Nature Center Cover up continues...

This morning, I put a request for information on the Lake Erie Nature & Science Center's Facebook page. A simple, polite request for anyone who has info about Dean Runkle or the log book to please contact me.

It was a way at getting at some new leads and information in the case of the murder of a 10-year-old girl.

LENSC has chosen to take it down.

They say the reason I can't examine their archives it because I may contaminate evidence or discover information about anonymous donors. That argument cannot be applied to the request for information on that Facebook page.

They are now actively obstructing any effort to gain important information about the Center's role in Amy's abduction.

Unbelievable.

Here's a link to their Facebook page.

Nature Center: If you don't want me asking the question, then by all means, ask it yourself. If you are confident that the Center was not the place where Amy's killer got her phone #, then what do you have to lose?

Bottom Line

Even Runkle does not deny he was at the Nature Center.

When I asked him directly if he would be surprised to find himself in a photograph with a student at the Nature Center in 1989, he said, "No, it wouldn't surprise me. I never said I wasn't there. I just told [the FBI, Bay Village] I don't remember being there."

Such B.S.

Runkle's one of the smartest guys I've ever met. We're talking savant-level genius, here. The dude doesn't forget what he ate for lunch 30 years ago, let alone whether or not he volunteered at that center, or took mice there. He's covering his ass, too. He knows he was at that Nature Center. So the best he can do is say, "I don't remember". He knows he can't say "no" because more than likely one of his students does have a picture of him there--hell, six of them have told me (and Bay Village and the FBI) that they remember him talking about being there.

Evidence of that is somewhere. A good place to start would be the Nature Center.

Nature Center files complaint

Just got off the phone with a Metroparks ranger. Seems the Nature Center filed a complaint against me.

The complaint was filed by PR gal Renee Burslem renee@lensc.org

From what I gather from the ranger, Burslem overstepped the bounds of reality a bit in her complaint, telling the ranger I had come to the Center on several occasions to ask for access to their archives, when she knows it was one occasion and very pleasant at that.

For my part, I gave the ranger my version of events which were added to the report. I am concerned Renee Burslem came very close to filing a false report, which is a serious offense. I would think they would have known better.

Renee Burslem also lied when she said those archives had been searched and no one had found anything so the records must not exist. On the contrary, the FBI and police have looked through only SOME of the rooms, but at this date a full and complete search still has not been completed. The problem is the archives are in no particular order and arranged throughout several rooms in the basement.

I strongly believe that logbook is still sitting in their archives (if Renee Burslem herself hasn't pitched it yet), especially in light of a former staff member's revelation that the log book was copied at one time. If the logbook is gone, where is the copy?

I think what we're seeing here is the most disgusting example of "cover your ass" I've ever witnessed.

What have we got here? We have a center devoted to kids which is going to great lengths to keep their possible connection to Amy's murder a secret. Instead of opening up their records and handing over that logbook, they're covering it up to scuttle any negative publicity.

Renee Burslem has only her own interests in mind. Unfortunately, that may come at the expense of closure in Amy's case.

I am stunned.

P.S. It's sweeps. 

Similar Composite Sketch from 1989?

Whilst digging through the Westlife archives, searching for the names of Nature Center employees from 1989, I came across this interesting little tidbit from their police blotter. It's the composite sketch of a man who was flashing school girls walking along Webb Rd. in Lakewood. They called him the West End Flasher.

Here's the description: 30's, 6-feet-tall, heavily built, wearing brown plastic glasses. Thick nose. Brown, curly hair. Driving a red sports car.

Do you think the sketch looks like the composite sketch of Amy's killer? There is a resemblance, I think.

But the description fits "the Accountant" or "Brad Harvey" more than Runkle. 

Anyway, I've suggested to Bay and the FBI for years that they go back through the newspapers from that time period for new clues. They told me that wouldn't amount to much. I'm finding it very helpful, though.

Change of Plans

I remain convinced that Runkle was at that Nature Center and that somewhere in their archives, that log book still sits.

But, after much soul-searching, I just don't have the stomach to send out angry letters to donors as originally planned. Cool idea, but it just doesn't seem right. It doesn't honor Amy's memory.

I will, however, make board members aware of the situation. They can make the final decision.

If they decide not to grant access, they'll always have Karma to answer to at least.

Shame on you, Nature Center, for worrying about your reputation more than justice.

Shame on you, Bay Village PD, for never conducting a complete and thorough search.

Westlife Weights In

Westlife weighs in on Amy's 20th, and includes this interesting quote from Det. Lt. Spaetzel:

"There's a good chance we've at least come in contact with the killer."

Bay Village Loses Important Evidence in Amy's Case

Or so it appears.

The woman who owns the audio tape of the man threatening that her daughter "will end up just like Amy Mihaljevic" submitted a request, in writing, to the Bay Village PD a month ago, demanding they return her property (her daughter was a student of Runkle's). While she is allowing them to make a copy, she would like her tape back.

Bay Village is not responding.

Forget for a moment that what they're doing is now illegal in the eyes of the law, it suggests to me what I've thought for awhile now--Bay Village has lost the tape. What could be the most important bit of evidence (this really could be the voice of the killer, after all) disappeared, perhaps sometime during their move down the street.

There's simply no other reason for their lack of response because that's the only thing they really wouldn't want to be forced to admit.

I will be getting a lawyer for this woman if she doesn't hear from them soon. 6 weeks is the limit for timely response in this state. They've had 5.

It's becoming increasingly clear to me that outside detectives from within Cuyahoga County need to assume control over this case. The Sheriff's dept. has that power. If things don't drastically improve in the near future, I will begin to explore this as a possibility and what we as citizens can do to move that along. Time to get your act together, BVPD.

Searching for Mark McKimmy

Anyone know how to get in touch with Mark McKimmy, animal specialist at the Nature Center in 1989?

Would also like to speak with Mary Kay Riordan.

Contact Nature Center

Do you think the Nature Center should allow me access to their archives to make a thorough search for Amy's killer?

Let them know what you think.

Be polite!

Renee Burslem, P.R. for LENSC: renee@lensc.org

Billboard on 224

Bay Village has given up.

It's becoming clear to me that at some point in time this case became too big for the Bay Village police department. Too many suspects. Too many leads. Too much time. And so they've given up on real detective work--the old shoe-leather door-to-door investigations that actually solve murders. There's just too much ground to cover for such a small, understaffed department. Which is a shame, because Det. Spaetzel can be a hell of a detective when he puts his mind to it (he once solved a homicide by tracking back a scrap of paper found near a victim's body).

The reason why they have given up on the tried and true methods of evidence discovery is this (and I have kept this secret for years because it felt like the thing to do at the time):

They have DNA. Likely the killer's. Hair from one of the crime scenes.

But here's the problem. The DNA is degraded. It's not complete.

They are waiting for technology to catch up to the evidence. They are waiting for better DNA sequencing methods to come about so that they can extract a full profile from what little material they have.

That's their strategy: to wait.

Meanwhile, the man who did this enjoys his freedom and grows older every day.

Yes. We will very likely have the answer to this case one day. Definitively. By then, he will most likely be dead.

Is that justice?

Personally, I think justice is better served taking this to trial on what we have now--enough evidence to get him in that court room and answer the questions posed by the prosecutor, to sit in front of Amy's family and have to face them. Maybe it's not enough evidence to win. But it might be.

It's a gamble I think is worth taking. This man will one day be identified through science. Why don't we at least try to prosecute him while he's still alive? What have we lost even if we lose?