View Single Post
Old 04-14-2009, 05:56 PM   #76
Senior Member
Mastermind's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 16, 2008
Posts: 1,842

Whether there were any "signs of molestation" on Gary is irrelevant, IMO.99 times out of 100, fondling doesn't leave any physical evidence.
If that's true, than essentially any murder of anyone could be a sex crime. Cindy James murder could be a sex crime. Eric Tamiyasu's death could be a sex crime as well. Heck the Zodiac Killer's crimes could all be sex crimes.

if all that happened to Gary sexually was fondling. This killer could easily have walked away.

If your in the business of killing a kid, you might as well get your money's worth and molest the child and fufill all your fantasies. Why do some half-hearted fondling. I mean unless your the kids father or uncle, you don;t have to hide anything.
As to your first point, that is exactly right. Ask anyone in law enforcement, and they will tell you that not all sex crimes have physical evidence of a sexual assault. And if you think that kids aren't killed after being "half-heartedly fondled" (whatever that means) by a stranger who abducted him, then you are in massive denial. It absolutely happens. It could be that Gary threatened to tell; it could be that he started crying or screaming and the perp was afraid of being heard. This stuff happens frequently. And to dismiss such a scenario in favor of a completely unsupported and extremely unlikely scenario that makes Gary Grant, Sr. into a dirty cop, in bed with the mafia, or covering up their involvement in his child's brutal murder because he's afraid for his own life, is extremely far-fetched. And whether we are a court of law or not, in my opinion, throwing out such wild, baseless allegations against a named person is wrong. (And, as a lawyer, I'd just warn that even something you post on an internet forum can subject you to a defamation lawsuit.)
They wouldn;t throw it out if you had a witness to the activity.

I'm not trying to convict someone in court. I'm trying to find Person(s) of Interest and a line of investigation to follow. That's the difference between being a lawyer and an investigator. An investigator tries to follow all potential leads until they come up dry or he finds one that holds up to evidence or scrutiny that can allow him to arrest someone. Lawyers try to disprove or prove a case based upon evidence and the law.

I would first check Gary Grant's jacket to see if there was anything strange in it. i would then check internal affairs and FBI to see if there are any corruption cases in that police department and if Gary Grant sr.s name or any officers in his unit come up in a file. I would then ask around the department and see if any bad info on Gary. Then ultimately interrogate Gary about his career.

if nothing comes up, then we

I also seriously doubt if the case had police corruption in it that it would ever see the light of a court date. The officers would be dismissed and the case file would be burned in some superiors waste basket

What I am ultimately suggesting is that someone should look into Gary Grant Sr's record as a cop and find out if there is anything to suggest he was not on the up and up or that there was a complaint made against him. Or if there was dispute with another officer.

If there is a record or a story of Gary Grant severly beating up a civilian two years before the murder. That person or his family or peers very well could be POIs. The incident may not even be in his record, but may be remembered by a cop that was on patrol with him.

Would you not agree that this would be a reasonable line of investigation?

If not, where do you want to go? If Gary was killed by a random psycopath, it'll be virtually impossible to catch him. Unless

1. The killer talks to someone or confesses
2. he kills again and we can connect this case to another
3. He killed before and we can connect.

But so far nothing.

If we are going to follow the evidence as you say, then there is no evidence that Gary jr. was molested. So all we have is a murdered child outside of the home. The only reason to believe that the child was killed by a random stranger is that it is a default theory based on lack of other evidence.

We have the child of a police officer found murdered with no evidence of sexual molestation found dead away from home.

If he was not killed by a random psychopath who just wanted to kill a kid, he most likely was killed by someone who knew his father was a police officer. It was either

1. Someone who wanted to kill a cop's son for jollies and prove he could kill a cop's son
2. Or someone who killed Gary for retribution against his father or the police department.

To investigate the later, Gary Sr's record and police jacket HAVE to be examined. It has to be put into question. I personally believe that there hasn;t been a deep enough investigation into Gary Sr's history as a cop.
Mastermind is offline   Reply With Quote