Welcome to Our Website

Ms 2020 with key

Registration key how To Activate Office 2020 Permanently 2020

This product is based on the official article, all the new changes in Microsoft Office 2020 Product Key are indeed part of the highlights that Office 365 currently has. Microsoft Office is no exception. News You Choose from Key MS! Microsoft Office 2020 Crack Key Free Download [Professional] Microsoft Office 2020 Crack is an office management and productivity tool from Microsoft known as a family of client software, server software, and services that comprise on Word, Powerpoint, Access, Excel, Publisher, and more. MS Flight Simulator 2020 Keyboard Assignments.

Microsoft and partners cut off key ... - Help Net Security

Microsoft Office 2020 Product Key and Simple Activation Methods in 2020. Microsoft Office 2020 Working Product Key Crack Free Download find more info. Here is the latest release of MS Office 365 Product Key 2020, which is now released officially by Microsoft, before this, there were many demos series of MS Office 2020 were available but they were not officially released by Microsoft so they were not stable that users. Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020 Num Del key: How to. When one has hundreds of tasks to complete, it is possible to ignore some of them when to write them down randomly in no order of priority.

Microsoft Project Crack + Product Key 2020 [32/64 bit]

Normally this product. Microsoft Patch Tuesday Update Fixes 17 Critical Bugs. Microsoft Toolkit 2.6.8 Activator Download New Version [2020]. Microsoft Office 365 2020 you should know that it is a subscription service. Office 365 ProPlus has provided over the past three years.

How to manage the changes in Netlogon secure channel

This latest updated version of MS Office 2020 has been. I have compiled a Complete List of Available Key Commands. MS Flight Simulator 2020 Box DVD Installation Problems. Posted by 3 months ago. Now, it updated latest Microsoft Office 2020 Pro Plus Crack has new Activation Keygen free of cost.

Microsoft Visio 2020 Crack Latest Product Key with Full
1 Microsoft Office 2020 Crack Product Key Full Download [Latest] 3%
2 Microsoft office 365 Product Key 2020 {100% ... - Cracked Fix 59%
3 Nero All Versions Serial key, Patch & Keygen 2020 84%
4 Microsoft Office 2020 Pro Plus Crack + Product Key 100%
5 October 2020 Microsoft Patch Tuesday updates are rolling 64%
6 Microsoft Office 2020 Crack + Product Key Activator Download 77%
7 Microsoft Office 2020 Product Key + Crack Download (100% 23%
8 Using product keys in Visual Studio subscriptions 14%
9 Microsoft May 2020 Patch Tuesday fixes 111 vulnerabilities 70%
10 100% Working Microsoft Office 2020 Product Key [June 2020] 38%

Microsoft Office 2020 Product Key Free Download [100%

Key microsoft Office 2020 Free Download Full Version With

Alternative services that will be delivered with the employment of net on Microsoft workplace are granted access to this software. Microsoft Office 2020 Crack for Windows with License Key Generator The Office 2020 License Key Generator provides the most recent activation key to fully activate Office for all views. Windows 10 October 2020 Update. How to Activate Office 2020 Permanently 2020. Democrats 2020: What their key issues are.

Microsoft Office 365 Crack With Product Keygen Plus

Windows 10 Key AIO technology is reliable for the latest platform to fulfill the needs of next-generation to enjoy a new platform on your device. Use the links on this page to get more information about and download the most recent updates for the perpetual versions of Office 2020, Office 2020, and Office 2020. The patches have been released. Ms 2020 with key. Microsoft Visio Pro 2020 Crack + Product Key Full Torrent https://ya-pilot.ru/download/?file=2332.

MS FS 2020 Keyboard Shortcuts/Bindings: MicrosoftFlightSim

Office 365 merge with Microsoft 203 and. Professional entrepreneurship and cooperation with the help of MS. Flight Simulator 2020 download - Microsoft Community. MS-101 Knowledge Points & Key MS-101 Concepts - Latest Microsoft 365 Mobility and Security Braindumps Files - Expoundsocial.

Microsoft Office 365 Product Key With Cracked Version 2020

MS Flight Sim 2020. How to download - Microsoft Community. Bike MS: Breakaway to Key Largo 2020 - National MS Society click for source. Furthermore, it is a unique tool that lets you plan and organize a complex project to look. The product key or software key ensures a user and the operating system to work based on the licensing terms and conditions. Different Author: Starc.

The lesser-known Estonia mystery: Finnish police announce 1987 cruise ship murder & attempted murder has been solved

In 1987, a West German national was murdered and another seriously injured in an attack on board Viking Sally, a cruise ship from Stockholm, Sweden to Turku, Finland. This was not the first disaster on the ship (another murder in 1986 was solved) and it would not be the last, as Viking Sally was later sold to Estline and renamed M/S Estonia, sinking in the deadliest maritime disaster in European waters.
A quick overview of the 1987 murder case can be found on Wikipedia. Many aspects of it are like straight out of a detective novel: a murder happens in the middle of the sea in an enclosed space, with the perpetrator still onboard as the investigators go around interviewing people. A bag of clothes is discovered on a nearby island, and a shoe is used to track down the city where the suspect lives.
About a month ago, the Finnish police announced that they have solved this 33-year-old cold case (source is the Finnish Broadcasting Company; available in Finnish and in Swedish). The case was passed over to prosecutors, who will now determine whether the available evidence fulfills the criteria of a first-degree murder charge. If it doesn't, and is only enough for a second-degree murder charge, the case will not be moved to prosecution because the statute of limitations has expired (20 years for second-degree murder). First-degree murder has no statute of limitations.
Now, there was another famous, old, unsolved mystery case in the Nordic countries that was purportedly solved this year, the murder of Olof Palme, so I thought it'd be good to underline the key differences between these two announcements.
In the Palme case, the conclusion was essentially “we have determined the person who is most likely the suspect, and that person is dead”.
In the Viking Sally case, however, the conclusion is that they know who did it, the person is alive and they can prove the person did it. The only unclear thing about this case, according to the police, is whether it fulfills the criteria of a first-degree murder and can still be prosecuted.
The YLE article linked previously contains a great long-form text of the events on the 28th of July 1987 for anyone interested in the events, people and the investigation process in detail. I took the liberty of translating it here, with linked pictures:

Background

The story involved three West German youths on an Interrail trip: Klaus Schelkle (20), Bettina Taxis (22) and Thomas Schmid (21). Schelkle and Schmid’s friendship went years back, having both played and enthusiastically supported football in Stuttgart. Schelkle and Taxis had met each other at a night club and had been dating for a little less than a year at the time of their Interrail trip. From the very beginning of the trip, they had their eyes set on visiting Finland: they traveled to Stockholm and spent only a single night there before boarding Viking Sally, intending to reach the city of Turku by the next morning. In Turku, they had planned on exploring the city, drinking beer and visiting Ruisrock, the second-oldest rock festival in Europe. The festival would be headlined by Peer Günt and Pretenders. From Turku, their trip was to continue towards Lapland and Norway.
Klaus Schelkle and Bettina Taxis in Stockholm the day before boarding Viking Sally.
In the 1992 book Poliisi kertoo (‘The Police tells’, essentially case stories from the police), a chapter written by criminal commissioner Eino Kivimäki is widely regarded as the most accurate and well-corroborated source on the events that transpired on the 28th of July 1987. The YLE article speculates that some of the information must have changed decisively to prompt the re-opening of the investigation in 2016. Nevertheless, the following description of events is largely based on Kivimäki’s text.
Fitting with the sense of youthful adventure an Interrail trip often involves, Schelkle and Taxis had decided to sleep outside on the ship’s deck in sleeping bags. Not wanting to bother the couple, Schmid had decided to stay indoors and keep an eye on everyone’s luggage.
Schelkle and Taxis were described as more sociable on the cruise than Schmid, who wasn’t particularly interested in the cruise ship experience in general. At one point during the evening, Schelkle and Taxis came to tell Schmid that they had met “a fun Finnish guy” who spoke excellent German. This “Finnish guy” was a businessman working in the automotive industry, while Schelkle himself was studying to become a car mechanic. Due to their common interests, they had tried to visit the car deck of the cruise line but found it to be locked. Having decided to try their luck again in the morning, the two men exchanged contact information during the night.

The attack

At approximately 1 in the morning, Schelkle and Taxis woke up the already-sleeping Schmid to retrieve their sleeping bags. The couple headed to the rear portion of the ninth deck, to the helicopter platform. The spot they chose for sleeping was shielded by a plexiglass and was dark due to a broken light fixture.
The West German youths were not the only international travellers on board. A group of international scouts headed to the Nordic LDS Jamboree (a camp for members of the church of the Latter Day Saints) had been wandering around the ship all night, reportedly to the annoyance of other passengers. At approximately 3:45, a trio of Danish scouts made their way to the helicopter deck. Initially not seeing anyone else on the deck, they eventually noticed movement in the dark and identified two persons by the air conduction vents.
Here is a crude reconstruction of the scene and location where the three Danish scouts found Schelkle and Taxis.
At first, the scouts thought the two people were incredibly drunk passengers - not an uncommon sight on Baltic cruise ships in the 1980s, and not an uncommon sight on Baltic cruise ships in 2020 either. One of the Danish people eventually decided to have a closer look at the two persons, only to find both of them covered in blood, with blood also covering large portions of the deck. Both Schelkle and Taxis were able to move but were seriously injured. The scouts were trained in first aid, but did not have adequate skills to deal with injuries of such a massive scale. They contacted the information desk of the ship who alarmed a security guard to the crime scene. The security guard has been heard as a witness in the re-opened investigation and did not want to be interviewed for the YLE article.
There have been conflicting reports over the years on the murder weapon and the condition in which Schelkle and Taxis were found: it was reported that they were found still in their sleeping bags, but this has not been confirmed. The murder weapon was confirmed as a blunt weapon, but media initially reported that the murder weapon was a fireman’s axe. Finally, it was initially reported that Taxis’ finger had been cut off, but the police or emergency responders did not report this. The confirmed fact is that they suffered blunt trauma to the head.
Schelkle and Taxis tried to communicate with the first responders, but they could not be understood. This could be because of their head trauma or simply because no German speakers were present. They were taken to the medical ward of the ship, and straight away their cranial injuries were deemed so severe that the sea emergency and rescue centre of Turku was contacted. A helicopter was sent to retrieve the couple. Taxis was reportedly delirious during the helicopter ride, constantly mistaking the emergency responders as attackers and attempting to shield herself from them. Schelkle had to be administered CPR during the ride. At 5:48 they arrived at the Turku University hospital, where Schelkle was pronounced dead. The helicopter team picked up three crime scene investigators and one technical inspector and headed back to the cruise ship.

The investigation

The investigators were unable to find any witnesses. Thomas Schmid had woken up to the sound of the helicopter during the night, but had falled back asleep. He was interviewed by the police early in the morning. The police did not tell him what had happened to his friends until he had been questioned over and over, and had grown so frustrated and worried that he refused to answer any more questions unless he was told what had happened.
A cruise ship is an atypical crime scene because the perpetrator was almost certainly still onboard. A murder had happened on this same ship the year before, and the passengers had already left the ship by the time the police were able to start their investigation. Learning from their past mistake, the police took a very thorough approach to the investigation: they decided to videotape and gather the contact information of everyone on board. While they did manage to videotape everyone, the task of collecting everyone’s personal information turned out to be so time-consuming that they eventually decided to not collect the information of elderly passengers, children, or people travelling with small children.
The initial onboard investigation determined a 26-year-old Englishman as the primary person of interest. He was found sleeping on the floor inside the ship with blood on his clothes. He claimed it was from a nosebleed. He was on his way to Finland to meet a woman he had previously met on a kibbutz in Israel. He had already been on a cruise ship from Stockholm to Helsinki, but had been denied from disembarking due to his “disheveled, drug addict-like appearance” and was returned to Stockholm. His presence on this cruise ship was his second attempt to enter Finland, which further contributed to him being considered a person of interest. During the night of the attack, he had had a wild night with a group of five Finns. Three of the five Finns had been gambling in Stockholm and lost all their money, and were given tickets back to Finland by the Stockholm social security services. This group of six - the Englishman and the five Finns - had spent the night on the ship enjoying meals at the restaurant and drinking alcohol in various places all over the cruise ship. When the cruise ship reached the harbour in Turku, the group of six were all taken directly to the police station.
The Finns were cleared of suspicion early on and were released. The Englishman was interviewed several times (the police initially had trouble finding a criminal investigator who spoke English well enough to conduct the interviews), but he maintained his innocence. He was kept in jail for two weeks during the investigation, the maximum time allowed without pressing charges. The criminal laboratory examined the blood on the Englishman’s shirt, and determined that it was his own - although it has later been noted that the technology in 1987 could not rule it with absolute certainty.
With no other evidence against the Englishman, he was released. He lived in Finland for several years after the event, but could not be reached by YLE for this article.
The investigation was exceptionally large and was allocated a great deal of resources, including the latest technology: the computer. Early on in the investigation, the police ruled out robbery and sexual assault as motives. Their best assessment of a possible motive was “an insignificant one”, committed by a mentally ill person or someone suffering from a severe personality disorder.
In 1987, the technology available to crime investigations was still relatively poor. CCTVs were relatively rare and image quality was poor. DNA testing only became a standard, systematic technique in the early 1990s. Blood sample analysis could primarily only determine blood group and whether the blood came from an animal or a human. Cruise ships did not properly collect and store passenger information. Passenger interviews remained the main source of information.
Bettina Taxis survived the attack. She was unconscious for weeks and did not regain consciousness until well after she was transferred to a West German hospital. After a year-long bureaucratic process, Finnish investigators were able to interview her, but she was unable to recall anything from the day of the attack.

Time passes

Over the next couple of years, the police were looking for several people. Two separate people, referred to as “beanie man” by media based on their description (both had worn beanie hats that stood out), were sought after by the police. One of them was reached in Western Germany and was ruled out as a suspect, but the other one was never reached. This particular “beanie man” was 30 years old, approximately 175 centimetres tall and dark-haired. His appearance, in addition to the beanie hat, was described as disheveled, and he spoke to himself in English. He had been seen carrying something canvas-y (unclear whether this refers to a canvas bag containing something, or some other object that was made of canvas).
A month after the attack, two fishermen landed on the small island of Lilla Björnholm along the cruise ship’s route. The island is uninhabited, surrounded by cliffs and covered in forest. The fishermen noticed a black trash bag on the shore and found clothes inside. Not realising a possible connection to the cruise ship murder, they left the bag on the island. Upon returning to the island in the summer of 1988, the fishermen noticed the bag still in the same place they had discovered it the previous August. This time, they took the bag with them and brought it to the police.
Here is an image of the island where the bag was found, as well as an image of the discovered clothes dressed on a mannequin.
Among the clothes was a Finnish-made Umberto Loofer shoe. The police discovered that the shoes had been sold by a shoe store in Turku, in the year 1985 or 1986. The other clothes found were beige shorts, a red sweater, and a grey working glove with the initials H.K.. The police concluded that based on the location of the trash bag as well as “certain technical investigations”, it seemed likely that the clothes had been on board Viking Sally.
The police investigated well into the 1990s. Passengers caught on the videotape were looked for all over Europe. Some people didn’t report themselves to the police because they felt they had nothing to contribute (this was said by two Swedish youths who didn’t report themselves but were found anyway), whereas some people avoided contacting the police because they considered their cruise trip “unsavoury” or embarrassing for personal, but non-criminal reasons. (The article does not give an example of such a reason.)
Eventually, the case went cold.

Recent developments

The investigation stayed cold until the year 2016. The police has not revealed what happened that prompted the re-opening of the investigation. Finally, in September, the lead investigator announced that the case has been solved. However, a legal problem presents itself: in Finland, homicides are classified as kuolemantuottamus, surma, tappo or murha depending on the premeditation and the act itself. Close enough approximations are the American classifications of involuntary manslaughter, voluntary manslaughter, second-degree murder and first-degree murder, respectively. Murha is equivalent to first-degree murder, while tappo is second-degree.
A tappo has a statute of limitations of 20 years, whereas a murha has no statute of limitations. In the 1990s, the case was considered a tappo, but in the early 2000s it was changed to a murha (i.e. a greater degree of premeditation was assumed). If currently available evidence can only support a tappo charge against the person the police have identified, he cannot be prosecuted anymore as the crime has expired in 2007. However, if there is enough evidence to support a murha charge, the police can and certainly will prosecute. The case is currently pending charge considerations to determine exactly this. However, until the charge consideration is finished, the police will not reveal the name, gender, nationality of age of the suspect. They confirm that the suspect did not know the victims beforehand, and has been interviewed several times, but has not been taken into custody. The suspect denies his/her involvement.
The prosecutor expects the charge consideration to be finished by the end of this year.
One thing we know for certain: no new crime scene evidence has been uncovered, because the cruise ship sank in 1994 in the deadliest maritime disaster in Europe.
The rest of the article concerns the life of Thomas Schmid after the attack. He was cleared of suspicion early on in the investigation (and re-cleared in the 2016 investigation), and now lives in Stuttgart with his family. He is hopeful about the result of the investigation, and hopes it brings some closure to Klaus Schelkle’s parents.
(Again, if you understand Swedish or Finnish and thought there was a poor translation or a misunderstanding in the text, please let me know!)

Personal thoughts

Man, I hope they have enough evidence to charge the person with first-degree murder. I don’t know what information they can reveal if they conclude the crime has passed the statute of limitations, but the YLE article says that criminal commissioner Kivimäki did not want to give an interview until the investigation material is published, out of respect to the current lead investigator. This would imply that the evidence, results and overall course of the investigation will be made public. To some degree, in any case. Maybe someone here knows more about this?
I’ll definitely post an update if and when this case gets an update, hopefully within the next couple of months!
And boy, was that cruise ship cursed or what? Two separate murder incidents and a deadly sinking?
submitted by premature_eulogy to UnresolvedMysteries

JoAnn Matouk Death - "Lady in the Lake" Information That Keeps Being Left Out

For those who have yet to watch the second set of segments released earlier this month on Unsolved Mysteries, one of the cases featured was one titled, "Lady in the Lake". It features the mysterious death of JoAnn Matouk who disappeared near the Detroit River before being found on the Canadian side of the river roughly over two months after her disappearance. The police concluded suicide, but her family is convinced that foul play was involved. You can reread a run down of the various foul play scenarios here and here.
Knowing Unsolved Mysteries (and Netflix's) penchant for leaving out context and information on various segments over the years, I decided to do some digging. I found both the decision to throw out a lawsuit brought by JoAnn's estate (her daughters & family), as well as the upheld appeal which went into much more information than what was shown on UM and on various articles and write ups about the case. Here are the highlights:
  • With regards to the claim that it was "suspicious" for the police to have become alarmed by just seeing a parked car in a church parking lot:
Lieutenant Rogers ran the vehicle’s license plate from his patrol car through the Law Enforcement Information Network (“LIEN”) system and learned that the car was registered to Kathy Matouk and Michelle Romain, Ms. Romain’s daughters. Rogers also learned that the license plate had expired several days earlier. Because the vehicle was on private property, Lieutenant Rogers did not believe there was a reason to investigate further or issue a ticket.
About an hour later the same evening, GPF Public Safety Officer (“PSO”) Keith Colombo, also on routine patrol, came upon the Lexus. Colombo was concerned because the Lexus was the only vehicle in the driveway, he saw no one around, and it was late on a cold January weeknight. He approached the Lexus and illuminated the interior with a flashlight to confirm that there was no one inside the vehicle, which there was not. PSO Colombo then returned to his patrol car and ran SUV’s license plate through LEIN and discovered it was registered to Kathy Matouk and Michelle Romain, with an address of 693 Morningside Lane, Grosse Pointe Woods.
PSO Colombo then got out of his patrol car to check the area. Not seeing anyone, PSO Colombo thought the driver and/or occupants of the Lexus might be down by the water’s edge because, in his experience, people “very frequently” park in the church parking lot and streets adjacent to Lake Shore Drive and go down to the lake. Aided by the headlights and spotlight from his patrol car facing south on the driveway toward Lake Shore Drive, the ambient light from the snow-covered ground, and his flashlight, PSO Colombo noticed footprints in the snow on the south-side of Lake Shore Drive, leading to an embankment.
PSO Colombo then walked across Lake Shore Drive to the curb closest to the lake, where he saw footsteps in the snow leading down toward a second embankment at the water’s edge. An impression in the snow on the first breakwall suggested that someone had sat down on the breakwall and pushed off to get down to the second breakwall. Additional prints suggested that someone also had sat down on the second breakwall. Colombo looked for footprints in the snow leading back from the water and saw nothing but fresh snow.
Two police officers ran a check on the car that night. The plates were expired. The second officer was more likely than not (since it was not specified) notified that another officer ran a check on the vehicle about an hour prior, which heightened his suspicions about the vehicle.
  • Much has been made by JoAnn's family saying that there were records that show the Coast Guard was at the scene much earlier than what was indicated by the police. It turns out, it was just crappy record keeping:
Several pages of the Coast Guard’s Search and Rescue (“SAR”) file reflect that it was contacted about a person in the water off Lake Shore by GPF Lieutenant Rogers via land line at 10:33 p.m. The Coast Guard's Situation Report (“SITREP”), however, apparently reflects that assistance was requested at 9:30 p.m., an airboat was launched at 9:38 p.m., and the airboat was on scene at 9:51 p.m. In an affidavit submitted in support of the GPF Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, Bruce W. Czako, the Coast Guard Officer who received Lieutenant Rogers’ call, states that these earlier entries are incorrect based on his personal recollection of the events in question and the other entries in the Search and Rescue file. Czako indicates that the incorrect times are times entered manually by a station member. United States Coast Guard Operations Specialist First Class Petty Officer Stephen E. Veda confirms Czako’s statements in a separate affidavit submitted in support of the GPF Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
  • The officer who was dispatched to go to Michelle's home says that he arrived and was sent to inquire about the car. Michelle told him that she hadn't heard from her mother and he advised her to start calling around to see if anyone had seen her. About twenty minutes after arriving, he called the dispatch to inform them that Michelle and other family members were on their way to the scene of where the vehicle was found. Michelle, however:
Michelle Romain asserts that the GPW officer who came to her house the evening of January 12, 2010, was not PSO Fisher. According to Michelle, the officer was approximately 6 ft. 1 in. in height, which is much taller than PSO Fisher, and had very dark hair and a slender build. Michelle describes PSO Fisher as having light brown hair and a stocky build. According to the Grosse Pointe Woods Defendants, Plaintiff [Michelle] was provided in discovery a roster of all GPW Department of Public Safety employees and their photographs, but Michelle has not identified any of those individuals as the person who came to 693 Morningside the evening of January 12, 2010.
Michelle also insists that the officer who came to the house arrived at 9:25 p.m. and specifically inquired about the whereabouts of her mother, stating that her mother’s car was found parked in the St. Paul’s Church parking lot.
Michelle provides that she left the house with her sister Kellie and Uncle John Matouk at 9:45 p.m., and arrived at St. Paul’s Church between 9:55 and 10:00 p.m. Michelle further provides that when they arrived, she saw a helicopter with lights shining into the lake across Lake Shore Drive. There was caution tape around the Lexus and an officer utilizing a tool to open the car door. Michelle attests that she saw the officer gain entrance to the vehicle and remove her mother’s black purse and search its contents. The contents of the purse did not include a cellphone or keys.
Credibility issues much? And it's important to point out that she is the largest source for the various foul play scenarios presented in the segment.
  • The "tear" on the purse did not indicate a struggle as if someone ripped it away from JoAnn:
According to Defendant Daniel Jensen, GPF Chief of Police and Director of Public Safety, the tear was on the flap area of the purse. The tear is pointed out in the photographs of the purse taken after it was found. These photographs reflect a portion of the top ruffle of the purse, which has approximately nine layers of horizontal ruffles, detached at the seam.
  • Her family, specifically Michelle, has claimed that 6 weeks prior to her disappearance, JoAnn made a mention that her spare key for the car was missing. When her body was found, the one key was found in her zipped up jacket on her body. Michelle claims that the spare key "mysteriously" showed up at the police station one day. However, there is a chain of command as to who got the key and when:
According to PSO Good, McCarthy said something along the lines of looking through the vehicle to see if there was anything suspicious or unusual about the contents. Good received the key for the Lexus from Defendant Frank Zielinski, another GPF PSO. PSO Zielinski testified that during the morning of January 13, 2010, someone at the department instructed him to go and retrieve a set of keys for the Lexus. Good testified that the instructions did not come from him. At his deposition on October 9, 2015, Zielinksi could not recall who gave him the instructions or the address where he was sent. He also could not describe the person who gave him the key when he arrived at the address. Until shown PSO Good’s report, Zielinski did not remember who he gave the key to when he returned to the police station.
Zielinski was testifying 5 years after the fact. Since his sole role in this case was to retrieve a key, I don't think this indicates anything nefarious.
  • Much has been made (online, but not mentioned on UM) about a woman who saw a man jogging near the scene at around 7:50 p.m. that night wearing a scarf. A scarf was recovered from the scene. However, she says that nothing was suspicious at that time and the only reason she came forward was when she saw JoAnn's disappearance featured on the news. A paralegal working with the firm who was representing JoAnn in her divorce proceedings also saw the news report about JoAnn's disappearance and contacted police:
According to Detective McCarthy’s report, Ms. Barich indicated that Ms. Romain had been at the law firm’s offices early the preceding week and appeared “distraught” and “paranoid.” According to Ms. Barich, Ms. Romain complained that David Romain was “controlling.” Ms. Barich found Ms. Romain’s behavior not normal and unusual.
  • Another worker at the law firm:
Ms. Wyatt told McCarthy that she saw Ms. Romain at the firm’s offices within the last few weeks and Ms. Romain “feared trouble from her husband.” According to Ms. Wyatt, Ms. Romain also believed someone was tampering with her mail, but Ms. Romain did not have anything specific. Ms. Wyatt told Detective McCarthy that she did not think Ms. Romain was depressed and/or despondent.
  • Michelle:
According to Detective McCarthy’s report, Michelle told the officers that her mother was increasingly paranoid in the last few months. Ms. Romain thought her cell phone was being tapped and that people were entering her home and so she had the locks changed. McCarthy wrote that Michelle did not believe any of her mother’s concerns were substantiated or could be confirmed by anyone.
  • A man called the local police department with a tip and reported:
On January 17, 2010, PSO Trupiano took a statement from David Grant, who reported that at around 6:45 or 7:00 p.m. on January 12, he saw a heavy set woman wearing a dark color trench coat standing on the north side of Lake Shore Drive at St. Paul’s Church. Grant stated that she was staring out into the water.
  • JoAnn's family (again, this was not mentioned on UM) have pointed out that another witness, a man named Paul Hawk, claimed to have seen two vehicles parked by the lakeside near the church on January 12th, and saw a woman "sitting on the breakwall". However:
When Detective McCarthy asked Hawk when on January 12 this occurred, Hawk said he was not sure of the exact time, but that it was mid to late afternoon and light outside. Detective McCarthy did not believe the woman Hawk saw was Ms. Romain based on the timing, but gave him a witness statement to fill out and return. Detective McCarthy testified that he did not include Hawk’s statement in the case report because he did not think the information was relevant to Ms. Romain.
  • Hawk's written statement, however, says that he saw all of this occur "near dusk" and that in addition to the woman, he saw 2 men near the 2 parked vehicles. Two years after giving his statement, he filed a property damage complaint against the police department because he noticed a splotch of tar on the side mirror of his car, which he said resembled a hawk and that "he was a witness in the Grosse Point Farm's Romain-Matouk murder and he thought someone put the tar on his car to send him a message to remain quiet." Detectives re-interviewed Hawk, and he now claimed:
Mr. Hawk told Detective Chalut that when he passed the two men and woman on Lake Shore Drive the night of January 12, 2010, one of the men placed his hand in his pocket, as though reaching for a gun. Chalut noted that Mr. Hawk did not mention the man reaching for a possible weapon in his GPF written statement. During their conversation, Mr. Hawk stated that he went to the Michigan State Police and FBI regarding what he saw the night of January 12, 2010, because no one at the GPF Department of Public Safety ever called him back. Detective Chalut wrote in his report that he explained that the investigating agency is responsible for recontacting witnesses if they deem it necessary and that this seemed to upset Mr. Hawk. Detective Chalut further explained that, in his opinion, Lieutenant Rosati did not find Mr. Hawk to be a credible witness due to inconsistencies in his statements compared to known facts in the case.
  • Hawk changed the time he witnessed these events from afternoon, to dusk, to the night, and then added details each time he was re-interviewed. It's also interesting that Hawk identified Tim Matouk as one of the men he saw that night. It should be noted that this identification was made roughly 4 years after the fact, during the entire lawsuit fiasco.
  • A church goer called a detective with the police department and said:
On January 13, 2010, GPW Detective John Kosanke received a telephone call from Elizabeth Fisher who reported that she saw Ms. Romain enter St. Paul’s Church the night before at around 7:05 p.m. Ms. Fisher indicated that Ms. Romain sat in back and that her body language while walking indicated she was depressed. Specifically, Ms. Fisher described that Ms. Romain walked slowly and in a slumped position. According to Ms. Fisher, the service lasted until 7:20 p.m. and she saw Ms. Romain leave the church.
  • A woman called the police and said she observed someone standing on the road facing the lake at 8:30 p.m. on the evening prior to JoAnn's disappearance. She said this person was wearing all black and that she thought it was a male.
  • The Canadian coroner's report noted "paranoid psychosis (presumed)." Despite this, he wrote that there was insufficient evidence to suggest suicide, concluded that the cause of death was drowning, and that the manner of death was undetermined. The local coroner in Macomb County concluded the same. They even conducted a third autopsy with an independent pathologist from the University of Michigan. He too, reached the same conclusions.
  • Michelle also accused her uncle Bill of being involved with her mother's death. But:
As Defendants point out, Plaintiff fails to present any evidence to support her assertion that Bill Matouk was involved in “plenty of illegal activity” and she mischaracterizes his relationship with the officers named in this action to suggest that they were close enough that the officers would be willing to conceal his involvement in a murder. During the deposition of Bill Matouk that Plaintiff offers to demonstrate this close relationship, Plaintiff’s counsel repeatedly tried to get Mr. Matouk to say that he was “buddies” with the named officers. What the deposition testimony reflects is that some of the defendants are or have been customers at Bill Matouk’s store and he was friendly with them, but never socialized with them.
  • Michelle alleged that in addition to her uncle Bill, her cousin Tim, despite having an airtight alibi due to his work with a narcotics unit for completely different police department on the night of JoAnn's death, as well as the Grosse Point Farms and Grosse Point Woods police departments of all being involved in the coverup. The motive?
To help a friend who sold the officers alcohol at prices cheaper than Costco.
This is nothing more than a family who is desperately grasping at straws and accusing estranged family members of killing their loved one because they cannot accept the fact that she took her own life. Rey Rivera 2.0
submitted by DJHJR86 to UnresolvedMysteries

0 thoughts on “Daemon tools pro 5.2.0 keygen

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *