The 911 calls

[LadyL]

honestly imo i don't think the sk would ask the girls not to bring their cell phones. these girls are all too aware of the dangers of working and if a john asked them not to bring their phones that would be a huge red flag right off the bat.

the girls have to be street smart to survive, even if a john they frequented asked them not to bring their cell phone i'd think it would make the john look shady.

a lot of the girls likely used burners for work and for a john to ask them not to bring a phone just makes the john look really bad. there's no reason i could even think of that the john would use to ask them not to bring the phone. even a celebrity. if the girls were dealing with anyone famous, it's more likely that once they got to the john's house he would ask them to turn off their phones.

[bbm]

what's a burner?

 

[Clem Snide]

[bbm]

what's a burner?

A disposable pre-paid phone that can't really be traced back to you.

 

[Ama11]

Something bothers me about the 911 call.
This something bothers me a lot...

I hope nothing "happens" to the 911 recording like what "happened" to her jacket. I hope her mother's legal team gets access to the entire 911 call soon.

 

[jimmydo]

I know someone close to GC. He was never friends with JB, he had never heard of him before that night.

If that statement is true, then how did JB know that SG ran toward GC's house?

If that statement is true, then how was GC able to make the statement that JB wasn't his favorite person?

 

[the quiet girl]

If that statement is true, then how did JB know that SG ran toward GC's house?

If that statement is true, then how was GC able to make the statement that JB wasn't his favorite person?

first one:
It is possible he was stating that after he knew she did? Instead of the general she ran down to a neighbor.

second one:
Like the above, After seeing the crap that he brought down on the neighborhood maybe he cannot stand him now.

How I took it when I saw that.

 

[jimmydo]

How and where did the concept of 'serial killer' begin?

To me, the whole Long Island Serial Killer case has a 'ritualistic' feel to it, with certain cultish overtones as well.
I suspect those rituals are human trafficking and child *advertiser censored*, right up to and including the darkest and most evil form of both: snuff.

Let's look at some clues to the origin of the serial killer, and see if we can find other ties, to other similar cases and killers. One of them: Son of Sam. The ties are there, but they have to be searched out.

I'm not a fan of Alex J., but I share the link due to so much of the background information being there, as well as links to tie those events to the east coast chapter, Untermyer Park.

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?PH...;topic=93940.40

Church of the Final Judgment
In the thread above, we find ties to Charles Manson, and the so-called 'church'. There are also ties between the so-called 'church' and the SOS murders and Long Island.
That being, ties between Untermyer Park and Laurel Canyon. Untermyer Park being the east coast chapter, Laurel Canyon being the west coast chapter.

http://www.forteantimes.com/features/articles/234/i_am_the_son_of_sam.html

Some insight and background information into the roots of this (and other) notorious serial murderers, taking us right back to the question: Where and how did the concept of 'serial killers' begin.

http://labyrinth13.com/Labyrinth13.pdf

This is a free PDF book.
If you're not comfortable using the link, enter 'Labyrinth 13 PDF' into your preferred search engine.

This killer and murders are not accidental.
There is method to this madness.

http://www.laweekly.com/2009-07-23/...-of-the-process-church-of-the-final-judgment/

This is another related book, but you'll have to become a member and upload a file to gain access to the download, or simply read the book online without downloading it.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/48609819/The-Ultimate-Evil

The Godsmack 'love hate sex pain' song closely mirrors the L.A.Weekly article titled 'love-sex-fear-death' don't you think? It seems to be a giant viscous circle, both feeding and feeding on the initiate and unsuspecting alike.

 

[the quiet girl]

cross post:

SO I have read numerous times that they wont release the 911 call in NY due to the law saying its a privacy issue for the initiator making the call. Now here are two examples of NY releasing 911 calls. So, lets have it NY release the call.

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/loca...anhattan-Village-Oscar-Fueller-133094018.html

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/...d_of_call_from_alleged_PDqIKYoaDy8WTGvh0NZU6K

also here are a few interesting links on this matter:

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/tag/911-tapes

the 911 calls of The World Trade Center release

a NY law case about a 911 call

Lawyers website talking about this situation


and lastly another case where NY releases a 911 call

grrr so where is the recording NY?

 

[mysterymom7]

cross post:


also here are a few interesting links on this matter:

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/tag/911-tapes

the 911 calls of The World Trade Center release

a NY law case about a 911 call

Lawyers website talking about this situation


and lastly another case where NY releases a 911 call

grrr so where is the recording NY?

http://www.dos.ny.gov/coog/foil2.html

2. Each agency shall, in accordance with its published rules, make available for public inspection and copying all records, except that such agency may deny access to records or portions thereof that:

(a) are specifically exempted from disclosure by state or federal statute;
(b) if disclosed would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy under the provisions of subdivision two of section eighty-nine of this article;
(c) if disclosed would impair present or imminent contract awards or collective bargaining negotiations;
(d) are trade secrets or are submitted to an agency by a commercial enterprise or derived from information obtained from a commercial enterprise and which if disclosed would cause substantial injury to the competitive position of the subject enterprise;
(e) are compiled for law enforcement purposes and which, if disclosed, would:

i. interfere with law enforcement investigations or judicial proceedings;
ii. deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or impartial adjudication;
iii. identify a confidential source or disclose confidential information relating to a criminal investigation; or
iv. reveal criminal investigative techniques or procedures, except routine techniques and procedures;

(f) if disclosed could endanger the life or safety of any person;
(g) are inter-agency or intra-agency materials which are not:

4. (a) Except as provided in subdivision five of this section, any person denied access to a record may within thirty days appeal in writing such denial to the head, chief executive or governing body of the entity, or the person therefor designated by such head, chief executive, or governing body, who shall within ten business days of the receipt of such appeal fully explain in writing to the person requesting the record the reasons for further denial, or provide access to the record sought. In addition, each agency shall immediately forward to the committee on open government a copy of such appeal when received by the agency and the ensuing determination thereon. Failure by an agency to conform to the provisions of subdivision three of this section shall constitute a denial.

(b) Except as provided in subdivision five of this section, a person denied access to a record in an appeal determination under the provisions of paragraph (a) of this subdivision may bring a proceeding for review of such denial pursuant to article seventy-eight of the civil practice law and rules. In the event that access to any record is denied pursuant to the provisions of subdivision two of section eighty-seven of this article, the agency involved shall have the burden of proving that such record falls within the provisions of such subdivision two. Failure by an agency to conform to the provisions of paragraph (a) of this subdivision shall constitute a denial.

(c) The court in such a proceeding may assess, against such agency involved, reasonable attorney's fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred by such person in any case under the provisions of this section in which such person has substantially prevailed, when:

i. the agency had no reasonable basis for denying access; or
ii. the agency failed to respond to a request or appeal within the statutory time.

5. (a) (1) A person acting pursuant to law or regulation who, subsequent to the effective date of this subdivision, submits any information to any state agency may, at the time of submission, request that the agency except such information from disclosure under paragraph (d) of subdivision two of section eighty-seven of this article. Where the request itself contains information which if disclosed would defeat the purpose for which the exception is sought, such information shall also be excepted from disclosure.

(1-a) A person or entity who submits or otherwise makes available any records to any agency, may, at any time, identify those records or portions thereof that may contain critical infrastructure information, and request that the agency that maintains such records except such information from disclosure under subdivision two of section eighty-seven of this article. Where the request itself contains information which if disclosed would defeat the purpose for which the exception is sought, such information shall also be excepted from disclosure.
(2) The request for an exception shall be in writing and state the reasons why the information should be excepted from disclosure.
(3) Information submitted as provided in subparagraphs one and one-a of this paragraph shall be excepted from disclosure and be maintained apart by the agency from all other records until fifteen days after the entitlement to such exception has been finally determined or such further time as ordered by a court of competent jurisdiction.

(b) On the initiative of the agency at any time, or upon the request of any person for a record excepted from disclosure pursuant to this subdivision, the agency shall:

(1) inform the person who requested the exception of the agency's intention to determine whether such exception should be granted or continued;
(2) permit the person who requested the exception, within ten business days of receipt of notification from the agency, to submit a written statement of the necessity for the granting or continuation of such exception;
(3) within seven business days of receipt of such written statement, or within seven business days of the expiration of the period prescribed for submission of such statement, issue a written determination granting, continuing or terminating such exception and stating the reasons therefor; copies of such determination shall be served upon the person, if any, requesting the record, the person who requested the exception, and the committee on open government.

(c) A denial of an exception from disclosure under paragraph (b) of this subdivision may be appealed by the person submitting the information and a denial of access to the record may be appealed by the person requesting the record in accordance with this subdivision.

(1) Within seven business days of receipt of written notice denying the request, the person may file a written appeal from the determination of the agency with the head of the agency, the chief executive officer or governing body or their designated representatives.
(2) The appeal shall be determined within ten business days of the receipt of the appeal. Written notice of the determination shall be served upon the person, if any, requesting the record, the person who requested the exception and the committee on public access to records. The notice shall contain a statement of the reasons for the determination.

(d) A proceeding to review an adverse determination pursuant to paragraph (c) of this subdivision may be commenced pursuant to article seventy-eight of the civil practice law and rules. Such proceeding, when brought by a person seeking an exception from disclosure pursuant to this subdivision, must be commenced within fifteen days of the service of the written notice containing the adverse determination provided for in subparagraph two of paragraph (c) of this subdivision.
(e) The person requesting an exception from disclosure pursuant to this subdivision shall in all proceedings have the burden of proving entitlement to the exception.
(f) Where the agency denies access to a record pursuant to paragraph (d) of subdivision two of section eighty-seven of this article, the agency shall have the burden of proving that the record falls within the provisions of such exception.
(g) Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to deny any person access, pursuant to the remaining provisions of this article, to any record or part excepted from disclosure upon the express written consent of the person who had requested the exception.
(h) As used in this subdivision the term "agency" or "state agency" means only a state department, board, bureau, division, council or office and any public corporation the majority of whose members are appointed by the governor.

Has SG's family's lawyer filed any written requests and/or subsequent appeals? Any one of us (in the US) could go into the SCPD and request the 911 tape. If denied, could then appeal the decision. SCPD would hold the burden of proof (written, within a specified time frame or they would be legally required to give the recording). If the requesting citizen was denied access by the court, that decision could be appealed, but the requesting citizen would then hold the burden of proof stating the reason they shouldn't be denied access.

By the stated law, a 911 call from a woman who was calling for help (do they really think we could believe she was just shooting the breeze for 22 min with the 911 operator?) who was found dead in a marsh yards from her LKL doesn't exactly fit the required exceptions for denying access... unless it would jeopardize the ongoing investigation, but that would be up to a judge to decide.

 

[mysterymom7]

http://www.dos.ny.gov/coog/foil2.html






Has SG's family's lawyer filed any written requests and/or subsequent appeals? Any one of us (in the US) could go into the SCPD and request the 911 tape. If denied, could then appeal the decision. SCPD would hold the burden of proof (written, within a specified time frame or they would be legally required to give the recording). If the requesting citizen was denied access by the court, that decision could be appealed, but the requesting citizen would then hold the burden of proof stating the reason they shouldn't be denied access.

By the stated law, a 911 call from a woman who was calling for help (do they really think we could believe she was just shooting the breeze for 22 min with the 911 operator?) who was found dead in a marsh yards from her LKL doesn't exactly fit the required exceptions for denying access... unless it would jeopardize the ongoing investigation, but that would be up to a judge to decide.

I'm sorry I can't give credit to whom credit is due for this link (because I can't remember which thread I read it in since I've gone through a couple full threads today).

But thanks to a previous poster, this is the PDF form to request a document... or 911 call... http://www.troopers.ny.gov/Request_Government_Records/Freedom_of_Information_Requests/FOIL_FORM_V3.pdf

I just had an idea... what if we all filled one out and filed it (we'd have to make sure we all had the correct information on the time of the call, her birthdate, and the other information required for the request) one after another? (It can be emailed.) Just going off memory of the law I just posted, I believe they have either 7-15 business days to deny access to the records or they give up the ability to do so. If they send us ALL the same denial, we then have 7 days to appeal. If *THAT* many people sent the request for the same information, it would be hard for a judge to deny access given the public outcry for it. Who's in?

 

[Seaslug44]

I'm sorry I can't give credit to whom credit is due for this link (because I can't remember which thread I read it in since I've gone through a couple full threads today).

But thanks to a previous poster, this is the PDF form to request a document... or 911 call... http://www.troopers.ny.gov/Request_Government_Records/Freedom_of_Information_Requests/FOIL_FORM_V3.pdf

I just had an idea... what if we all filled one out and filed it (we'd have to make sure we all had the correct information on the time of the call, her birthdate, and the other information required for the request) one after another? (It can be emailed.) Just going off memory of the law I just posted, I believe they have either 7-15 business days to deny access to the records or they give up the ability to do so. If they send us ALL the same denial, we then have 7 days to appeal. If *THAT* many people sent the request for the same information, it would be hard for a judge to deny access given the public outcry for it. Who's in?

Sorry but the NY State Troopers have no authority to force a County government to release a recording (especially when it is the County's own policy not to release 911 recordings.

Completing that attached FOIL form is like asking the United States Coast Guard to release a copy of Michael Jackson's dental records.

They cannot release information that they do not have.

 

[mysterymom7]

Sorry but the NY State Troopers have no authority to force a County government to release a recording (especially when it is the County's own policy not to release 911 recordings.

Completing that attached FOIL form is like asking the United States Coast Guard to release a copy of Michael Jackson's dental records.

They cannot release information that they do not have.

Thanks for that info! I got the link from a previous poster (maybe on the JB thread?). Would we have to fill one out and give it to SCPD?

 

[mysterymom7]

Thanks for that info! I got the link from a previous poster (maybe on the JB thread?). Would we have to fill one out and give it to SCPD?

Alright, I found something that may be helpful.

www.nyclu.org/regions/suffolk-county/getting-legal-assistance

I'm going to draft a letter to them and post here for any additional information or resources that would be helpful to getting a case filed regarding the release of the 911 calls as well as any incident reports or police reports from that night. Please feel free to give constructive criticism!

 

[PreciousDust]

I'm going to draft a letter to them and post here for any additional information or resources that would be helpful to getting a case filed regarding the release of the 911 calls as well as any incident reports or police reports from that night. Please feel free to give constructive criticism!

That site says they address almost solely constitutional issues, and that they take very few cases. So you'd be saying that your constitutional rights, or the constitutional rights of others, have been infringed on by the SCPD not releasing a 911 call. I don't think you'd get far with that. If the Gilbert family wanted to sue (as a matter of property rights, not constitutional rights) SCPD for release of the tape to them personally, that would be a different thing entirely, as they have a valid interest in the matter (they'd probably still lose, though, as most courts would probably recognize LEs claim that the tape is part of an ongoing investigation).

 

[LINative13]

Release the damn phonecall. Release SG's body so her family can have a funeral for the poor girl.

They better have a real good reason for not releasing this stuff. A reason in the realm.....we are keyed into a suspect and releaseing would jeaporodze the prosecution.

 

[mysterymom7]

Release the damn phonecall. Release SG's body so her family can have a funeral for the poor girl.

They better have a real good reason for not releasing this stuff. A reason in the realm.....we are keyed into a suspect and releaseing would jeaporodze the prosecution.

The last statement would be their ONLY arguable reason for them not to release it, IMO. If that is the case, a judge would have to listen to it to decide.

 

[PreciousDust]

..we are keyed into a suspect

If they were, they'd never say so. And maybe they are - or maybe they feel that the body and the phone call put their investigation in a poor light. Someday we'll know.

 

[mysterymom7]

That site says they address almost solely constitutional issues, and that they take very few cases. So you'd be saying that your constitutional rights, or the constitutional rights of others, have been infringed on by the SCPD not releasing a 911 call. I don't think you'd get far with that. If the Gilbert family wanted to sue (as a matter of property rights, not constitutional rights) SCPD for release of the tape to them personally, that would be a different thing entirely, as they have a valid interest in the matter (they'd probably still lose, though, as most courts would probably recognize LEs claim that the tape is part of an ongoing investigation).

It would be our right based on the Freedom of Information Act. If you peruse that site, you will see they have taken on the right to public knowledge in other cases-one, in particular, of a journalist videotaping the SCPD. I mean, it's worth a shot. Worst case scenario... they say no.

I'll first find out if I can request it without the help of an attorney, and if we can all jump on that bandwagon. A certain site that asks people to sign for a cause may help, too. I'll sit on it. Again, I'd like to hear the opinion of others on this. Thanks for chiming in!

 

[PreciousDust]

It would be our right based on the Freedom of Information Act.

It wouldn't, because it's part of an open police investigation. Nevertheless, at the New York state level, you can apply here and you certainly don't need an attorney to do it:
http://www.dos.ny.gov/coog/foil2.html

 

[mysterymom7]

It wouldn't, because it's part of an open police investigation. Nevertheless, at the New York state level, you can apply here and you certainly don't need an attorney to do it:
http://www.dos.ny.gov/coog/foil2.html

Please read post #30 by SeaSlug on this thread. He (I'm assuming SeaSlug is a he) stated that link wouldn't be helpful in this case. I don't want to send a request to the wrong entity. I would believe SCPD has a similar request form?

 

[PreciousDust]

Please read post #30 by SeaSlug on this thread. He (I'm assuming SeaSlug is a he) stated that link wouldn't be helpful in this case. I don't want to send a request to the wrong entity. I would believe SCPD has a similar request form?

I'm not an attorney, maybe SeaSlug is, but I'd note that this page from that site mentions an April ruling where some information from pending cases can be released:
http://www.dos.ny.gov/coog/lesher.html

While I still don't think it would do any good, I can't imagine where else you'd send a "form" to - the FOIA pertains to federal agency information, not state police matters (while FOIL does, specifically, for New York), and the SCPD will either politely say "no" or just laugh if you ask them for the information. The SCPD is not bound by any requests from the public for information, and there's no organization I know of that would try to compel them to provide it - the ACLU, for instance, would have a hard time making the argument that the civil liberties of websleuths are being impeded because they can't see evidence in an ongoing case. The only course I can see is to sue the SCPD, claiming that they're not really conducting an investigation at all and that they're illegally holding the evidence because it would incriminate them - there is no sane attorney who would take that case, and someone who attempted it pro se would have so many motions thrown at them by the defense that their heads would explode.