Episode Three – Killing, Tweeting, and Swabbing

Episode

Synopsis

We start out in Huntington Beach, where 12 year-old Robin Samsoe was abducted and murdered in 1979 by serial killer Rodney Alcala. Nicknamed the “Dating Game” killer after it was revealed that Alcala had been a contestant on the game show, Alcala has been convicted of XX murders over the years. In 2010, Huntington Beach police released over 100 photographs found in a storage locker belonging to Alcala, hoping to discover if he has more victims. So far, only 26 people, mostly women, in the photographs have been identified.

Next we take a look at how local law enforcement agencies in Newport, Anaheim, and Huntington Beach are using social media to distribute information to the community — and apply some crowd sourcing to crime solving. The HBPD even used Facebook to generate new leads in a decades old cold case.

Finally, ever heard the term “spit and acquit”? Orange County is the only place in California where some misdemeanor crimes can be dismissed if the offender agrees to give a DNA sample. We found that not everyone is a fan of the program that launched in 2007, however one Buena Park cop changed his mind after a DNA sample taken at the end of 2010 linked Fernando Ruiz to a cold case $20,000 dollar robbery in 2008.

Connect with Orange County Law Enforcement Agencies


Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home/crimecatchers/occrimecatchers.com/site/wp-content/themes/supermassive-new1/lib/admin/inc/shortcodes/related-posts.php on line 12
  • http://cpsblog.949goguard.com/2011/08/26/how-law-enforcement-agencies-are-using-social-media/ How Law Enforcement Agencies are using Social Media… | Constantia Private Security (PPO#16301)

    […] View the Video Here Share this:Tags: AmberAlert, Crime, Personal Protection […]

  • ash

    The reason he had to ask himself the questions during his trial was because he was acting as his own attorney. Had he just given the answers / spoken freely, the prosecutors wouldn’t have had the chance to object on legal grounds and he may have been able to slip something in that the court wouldn’t allow. It wasn’t because he was ‘psychotic’ or ‘out of the bounds of reality’. The shrink should have been better informed before giving his opinion.