Arrest of the Golden State Killer

 Although they now have proof beyond doubt as to who the Golden State Killer is, police are tight-lipped about their method of tracking him (through one of the killer’s relative's DNA), and they are not saying which genealogy lab gave them their initial lead. These records are, no doubt, often inadvertently, made public by relatives who, through a common effort, are trying to track their ancestry, and openly discuss their efforts on Internet forums.  One can only imagine the hullabaloo forthcoming, especially from the DNA genealogy labs.  They make their living by tracking ancestry for their customers through the use of DNA.

However, I cannot see the police's method of obtaining their lead through use of a relative's DNA having a gigantic impact on the genealogy labs. A wanted killer is not likely to submit his DNA to them anyway.  However, if you have black sheep on the lam in your family, you might give the police a lead through your own DNA while you are trying to track your ancestry.  As for me, if I have a relative on the lam, I say lock him/her up. Giving the police a lead through my DNA submitted to a genealogy lab would not deter me from using such methods to track my ancestry. Anyway,  I already know who my relatives are back to the mid-1800s, and farther back than that does not really interest me.

When all is said and done, the police finally have their man, and his prosecution is undoubtedly going to cause some police procedural controversies far and wide.  James DeAngelo, the alleged Golden State Killer, is a former cop, a fact that investigators long suspected by his ability to cover up evidence, and by other clues.  He obviously knew all about investigative methods.  He never left fingerprints or other available evidence that he (at the time) knew of, when he began his crime spree; At the beginning of his serial rapes and murders, DNA was not yet available for use by the police―and he left plenty of it at the early crime scenes.

DeAngelo was tracked down by the discovery of DNA from a relative who sent it to a yet un-named genealogy lab. There is going to be a big argument in this trial as to whether DNA from a genealogy business is public information, and perhaps many other unprecedented issues are going to arise. If a relative publishes his/her information on a public forum used by a group of related people, I cannot see a problem.  It seems like it would be similar to eavesdropping a conversation, or finding an incriminating note on the Internet or in the dumpster. Hearsay information from eavesdropping might not be admissible evidence; it might be judged to be hearsay, but such information taken from a public Internet forum between relatives exchanging information might be different.

Illegally-obtained evidence can get the most dangerous criminals off the hook, and since this case is California-based, anything can happen.  A conviction is bound to be appealed under the Fourth Amendment.  The arrest and most of the crimes took place within the jurisdiction of the 9th U.S. Court of Appeals, the worst possible place to get justice.  This case could drag out far beyond 72-year-old, James De Angelo’s, remaining, expected life span, and the grim reaper might cheat society out of his paying the supreme penalty.  However, the proceedings should at least keep him in plenty of misery for the rest of his life.

Gaslighting and Ad Hominem Argument

The charge of "racism" in the U.S. has become a shelter of obfuscation for those who cannot make a logical argument to support their position of supporting degenerate social customs. It is another form of gaslighting and ad hominem argument to try to discredit the opponents of encroaching socialism and fifth-column treason;. It is effective only for those who are amenable to demagoguery; those of lower intellect, or totally lacking thereof. In intellectual authority, those who practice it are barely one notch higher than their dupes..

Why Trump Should Not Meet With Robert Mueller

Probably at least 90% of all government cases against subjects under federal investigation are prosecuted AFTER SELF INCRIMINATION by the person interrogated (interviewed?).   In such interviews, I suppose there is no Miranda Warning, but nevertheless, a person can be prosecuted based on statements, even unworn ones, by investigators.  Sometimes transcripts of such "interviews " deviate grossly from the verbatim statements actually made by both the interrogator and the target of the investigation.  When the interrogator tells the target that an interview will not be recorded, that should sent up a huge, red flag.  Unrecorded "records" give them more leeway to write the transcript of an interview anyway they want, since only a secretary is responsible for getting it right (but it then can be "edited" by the interrogator to say what he wants it to say). Federal investigators have no more scruples than any other investigator, and since the comprehensive corrupting influences of Obama, they should be viewed with even more circumspect. Like the corrupt media, they can easily use the power of the written word (designed to their needs) to gain advantage. With all the intrigue swirling around the harassment of President Trump and the demoncrat maniacal passion to defrock him,  their credibility is about as low as the mainstream media, and that depth rivals the whale excrement at the bottom of Challenger Deep.

Such interrogation and recording methods of investigators can also be utilized to exonerate someone they want to, especially political confederates with known ties. An example is James Comey's farcical "investigation" of Hillary's multiple breaches of national security, and her destruction of 32,000 emails (which the Russians and every spy in the world probably lifted off the cloud storage system--where they can never be deleted. Russians have been prosecuting spies, using evidence lifted from Hillary's computers).  The decision to exonerate Hillary was reportedly already written up before Comey started his investigation of her; and we assume Bill Clinton was assured of that fact at the "Tarmac Meeting" with Loretta Lynch, then Attorney General, and at that time holding prosecutorial discretion--discretion no doubt guided by her boss,  Obama.

 Comey made a ridiculous effort at CYA  by creating a false element to the path of prosecuting a National security breach by saying Hillary "did not intend"  to break the law.  Intent is totally irrelevant in National security cases,and that is why we have security clearances (which Hillary illegally never had). Comey himself said that she was unqualified to get a security clearance, supposedly for her history of mishandling national security information.

Robert Mueller is a demoncrat with former ties to Hilary Clinton and should have recused himself from any investigation (inquiry?) long ago for his conflicts of interest.  Moreover, the scope of his investigation has been violated and digressed into totally extraneous areas, in violation of the limits of his commission.