tolls.

Thirdly, to paraphrase you, "you can't just have vital information withheld because some fuckwad decides to do so." That person might not have the best interests of the country in mind. They might decide to withhold information for personal gain, political reasons or revenge. See: CIA agent outing, Valerie Plame, lack of document release about the leak source by White House.

For every 2-bit wiki and website out there that publishes a classified or FOUO document, we have warehouses, and I mean warehouses, full of stuff that somebody in the government decided to hide away, for one reason or other. Democracy is based on the proposition that the citizens are informed about the matters on which they decide. They are conflicting reasons to release and to hide information, and the idea that we should simply take the government at it's word is silly. Case in point: J. edgar Hoover's use of the FBI to find and keep damaging information on US citizens- http://www.crimelibrary.com/hoover/hoovermain.htm

In the end, those people who do decide to release vital information are prosecuted, see: Rosenbergs. Walker. et. al. The thing is, without the extraordinary release of information that our society allows, we wouldn't have known about Nixon and the Watergate Scandal. Or Abu Garib. Or, in this case, potentially illegal acts at Guantanamo. Or, for next week, the illegal intercepts by NSA of all US traffic, before 9/11. (fat lot of good that did us)

Imagine an outbound firewall that poses a series of questions to anyone who tries to use it.

James's disappearance made the evening news and immediately calls poured in. Many believed they had seen the toddler in Walton. After one report that James was spotted by the canal, investigators planned to drag the water in the morning. The police interviewed Ralph and Denise Bulger, retracing her steps at the Bootle Strand. As with most child abductions, the parents are routinely considered suspects. But police had too many leads, which took the focus away from the Bulgers. After midnight on the day James disappeared, authorities watched the security videos taken at the shopping center, hoping to catch a glimpse of his abductor.

Reminds me of "voice-printing", which was basically manual speaker recognition using spectrograms. The police who used it were undertrained, and *just slightly* biased against the accused, so the whole technique became discredited, perhaps more than necessary.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/forensic s/voiceprints/1.html

---
Why procrastinate now when you can procrastinate tomorrow?

Ok, flash back to mid-90's San Antonio, Texas, and look to the public access TV channel. You'll find the most obnoxious show available at that time, "The Worst Show".

Yes, that was the show's name, and the guy running it REALLY tried to make it as such. Tasteless, obnoxious, and incendiary were a few names thrown at it. Dave Leitt {show owner} pulled out all the stops trying to piss off any organized group he could. Explosions and gunfire abounded, as well as racially/religiously-charged skits designed to offend. All on purpose, mind you; Dave liked tweaking the nose of authority and those mired in political-correctness.

That's what landed him on the Montel Williams show.

The Worst Show {TWS hereafter} had run a skit called simply "The Suicide Skit". If you were to view it, it was a tongue-in-cheek rag on suicide... if you had half a brain cell. Suddenly, every mad soccer mom within 100 miles was freaking out; someone had told their kid HOW to commit suicide. He landed on the MW show, and said later that he had to fight from giggling when he realized just how much powder MW {according to him} uses to keep the chrome-dome glare down. The funniest part in the estimation of most was when one of the infuriated mothers actually turned to Montel and stated "Well, my 12-year-old would NEVER have known how to kill himself if it wasn't for that skit!"

{Personally, I think that any "normal" 12-year-old that doesn't realize that there are things in life that're lethal isn't "normal" to begin with, but I digress...}

Dave was the black sheep candidate, and so let's introduce his main competitor....

William "Dental Bill" Thornton. A local dentist, he was well-connected politically, and was even on the board of the local university hospital board. Dave didn't care about his connections. He instead felt that he was untrustworthy, because of:

Genene Jones. You see, Dave found out from family in the nursing field about the story, and found a bit more. {click the link and brush up here, if possible. Yes, I know it's Slashdot. :P} Jones had actually WORKED at the hospital that Thornton was Chairman of the Board. If you check closely, you'll find that the board had noticed that something was awry with her patients. They deliberated, considered the scandal it'd cause their hospital vs. turning in a child-killer to the police.

They chose to quietly "let her go", rather than show they'd not monitored their nursing staff appropriately.

This was why Dave couldn't stand Thornton, and when Thornton announced he was running for mayor, Dave felt he had to act. He had a popular local public access show, after all; couldn't he use that to garner a vote for mayor? Off he went. Picture it being similar to the "Brewster's Millions" election; he didn't want the job, but he wanted to make it a LOT harder on Thornton to GET it. His main focus for this election turned to forcing a run-off, as it'd cost both candidates {for the most part} to work out-of-pocket at that point. He felt it was morally necessary to "make" Thornton pay for the loss of life....

It worked, too. He got around 530 votes, just enough to force the run-off. Thornton won, yes, but it cost him around $200,000 out of pocket; NOT chump change. Even better, the Jones story got even more publicity, and Thornton quickly degenerated into mush during and after the election, going to far as to call a press conference on local TV announcing that his former Campaign Manager, T.J. Connally, was "stalking" him. He didn't get re-elected.

I voted for Dave after checking/verifying the Jones story for myself. I was one of those 500-something people. We cost the candidate over 200k, and he quickly was shown to be almost totally ineffective as mayor...

http://www.crimelibrary.com/news/original/0507/030 1_channon_christian.html - murders of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom (remove slashdot-inserted space in visible URI).

Anyone who believes what they see on TV should read what they can about the above - then question why they haven't heard a *peep* about it from the mainstream media, especially in light of the utter fiasco which was the Duke Lacrosse false rape accusation garbage.

Talk about a suppressed story, and this one being without wild assumptions or other leaps to conclusions, unlike the majority of the ones listed on the "official" website.

Aside from having relatives that are in the cult and seeing much first-hand, Google is your friend:

the Mountain Meadows massacre
The Mormon Murders
CIA and FBI recruitment of Mormons (Time Magazine)
The Mormon Army

The list goes on, but I'll leave further research as an exercise for the reader.

There is no way wahtsoever that a guy armed with a knife only can put down 30 healthy teenagers or 20somethings.

This middle aged guy in China got 10 people with knife and ax.

Richard Speck strangled and stabbed eight people in one gruesome night.

The Hutus were able to kill a hell of a lot of Tutsis with machetes - i.e., big knives.

Petar Brzica is said to have knifed 1,300 people in one night, though concentration camp inmates were obviously easy targets.

Somebody trained, with quality knives (including big knives such as swords or machetes), against 30 untrained panicing young people, divided into a few smaller groups in classrooms? Quite possible.

There's a reason that sword-wielding tyrants and conquerors, from the generals of Athens to the shoguns of Japan, were able to succeed: if I have a big knife and you don't, I'm in charge or you're dead. Even if there's a dozen of you.

But, we do need to recall that while this incident was the worst school shooting, it was not the worst school mass murder: the Bath School disaster killed 45 people. For mass murder, fire and explosives are the way to go.

Why don't you ask Randy Weaver how that worked out for his family? http://www.crimelibrary.com/gangsters_outlaws/cops _others/randy_weaver/1.html

http://www.crimelibrary.com/news/original/0107/170 2_canadian_murders.html She was 12 too. Something tells me that if he parents knew more about her online interactions they might have been more prepared.

Forced water drinking was one of the tortures during the Spanish inquisition. Apparently, no more then eight liters of water were used per session.

These laws are being used to go on the equivalent of modern day witch hunts.

It's not just the kids who sometimes lie about this stuff. However....

When has any defendant ever had any say so or oversite in the picking of a jury? Answer: NEVER.

Sorry, but this is untrue. I've served on a jury before, and both sides' attorneys got ample opportunity to interview potential jurors and to dismiss the ones they didn't like (the number of dismissals varies by jurisdiction). They also get the chance to object to dismissals if they feel the dismissal pattern of the opposing side is discriminatory. What's more, in criminal cases, the defendant only needs one juror to agree with them at the verdict in order to force the prosecution to retry or drop the case.

So Milosovich was valiant anti-imperialist?
Right.

One theory is that Milosovich was winning his war-crimes trial at the Hague, and was going to call Bill Clinton as a hostile witness in his defense. Mighty convenient that he died of a 'heart attack'. But what do I know, I'm just the jester on the sidelines.

And the Islamists are striking a blow against imperialism? By stoning women to death? Or chanting Islam is a religion of peace!! and shooting a 75 year old nun?

The controlled media picks up on the worst-of-the-worst in the islamic world, to make sure 'we' look down on 'them' as primitive. There are plenty of examples of nasty people in our own midst - who are we to look down on bad-apple islamists shooting a nun, when two American Highschoolers slaughtered 10 buddhist monks in a petty war game/robbery?

NAFTA is the least of Clinton's transgressions: Who Said Clinton Didn't Kill Anybody?

Parent poster runs a web site profiting off of BDSM which has been proven to lead to rape, torture, serial murder, and child abuse. Please take a stand against sexual assault and mod the parent poster DOWN!

THANK YOU!!

You don't need a body to prosecute a murder. The Acid Bath Vampire

If you are the Ken and Barbie of serial killers, you videotape your abduction and assault of teenage girls.

---and Inspector Clouseau gets assigned to your case.

But the "smart ones" try very hard not to leave behind so conspicuous a gift for the police.

You don't need a body to prosecute a murder. The Acid Bath Vampire

If you are the Ken and Barbie of serial killers, you videotape your abduction and assault of teenage girls.

---and Inspector Clouseau gets assigned to your case.

But the "smart ones" try very hard not to leave behind so conspicuous a gift for the police.

Here's a lot of reading material. Some more. A little more. And to top things off here's another article.

Are there plenty of people who feel remorse for killing people if it was a crime of passion or one that they didn't truly want to do but felt compelled to anyways? Sure. But it goes both ways, and there are plenty of people who quite honestly are so deranged that they don't feel any remorse for what they've done. A peer-reviewed scientific study showing that most killers aren't wracked with guilt? I doubt anyone has the time or inclination to play Search-Engine-Monkey for you. Go ahead and get evidence your evidence before you start demanding it from other people. There are plenty of cases where the fact of the matter is that these killers are remorseless, you only have to know an inkling about psychology to understand that. In fact, plenty of these murderers feel justified fully in their actions.

Listen to elucido, he's trying to help you understand the situation. Most people who kill do it because they have serious problems.

> Don't need the hydraulic jack. Depends on the aircraft and it hasn't been
> thoroughly debunked because it can be done, was done by DB Cooper. See
> http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/scams/DB _Cooper/index.html .
> With a parachute he leaped from the back tail-fan door.

That "door" was a hydraulically-operated rear boarding ramp. So you could say that he _did_ use a hydraulic jack.

With a parachute he leaped from the back tail-fan door. Otherwise, don't do it even if you could. It would be rather unpleasant. Some of the old birds, their doors opened outwards and not into the cabin. That was a design change due to an accident, on an aircraft on its delivery flight. The door wasn't completely closed and the new crew didn't know it. Not sure if any of them are still in service. They might be considering a number of 747s and other aircraft from the 1960s are still in service.

.. or watch out MS.Astroturfers on board ..

"The reason the fine is less than what had been threatened in the press"

Can you provide any citation from the commision to a reduction in fine for good behavour. There is a December reference to a $2m per day from the Commision. Which if my arithmetic is correct, is one million less then the current fine.

"Microsoft met with the EU Trustee Neil Barrett, who "clarified the requirements for the documents"."

Microsoft were compelled to 'meet' Barrett as they failed to comply with its ruling. What he actually said was the documents were "totally unfit for its intended purpose".

You put that as if MS was the concerned party somehow trying to play honest broker to the nasty Commision. In fact MS were compelled to 'meet' Neil Barrett after they first tried to have him removed. You see the Commision is a legally conviened body in judgement of Microsofts' misconduct. It's not as if the guilty party gets to 'meet' the Judge and 'clarify' things for him.

"Barrett also provided Microsoft with "aggressive series of deadlines" for providing the documentation in accordance with the clarified requirements."

So its the Commision who's at fault for not clarifying requirments. Instead of what is really happening, MS wilfully ignoring the instruction to open the protocols to third party developers.

"Since that time, Microsoft has been working overtime to provide the documentation,"

If they are complient why are they being fined $357m and a further $3m euros per day?

"Microsoft has met all milestones in the "series of deadlines" laid down by Barret"

If they are complient why are they being fined $357m and a further $3m euros per day?

"the EU knows that Microsoft provided the new documentation in good faith, and they'll just work with Microsoft to address any further deficiencies."

If Microsoft provided the new documentation in good faith why are they being fined $3 million per day.

Why does the Commision need to 'work with Microsoft'? Did Leona Helmsley get to 'work' with the Judge when she was caught cheeting on taxes?

In real life, are you a PR hack for Microsoft?

Is slashdot becoming totally overrun with MS.Astroturfers?

In this country we still have to deal with fundi Christians and their crazy rituals: Andrea Yates

http://www.crimelibrary.com/forensics/polygraph/

I think the people worried about the potential for errors and misuse of the fMRI are missing the point. Any tool ever invented can be and probably has been misused. Using fMRI for lie-detection is unlikely to be an exception. Nor should we naively expect it to be 100% accurate. But it does show promise to be more accurate than its predecessor in lie-detection technology, the polygraph, which is still in use. In that respect shouldn't we absolutely be trying it out and hoping to replace an old technology with a more effective one?

I suppose one might have the legitimate concern that it would be abused in an Orwellian way because it could be more accurate. The idea of fascist states potentially using it to crush dissent, or misusing it in some other horrible way, is scary. But if that's the ACLU's concern, let's get that debate out in the open instead of using the "this device is should not use used until it's accuracy has been proven" argument (especially in light of the fact that exisiting lie-detection technology has been proven inaccurate).

Yup, that's what got Leona Helmsley.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/scams/le ona_helmsley/index.html

In case anyone else is trying to figure out what of any interest happened on Sep 29 1982, I assume the OP is referring to the Tylenol Murders. First I've heard about it too.

You can read a pleasingly detailed yet short account of frank abignales cons here.

Frank's story is incredibly interesting and entertaining. Theres no way he would get away with some of his daring escapes today, such as posing as the fbi official when he was completely surrounded. Goes to show how much people have learned from this sort of activity, which is probably more of a contributing factor than technology. Any new form of payment or communication introduces new flaws which for a time only the cleverest can think to exploit, just with the interweb we see something so radically new and different that laws and security experts struggle to keep up.

You might like to read "Ordinary People and Extraordinary Evil" by Fred Katz, and there's an essay here which discusses the genesis of criminal evil here http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/psycholo gy/evil2/1.html.

If you want a quick summary of their conclusions though, people who commit evil do so because they do not feel the lives of their victims are of any consequence. Katherine Ramsland uses the term "You Exist For Me", an attitude I see mirrored only too frequently in corporate behaviour.

Their actual actions are constrained by their visibility, not by their consciences. That's why they are evil.

Here's what happened. After 9/11, authorities found a bunch of e-mail addresses and phone numbers in the phones and computers of confirmed terrorists. They tracked down those leads. Most of the people the NSA started eavesdropping on -- about 7,000 -- lived overseas, and their phone calls were to other foreigners living abroad. But, according to Risen's book, "about 500 people" living in the U.S. who were in contact with suspected terrorists had their communications tapped. Risen calls this "large-scale" spying on the American people even though, as the Weekly Standard recently noted, this constitutes "1.7 ten-thousandths of 1 percent of the U.S. population."

Here's what happened. After 9/11, authorities found a bunch of e-mail addresses and phone numbers in the phones and computers of confirmed terrorists. They tracked down those leads. Most of the people the NSA started eavesdropping on -- about 7,000 -- lived overseas, and their phone calls were to other foreigners living abroad. But, according to Risen's book, "about 500 people" living in the U.S. who were in contact with suspected terrorists had their communications tapped. Risen calls this "large-scale" spying on the American people even though, as the Weekly Standard recently noted, this constitutes "1.7 ten-thousandths of 1 percent of the U.S. population."

Here's what happened. After 9/11, authorities found a bunch of e-mail addresses and phone numbers in the phones and computers of confirmed terrorists. They tracked down those leads. Most of the people the NSA started eavesdropping on -- about 7,000 -- lived overseas, and their phone calls were to other foreigners living abroad. But, according to Risen's book, "about 500 people" living in the U.S. who were in contact with suspected terrorists had their communications tapped. Risen calls this "large-scale" spying on the American people even though, as the Weekly Standard recently noted, this constitutes "1.7 ten-thousandths of 1 percent of the U.S. population."

While your sentiment is often repeated and seems logical, history seems to indicate otherwise. Organized crime, despite awareness of FBI wiretaps since the 30s, often spoke plainly if they had no reason to suspect their lines were being tapped or when they simply slipped up.

1930 Ness had his men tap Ralph's phones continuously. With the intelligence Ness gathered, he was able to ram the front door of Capone's South Wabash brewery with a truck outfitted with a snowplow on the front.

1989 "You know why he's dying?" Gotti was heard saying on an FBI wiretap on December 12, 1989, in reference to a wiseguy whose murder he had ordered. "He's gonna die because he refused to come in when I called. He didn't do nothing else wrong."

I remember watching interviews with some of the agents involved, and they simply couldn't believe how often mafia bosses would speak plainly, even right after their predecessors had been busted. Terrorists are just as falliable as anyone else, and it's pretty difficult to use code 100% of the time, although encryption is arguably making it easier to mask communications. That's not to say that wanton disregard for the 4th Amendment is acceptable, it's not, but wiretapping is a useful and effective tool of law enforcement.

The signal to noise ratio for widespread monitoring, however, is very low. I think one of the NSA informants mentioned that there were hundreds or thousands of hours of recordings which hadn't been reviewed because there just isn't enough manpower (specifically arabic translators).

While your sentiment is often repeated and seems logical, history seems to indicate otherwise. Organized crime, despite awareness of FBI wiretaps since the 30s, often spoke plainly if they had no reason to suspect their lines were being tapped or when they simply slipped up.

1930 Ness had his men tap Ralph's phones continuously. With the intelligence Ness gathered, he was able to ram the front door of Capone's South Wabash brewery with a truck outfitted with a snowplow on the front.

1989 "You know why he's dying?" Gotti was heard saying on an FBI wiretap on December 12, 1989, in reference to a wiseguy whose murder he had ordered. "He's gonna die because he refused to come in when I called. He didn't do nothing else wrong."

I remember watching interviews with some of the agents involved, and they simply couldn't believe how often mafia bosses would speak plainly, even right after their predecessors had been busted. Terrorists are just as falliable as anyone else, and it's pretty difficult to use code 100% of the time, although encryption is arguably making it easier to mask communications. That's not to say that wanton disregard for the 4th Amendment is acceptable, it's not, but wiretapping is a useful and effective tool of law enforcement.

The signal to noise ratio for widespread monitoring, however, is very low. I think one of the NSA informants mentioned that there were hundreds or thousands of hours of recordings which hadn't been reviewed because there just isn't enough manpower (specifically arabic translators).

The Story of Landru:

JeffreyDahmer

Really? Thats one of those things people say a lot, but which is clearly not true. I can think of plenty of instances where publicity has been a bad thing.

Frank Abagnale Jr is the man you're looking for!