Hrm
Well, now. This is interesting.
Case: 03-0720996754H
Division: Homicide
Disposition: Open
See Also: 03-0728040486H
Date of Offense: 072003
Date of Report: 072103
Location: 4414 Aberdeen Dr.
Type: Residence
Classification: Homicide
Victim: Rena Rembrant aka Angela Lassiter
Victim Information: See Supplement
Responding Officer: D. Paulson
Investigating Officer: J. Fletcher
Forensic Investigator: D. Lensig, M.D.
Suspect: None
Suspect Information: None
Narrative: Original Reporting Officer
Supplemental: Homicide Detective
Crime Scene Analysis: G. Sparrow
**
The narratives (both original and supplemental) are missing from this report. So I cross-referenced the noted case number (03-0728040486H), on a bloke named Barry Lewis (one of the 8 case reports given to me by Paulson). Both narratives missing.
The interesting thing, here, is that I have the narratives for these reports. They were in the file Paulson gave me. I checked the dates on those printouts, and they were printed out weeks after the original reports were filed. Sometime since then, all pertinent documentation on both reports have been excised from the system, leaving nothing but the headers of each. Interesting thing about that: it would be noticed if they were totally missing, but leaving the headers in the computer leaves the files themselves still present, offering the illusion that nothing is amiss.
Whomever did this is familiar enough with LAPD's computer records filing system to know that.
Question: Why wait weeks after the reports were filed to do this bit of clean up?
Checking into it further, all eight of the printed out files Paulson gave me have been partially excised, headers present, narratives gone. I tried to narrow down access dates to see when it could have been done, but without full system access and administrator information, I can't pin it down.
Question: Do I have a computer savvy professional killer on my hands here?
Surely whoever actually performed the computer sleight of hand is aware that there are multiple printed copies of the report running around out there. The question is, will he be able to tell who accessed them, who printed them? Will he care?
This bloke is methodical, careful. It doesn’t make sense for him to have waited so long to delete those records, if he planned on doing so to begin with. If he were going to do it, why didn't he do it immediately? Something like that would have compromised the investigation to an almost lethal degree. So why wait? I can't imagine the same bloke who committed the four clean kills to be the same bloke who didn't think to excise incriminating reports (if he had the understanding of how to do so) until weeks after they'd been filed and distributed. I can't manage to access who printed or downloaded these reports, and when, but I'm not foolish enough to think this means it cannot be done.
Question: If someone is tidying up this mess, how clean is clean enough?
Possibilities:
1) all related documentation tracked down and purged from LAPD's mainframe.
I think there is a fairly good chance of this happening. Why bother starting if you aren't going to finish it? Which means, of course, that there are other missing reports, maybe. Deaths Paulson didn't recognize were somehow related in some way. And there is no easy way to find them, because on the surface, with headers still on file, each report appears to be present.
The good news is: if I can find a way to isolate those, find only reports that have been excised in this particular fashion, I can have a fairly complete list of every link in this chain in extremely short order.
The bad news is: I have to find a way to do that. Aside from actually pulling up and opening every homicide case on file.
2) tracking down anyone who has paper or computer copies of these files, and eliminating them.
I don't know about this one. I don't like it, because if a) the person doing the tracking down and the professional are the same person, and b) if said person is better at hacking than I am, and can isolate who has accessed those files without full access to the mainframe (or if that person somehow has full access to the mainframe), then we could have a serious fucking problem, Houston. Because this bastard has already clearly demonstrated that killing someone isn't really something he has a problem with. Which leaves a lot of open-ended questions. In a general overview of the crimes that I feel were committed by the Pro, there were certain discrepancies that could be attributed to a variety of factors. There was no rape involved, no evidence indicating personal involvement, no intimate signs of assault, no signs of anger having anything to do with the crimes themselves. This could be because this bugger is pro enough to understand that leaving such things is bad for business, or it could show signs of some kind of empathetic cognition. The former is more likely than the latter, but without more data, I can't rule either out.
If it's the former, I think this guy is likely to have no problem killing in order to remove evidence from circulation. If it's the latter, it's possible that he'll make every attempt to remove the evidence without resorting to murder.
And I have no way of knowing which is true.
Which leaves a lot of people in danger of becoming far more intimately involved in this business then they ever anticipated. Paulson, most particularly, as he so far seems to be the only person that has put these pieces together. Which makes him a prime target. Me, maybe. It depends on how well Paulson covered his tracks when he sent me computer files. Where he sent them from, how he attached them. Too many unknowns there to know for sure. Records clerks who routinely print these files out, because computer outages happen, and LAPD will have a hard copy on file. In evidence? I've never fucking bothered to check into it. In records maybe? The officers that wrote the reports themselves. When I was in homicide, I kept copies of all my own case files and reports, just in case. I doubt I'm the only one. The investigators currently assigned to the cases. The crime scene investigators, who would have access to those reports, and reason to need hard copy or computer copy on hand.
Too many people.
3) the actual physical evidence removed from LAPD's impound.
I can't think of any reason to bother with the reports and leave the physical evidence just sitting there.
Which puts another whole list of people in danger.
I think Paulson is in some serious fucking trouble here.
Case: 03-0720996754H
Division: Homicide
Disposition: Open
See Also: 03-0728040486H
Date of Offense: 072003
Date of Report: 072103
Location: 4414 Aberdeen Dr.
Type: Residence
Classification: Homicide
Victim: Rena Rembrant aka Angela Lassiter
Victim Information: See Supplement
Responding Officer: D. Paulson
Investigating Officer: J. Fletcher
Forensic Investigator: D. Lensig, M.D.
Suspect: None
Suspect Information: None
Narrative: Original Reporting Officer
Supplemental: Homicide Detective
Crime Scene Analysis: G. Sparrow
**
The narratives (both original and supplemental) are missing from this report. So I cross-referenced the noted case number (03-0728040486H), on a bloke named Barry Lewis (one of the 8 case reports given to me by Paulson). Both narratives missing.
The interesting thing, here, is that I have the narratives for these reports. They were in the file Paulson gave me. I checked the dates on those printouts, and they were printed out weeks after the original reports were filed. Sometime since then, all pertinent documentation on both reports have been excised from the system, leaving nothing but the headers of each. Interesting thing about that: it would be noticed if they were totally missing, but leaving the headers in the computer leaves the files themselves still present, offering the illusion that nothing is amiss.
Whomever did this is familiar enough with LAPD's computer records filing system to know that.
Question: Why wait weeks after the reports were filed to do this bit of clean up?
Checking into it further, all eight of the printed out files Paulson gave me have been partially excised, headers present, narratives gone. I tried to narrow down access dates to see when it could have been done, but without full system access and administrator information, I can't pin it down.
Question: Do I have a computer savvy professional killer on my hands here?
Surely whoever actually performed the computer sleight of hand is aware that there are multiple printed copies of the report running around out there. The question is, will he be able to tell who accessed them, who printed them? Will he care?
This bloke is methodical, careful. It doesn’t make sense for him to have waited so long to delete those records, if he planned on doing so to begin with. If he were going to do it, why didn't he do it immediately? Something like that would have compromised the investigation to an almost lethal degree. So why wait? I can't imagine the same bloke who committed the four clean kills to be the same bloke who didn't think to excise incriminating reports (if he had the understanding of how to do so) until weeks after they'd been filed and distributed. I can't manage to access who printed or downloaded these reports, and when, but I'm not foolish enough to think this means it cannot be done.
Question: If someone is tidying up this mess, how clean is clean enough?
Possibilities:
1) all related documentation tracked down and purged from LAPD's mainframe.
I think there is a fairly good chance of this happening. Why bother starting if you aren't going to finish it? Which means, of course, that there are other missing reports, maybe. Deaths Paulson didn't recognize were somehow related in some way. And there is no easy way to find them, because on the surface, with headers still on file, each report appears to be present.
The good news is: if I can find a way to isolate those, find only reports that have been excised in this particular fashion, I can have a fairly complete list of every link in this chain in extremely short order.
The bad news is: I have to find a way to do that. Aside from actually pulling up and opening every homicide case on file.
2) tracking down anyone who has paper or computer copies of these files, and eliminating them.
I don't know about this one. I don't like it, because if a) the person doing the tracking down and the professional are the same person, and b) if said person is better at hacking than I am, and can isolate who has accessed those files without full access to the mainframe (or if that person somehow has full access to the mainframe), then we could have a serious fucking problem, Houston. Because this bastard has already clearly demonstrated that killing someone isn't really something he has a problem with. Which leaves a lot of open-ended questions. In a general overview of the crimes that I feel were committed by the Pro, there were certain discrepancies that could be attributed to a variety of factors. There was no rape involved, no evidence indicating personal involvement, no intimate signs of assault, no signs of anger having anything to do with the crimes themselves. This could be because this bugger is pro enough to understand that leaving such things is bad for business, or it could show signs of some kind of empathetic cognition. The former is more likely than the latter, but without more data, I can't rule either out.
If it's the former, I think this guy is likely to have no problem killing in order to remove evidence from circulation. If it's the latter, it's possible that he'll make every attempt to remove the evidence without resorting to murder.
And I have no way of knowing which is true.
Which leaves a lot of people in danger of becoming far more intimately involved in this business then they ever anticipated. Paulson, most particularly, as he so far seems to be the only person that has put these pieces together. Which makes him a prime target. Me, maybe. It depends on how well Paulson covered his tracks when he sent me computer files. Where he sent them from, how he attached them. Too many unknowns there to know for sure. Records clerks who routinely print these files out, because computer outages happen, and LAPD will have a hard copy on file. In evidence? I've never fucking bothered to check into it. In records maybe? The officers that wrote the reports themselves. When I was in homicide, I kept copies of all my own case files and reports, just in case. I doubt I'm the only one. The investigators currently assigned to the cases. The crime scene investigators, who would have access to those reports, and reason to need hard copy or computer copy on hand.
Too many people.
3) the actual physical evidence removed from LAPD's impound.
I can't think of any reason to bother with the reports and leave the physical evidence just sitting there.
Which puts another whole list of people in danger.
I think Paulson is in some serious fucking trouble here.