"Man, 72, may be LA's 'largest ever' serial killer, police say" by Thomas Watkins, Associated Press | May 1, 2009
LOS ANGELES - Police believe a 72-year-old insurance claims adjuster arrested earlier this month is the most prolific serial killer in the city's history, having raped and strangled as many as 30 older women over two decades.
The break in the cold case came in October when John Floyd Thomas Jr., who had twice been convicted of sexual assault, had a DNA sample taken as part of an effort to build an offender database. Thomas was charged April 2 with the murder of one woman in 1972 and another in 1976. DNA matching Thomas's was found at three other crime scenes in the 1970s and 1980s, said police robbery-homicide Captain Denis Cremins.
Detectives now consider Thomas a suspect in at least 25 other killings and the number could grow as detectives probe unsolved cases going back to the 1950s, Cremins said. It could not immediately be determined where the other killings took place. "If he turns out to be the guy, he probably would be the largest ever (serial killer) in the city of Los Angeles," Cremins said.
Thomas was being held in county jail and could not be reached for comment. Authorities did not know whether he had obtained an attorney. Thomas was sentenced to six years in 1957 for burglary and attempted rape in Los Angeles. Two parole violations sent him back behind bars until 1966.
Oh, so he was a habitual offender, 'eh? And they kept letting him out?
The victims in all 30 cases under review were older white women, mostly of lower incomes and often widows living alone, Cremins said. All had been sexually assaulted and most were strangled.
Great. Black guy preying on elderly white women. Thanks for chipping into the stereotypes.
In the first wave of killings in Los Angeles in the mid-1970s, a man police dubbed "The Westside Rapist" entered the homes of dozens of elderly women who lived alone, raped them, and choked them until they passed out or died. The 17 people killed were found with pillows or blankets over their faces.
During that time, Thomas was a social worker, hospital employee, and salesman. The attacks stopped in 1978 - the year Thomas went back to prison for the rape of a Pasadena woman.
So they got their guy... and yet:
After his release in 1983, he moved to Chino in San Bernardino County and took a job as a hospital peer counselor in nearby Pomona. That year, a series of attacks on elderly women began, including five slayings in the nearby Los Angeles County town of Claremont. The attacker also used blankets or pillows over his victims' faces.
I guess rape and murder isn't that serious an offense in California.
Either that or their jails are clogged with too many pot smokers.
Rather than coddling the shit-scum, how about this?
--more--"
That's my answer to the perverts.
Of course, the timing couldn't be more convenient -- almost as if they yo-yo this guy for a reason, hmmm?
"Expansion of DNA databases raising concerns over privacy; FBI hopes move will help officials solve more crimes" by Solomon Moore, New York Times | April 19, 2009
NEW YORK - Law enforcement officials are vastly expanding their collection of DNA to include millions more people who have been arrested or detained but not yet convicted. The move, intended to help solve more crimes, is raising concerns about the privacy of petty offenders and people who are presumed innocent.
They always say that and then we find its for some other reason, and with the LA serial killer being identified with DNA those concerns will go away, right?
Until now, the federal government genetically tracked only convicts. But starting this month, the FBI will join 15 states that collect DNA samples from those awaiting trial and will also collect DNA from immigrants who have been detained - the vanguard of a growing class of genetic registrants....
Law enforcement officials say that expanding the DNA databanks to include legally innocent people will help solve more violent crimes. They point out that DNA has helped convict thousands of criminals and has exonerated more than 200 wrongfully convicted people.
And if they have your DNA, what is to stop them from planting it somewhere later?
But criminal justice experts cite Fourth Amendment privacy concerns and worry that the nation is becoming a genetic surveillance society.
"DNA databases were built initially to deal with violent sexual crimes and homicides - a very limited number of crimes," said Harry Levine, a professor of sociology at City University of New York who studies policing trends. "Over time, more and more crimes of decreasing severity have been added to the database. Cops and prosecutors like it because it gives everybody more information and creates a new suspect pool."
Courts have generally upheld laws authorizing compulsory collection of DNA from convicts and former convicts under supervised release, on the grounds that criminal acts diminish privacy rights. DNA extraction upon arrest potentially erodes that argument, a recent congressional study found.
"Courts have not fully considered legal implications of recent extensions of DNA-collection to people whom the government has arrested but not tried or convicted," the report said.
Minors are required to provide DNA samples in 35 states upon conviction, and in some states upon arrest. Three juvenile suspects in November filed the only current constitutional challenge against taking DNA at the time of arrest....
Yeah, the youth always get the worst of it.
As more police agencies take DNA for a greater variety of lesser and suspected crimes, civil rights advocates say the government's power is becoming too broadly applied. "What we object to - and what the Constitution prohibits - is the indiscriminate taking of DNA for things like writing an insufficient-funds check, shoplifting, drug convictions, and other cases where police don't have a need to obtain DNA because it's not relevant to charges facing them," said Michael Risher, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union.
Hey, they just caught a rapist and killer so shaddup!
Took 'em long enough after he was in and out of prison, but....
This year, California began taking DNA upon arrest....
See, see?
Law enforcement officials say that DNA extraction upon arrest is no different than fingerprinting at routine bookings and that states purge profiles after people are cleared of suspicion. In practice, a number of defense lawyers say this is a laborious process that often involves a court order. (The FBI says it has never received a request to purge a profile from its own database.)
Yeah, right, they purge the files. They never get rid of anything except things that incriminate them -- like torture tapes.
When DNA is taken in error, expunging a profile can be just as difficult. In Pennsylvania, where DNA cannot be taken from juveniles for misdemeanors, Ellyn Sapper, a Philadelphia public defender, has spent weeks trying to expunge the profile of a 14-year-old boy guilty of assault and bicycle theft - his first misdemeanor. "I'm going to have to get a judge's order to make sure that all references to his DNA are gone," she said.
I'm not happy with the crime; however, you see where this is going: soon EVERYONE will have to give a sample whether they committed a crime or not.
The police say that the potential hazards of genetic surveillance are worth it because it solves crimes and because DNA is more accurate than other physical evidence.
So DON'T QUESTION IT, sig heil!
"I've watched women go from mug-book to mug-book looking for the man who raped her," said Mitch Morrissey, the Denver district attorney and an advocate for more expansive DNA sampling. "It saves women's lives."
And HOW CAN YOU ARGUE WITH THAT?!!! You AGAINST WOMEN?
--more--"
I'll tell you another thing that would save women's lives: a LOADED GUN!!!
