The 911 calls

[truthspider]

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

Did you intentionally bring up Michael because he too was killed by a medically negligent needle wielding Doctor? An unconscious train of thought perhaps?

 

[mysterymom7]

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.

You make an excellent point! Hold the SCPD accountable.

The ACLU handles just that...

www.nyclu.org/content/civilian-complaint-review-board-and-civilian-oversight-of-policing

The CCRB has been unable to establish an effective investigative operation.

The CCRB has historically failed to initiate an investigation in approximately half of all complaints disposed of in any given year. In 2006 the number of “truncated” complaints jumped to 60 percent.

The CCRB is only able to make a finding on the merits in about three of every ten complaints it reviews. Investigators have reported in interviews conducted by the NYCLU that as the numbers of complaints have increased in recent years, there is increasing pressure to truncate complaints without an investigation.

The CCRB has failed to become an effective advocate for reform of police practices that pose an undue risk of harm to civilians.

The CCRB has done little to identify patterns of police misconduct and to recommend reforms in police practices that pose an undue risk of harm to civilians. Even when the CCRB has documented a pattern of misconduct, and recommended reforms, the agency has often been silent when the department failed to act on the recommendations.

The CCRB has failed to address effectively patterns of police misconduct related to unlawful strip searches, racial profiling, the execution of “no-knock” warrants, and the overzealous policing of lawful public demonstrations.

The NYPD fails to cooperate with the CCRB, seriously undermining the civilian oversight function.

New York City Comptrollers Alan Hevesi and William C. Thomson have documented the NYPD’s failure to respond in a timely fashion to the CCRB’s request for documents. CCRB investigators report that it routinely takes months for the police department to produce documents that are necessary to proceed with an investigation.

What’s more, investigators report (and CCRB documents confirm) that in any given month nearly 50 percent of police officers scheduled for an interview at the CCRB’s offices fail to appear. The police department’s obstructionism subverts timely and thorough complaint investigation. The department’s failure to cooperate with CCRB investigations is in violation of the City Charter.

When a government agency (namely the SCPD) publicizes that a situation occurred requiring police presence, yet there is no written record of it ever occurring, but there is a 911 recording of this occurrence that has been openly mentioned by said agency which could potentially put an end to wide speculation... (major run on sentence... my apologies) I believe it would be in the public's best interest (especially the communitites in the immediate area) to give the correct information if only to demolish the rumors and speculation and the mass belief that the SCPD isn't doing their job.

 

[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.

Just reread the law on this subject, and it seems I should have also quoted this, very important, portion:

3. (a) Each entity subject to the provisions of this article, within five business days of the receipt of a written request for a record reasonably described, shall make such record available to the person requesting it, deny such request in writing or furnish a written acknowledgment of the receipt of such request and a statement of the approximate date, which shall be reasonable under the circumstances of the request, when such request will be granted or denied, including, where appropriate, a statement that access to the record will be determined in accordance with subdivision five of this section. An agency shall not deny a request on the basis that the request is voluminous or that locating or reviewing the requested records or providing the requested copies is burdensome because the agency lacks sufficient staffing or on any other basis if the agency may engage an outside professional service to provide copying, programming or other services required to provide the copy, the costs of which the agency may recover pursuant to paragraph (c) of subdivision one of section eighty-seven of this article. An agency may require a person requesting lists of names and addresses to provide a written certification that such person will not use such lists of names and addresses for solicitation or fund-raising purposes and will not sell, give or otherwise make available such lists of names and addresses to any other person for the purpose of allowing that person to use such lists of names and addresses for solicitation or fund-raising purposes. If an agency determines to grant a request in whole or in part, and if circumstances prevent disclosure to the person requesting the record or records within twenty business days from the date of the acknowledgement of the receipt of the request, the agency shall state, in writing, both the reason for the inability to grant the request within twenty business days and a date certain within a reasonable period, depending on the circumstances, when the request will be granted in whole or in part. Upon payment of, or offer to pay, the fee prescribed therefor, the entity shall provide a copy of such record and certify to the correctness of such copy if so requested, or as the case may be, shall certify that it does not have possession of such record or that such record cannot be found after diligent search. Nothing in this article shall be construed to require any entity to prepare any record not possessed or maintained by such entity except the records specified in subdivision three of section eighty-seven and subdivision three of section eighty-eight of this article. When an agency has the ability to retrieve or extract a record or data maintained in a computer storage system with reasonable effort, it shall be required to do so. When doing so requires less employee time than engaging in manual retrieval or redactions from non-electronic records, the agency shall be required to retrieve or extract such record or data electronically. Any programming necessary to retrieve a record maintained in a computer storage system and to transfer that record to the medium requested by a person or to allow the transferred record to be read or printed shall not be deemed to be the preparation or creation of a new record.

 

[john1]

Found this petition through Shannan's facebook page.
Maybe it would help to sign it.



http://www.change.org/petitions/suf...egarding-the-disappearance-of-shannan-gilbert

 

[Justiceforever]

Yes, thanks, we've...umm...seen that petition.

Made me smile! ; )

 

[Justiceforever]

Made me smile! ; )

Just goes to show it's circulating!

 

[Justiceforever]

Found this petition through Shannan's facebook page.
Maybe it would help to sign it.



http://www.change.org/petitions/suf...egarding-the-disappearance-of-shannan-gilbert

Thanks John. It's good to know Mystery Mom's petition is getting out there!

 

[Justiceforever]

I have a question. How is the tape part of an ongoing investigation? What investigation? Are they still invesigating SGs death? I thought it was being treated as an accidental drowning. I'm confused. Can anybody tell me if it's still an active investigation or not?

 

[mysterymom7]

I have a question. How is the tape part of an ongoing investigation? What investigation? Are they still invesigating SGs death? I thought it was being treated as an accidental drowning. I'm confused. Can anybody tell me if it's still an active investigation or not?

That's what I hope to find out with the FOIL request.

 

[Seaslug44]

I have a question. How is the tape part of an ongoing investigation? What investigation? Are they still invesigating SGs death? I thought it was being treated as an accidental drowning. I'm confused. Can anybody tell me if it's still an active investigation or not?

The answer is very simple; her death has been ruled "INCONCLUSIVE" (not an accident).

Since the ME has not been able to rule-out homicide (and there is no statute of limitations for homicide), murder shall remain on the table as a possible cause of her death (hence, your "ongoing investigation").

There have been many cases where a COD was ruled inconclusive but was later changed to homicide many years later when new evidence was uncovered.

Not to mention we have an ongoing serial killer investigation that may or may not be related to SG's death.

It is simply to soon to determine whether or not the May 1st 911 recordings contain information/evidence that is relevant to the investigation.

 

[Justiceforever]

The answer is very simple; her death has been ruled "INCONCLUSIVE" (not an accident).

Since the ME has not been able to rule-out homicide (and there is no statute of limitations for homicide), murder shall remain on the table as a possible cause of her death (hence, your "ongoing investigation").

There have been many cases where a COD was ruled inconclusive but was later changed to homicide many years later when new evidence was uncovered.

Not to mention we have an ongoing serial killer investigation that may or may not be related to SG's death.

It is simply to soon to determine whether or not the May 1st 911 recordings contain information/evidence that is relevant to the investigation.

Thank you. I knew it was INCONCLUSIVE but didn't really understand if that meant they were still invesigating for a possible Homicide. Is the case still ACTIVELY being investgated or is it just on the shelf? Is it still an OPEN case? Forgive my ignorance.

 

[Justiceforever]

The answer is very simple; her death has been ruled "INCONCLUSIVE" (not an accident).

Since the ME has not been able to rule-out homicide (and there is no statute of limitations for homicide), murder shall remain on the table as a possible cause of her death (hence, your "ongoing investigation").

There have been many cases where a COD was ruled inconclusive but was later changed to homicide many years later when new evidence was uncovered.

Not to mention we have an ongoing serial killer investigation that may or may not be related to SG's death.

It is simply to soon to determine whether or not the May 1st 911 recordings contain information/evidence that is relevant to the investigation.

So you are saying that "INCONCLUSIVE" means not an accident?!? Than it Must be being treated as a homicide. What else could it be? Natural causes? Again forgive my confusion .

 

[Justiceforever]

I guess I was always under the impression that authorities were treating her death as accidental and not related to GB4 therefore I didn't understand why the problem releasing the tapes.

 

[LINative13]

Inconclusive means inconclusive. Not an accident, not a murder, not natural causes. It is a neutral verdict. Nothing has been taken off the table, nothing has been put on the table.

 

[Seaslug44]

Inconclusive means inconclusive. Not an accident, not a murder, not natural causes. It is a neutral verdict. Nothing has been taken off the table, nothing has been put on the table.

Exactly!!

 

[Seaslug44]

Thank you. I knew it was INCONCLUSIVE but didn't really understand if that meant they were still invesigating for a possible Homicide. Is the case still ACTIVELY being investgated or is it just on the shelf? Is it still an OPEN case? Forgive my ignorance.

"Inconclusive" leaves the door open for all possibilities.

Please keep in mind, these detectives have hundreds of unsolved cases to deal with along with every new day bringing them additional cases too. It's not like SG is their only case and they sit around staring at her file and doing nothing about it.

With that being said, if new evidence should arise that helps them be more precise with her cause of death, they can still pursue her case as a homicide. Also, given the nature of the circumstances, it is clear that as long as there are open cases involving the other bodies found along Ocean Parkway, SG's case shall always remain under investigation/consideration by the homicide squad.

 

[Justiceforever]

I do appreciate the clairification. Thank you!

 

[hawkshaw]

The DIFFERENCE between the death of SG, the GB4, and the others is the police have a strong starting point to begin with - he visit to Brewer's house. She would up dead shortly after that.

The ME has ruled the death to be inconclusive. Why did Dormer say it appeared to have been an accidential death? How could anyone say it was or wasn't a murder when there is no cause of death declared.

An ME and a prosecutor can come to a conclusion of homicide even though there is no forensic evidence of murder. Combing all the factors present in a case one can make a proper assumption that it was murder.

In a recent case a man named Johnson was convicted of stranguling a prostitute even though the ME could find no evidence of strangulation. The defendant said he was having sex with her in the car and she just died. He said he buried the body because he was married and didn't want the grief by reporting it.

Again, it was in conclusive as to the cause of death even though the body had been in the ground for less than 2 months. The Suffolk ME does what they are told to do. How a man could be convicted of a homicide when there is no cause of death suggesting that it was a murder and after he gave a plausible explanation as to what happened is still a mystery to me. If the DA wants it to be a homicide then that is what it is going to be.

 

[Seajay]

Inconclusive means inconclusive. Not an accident, not a murder, not natural causes. It is a neutral verdict. Nothing has been taken off the table, nothing has been put on the table.

Yup, they just don't know one way or the other. One would think that because the first autopsy was inconclusive, they might want to try a second one through someone else just to see if they get the same results. Might tell them what IS on the table.

 

[mysterymom7]

The DIFFERENCE between the death of SG, the GB4, and the others is the police have a strong starting point to begin with - he visit to Brewer's house. She would up dead shortly after that.

The ME has ruled the death to be inconclusive. Why did Dormer say it appeared to have been an accidential death? How could anyone say it was or wasn't a murder when there is no cause of death declared.

An ME and a prosecutor can come to a conclusion of homicide even though there is no forensic evidence of murder. Combing all the factors present in a case one can make a proper assumption that it was murder.

In a recent case a man named Johnson was convicted of stranguling a prostitute even though the ME could find no evidence of strangulation. The defendant said he was having sex with her in the car and she just died. He said he buried the body because he was married and didn't want the grief by reporting it.

Again, it was in conclusive as to the cause of death even though the body had been in the ground for less than 2 months. The Suffolk ME does what they are told to do. How a man could be convicted of a homicide when there is no cause of death suggesting that it was a murder and after he gave a plausible explanation as to what happened is still a mystery to me. If the DA wants it to be a homicide then that is what it is going to be.

I believe it's called "Extenuating circumstances". In this case, it would be a collaboration of: SG goes to JB's house, calls 911 and (based on assumptions) says, "they" are trying to kill me, witness 1 calls 911, describes SG running, presumably *from* someone, witness 2 calls 911 and describes the same, and then SG is found dead yards from where she was last seen alive running with her shoes/pants/purse yards from her body. Those extenuating circumstances, if described to the ME, would make SG's death reasonably a murder opposed to accidental, suicidal or natural causes.