11th in a Series
A few weeks ago I reported that Cynthia Turner had been an intended victim of road homicide on Boulder Highway 582. This was not the only attempt to silence Turner during these past six months.
Beginning as early as January 2014, Ms. Turner has fought a series of attempts to disrupt her access to information and to unhindered communication. Phone communication and Internet access have been under attack. These have not been amateur endeavors; like the incident on Boulder Highway in July, professionally skilled perpetrators had to be involved.
Visible trouble began years ago after Sergeant Matt Gillis of the LVMPD interviewed Cynthia Turner at her home in Las Vegas. To the apparent discomfort of Gillis, Turner insisted on and successfully recorded a formal conversation with the LVMPD detective. Gillis also obtained physical evidence from Ms. Turner that same day, for which he signed an acknowledgement of receipt. Since that day Turner has noticed vehicles exactly like the Dodge Ram driven by Gillis either parked near her home or following her out and about. Often the same vehicle would tail her, until she lost it.
Then in the summer of 2013 Lieutenant Ray Steiber of LVMPD Robbery and Homicide Division told Turner in a phone conversation, “As far as I’m concerned your case is closed,” referring to the 2005 killing of Turner’s only child, Jason R. Turner-Shenker. Immediately in the background, Turner heard whispering and rustling of paper. She believes she heard Detective Gillis saying, “You can’t close it. She has a court order.” After a pause, Steiber told Turner bitterly, “I see you outsmarted us again. We can’t close this case, but what I will do is put it on a back shelf where it will collect dust.” There it remains.
Intimidating surveillance is not the only method used to harass Cynthia Turner. During weekly visits to her son’s grave in Boulder City, it is often the case that mysterious visitors arrive and linger in the cemetery while she is there. No grave sites are visited by these anonymous persons, and strange behavior is common. Many vehicles that have followed Turner into the cemetery have suspiciously resembled unmarked cars driven by LVMPD or Henderson detectives. Last Thursday, September 4, there was no mistaking the LVMPD badge on the door of a large service pick-up truck that appeared in the cemetery.
The driver of that vehicle made it obvious that Turner was the center of his or her attention, keeping a distance yet moving about in coordination with Turner’s movements. That vehicle was eventually joined by a patrol car with clear markings, a “black and white.” Was that coincidence or a routine visit intending to observe a quiet, unpopulated cemetery in the event of random vandalism? That’s as likely as Lake Mead filling itself to pre-drought levels overnight.
The United States Code has a legal definition that addresses this behavior. It’s called obstruction of justice. Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) also defines LVMPD behavior as obstruction of justice; other state laws apply as well. Those who are given responsibility to protect public interests (meaning far more than merely corporate
interests) and uphold local, state and federal laws are breaking those laws they give oaths to uphold. The Clark County Recorder publicly records oaths taken by law enforcement staff under “Liens” on its website, found by searching under each person’s name. Detectives who park their public-owned vehicles within eye-view of Turner’s residence, and use those cars with intentions to intimidate victims of crime such as Turner, are violating state and federal laws, and their public oaths given.
Actions by LVMPD intended to harass Turner, if not far worse, have not been the only obstacles to prosecuting her case that she has faced.
Incredibly sophisticated cyber attacks persist. As recently as last week an illegal and yet unexplained PEN wire was found on Turner’s phone line. For the fifth time since the beginning of 2014, problems with phone connections recently plagued Turner. On Friday, August 29, she arranged for a technician from her phone company to drop by to fix a problem they found remotely. An appointment was set for Saturday, August 30. The appointed time came and passed. No service technician arrived. Turner called her land-phone service company to inquire why.
She was told that someone had cancelled her appointment. It had been erased internally at the phone company. No one knew why.
A second appointment was made for Monday, September 1, Labor Day. A service technician arrived on schedule. He was not from the phone company. He had no badge or identification. Turner called the phone company. She was told not to allow the young man inside. She didn’t, of course. As he stood outside her door for long minutes, the tech was eventually heard telling someone sternly, “I told you I had lost my I.D. badge.” In the meantime, Turner was told by the phone company representative that it was taking an unusually long time to contact the service company management.
The actual identity of the young man is in question. The phone company confirmed that they would sometimes use a third-party contractor to do service work. That day it was Quality Communications. The technician pronounced his name, “Hyman,” although he wrote “Jaime” on a paper he wrote and signed. He gave Turner a badge number that does not match the badge number on record with the phone company.
In following up on the problem for which he was called, the technician opened the locked box outside Turner’s building. Inside he found the PEN device attached to her line. He removed it, and Turner immediately asked for it. Rather than give it to her, “Jaime” rushed to his truck
and told Turner briskly, “I have to go to McDonalds to give a part to my boss. I’ll be right back.” He drove off and returned about ten minutes later. He then gave Turner a completely different wire, not the one she saw in his hand as he walked away from the service box.
Whoever this technician actually is, and whether or not he’s from Quality Communications, he intended to deceive Turner and any authorities investigating this case.
Instead of deceiving, this young man has implicated himself and his company in very serious crimes. He drove away with evidence to that tampering or wiretapping crime, and potential leads to prior cyber attacks that had taken place over a period of months. A rather small Nevada company, Quality Communications is now implicated in these cyber attacks, and so are its owners. It appears that those persons
registered to run this company, Melinda L. Huber, Robert J. Huber and Brady E. Wells, have some explaining to do regarding this matter.