The family soldier in the U.S. army needs our help and you don’t even have to leave your house to do it. Even tough, highly trained members of our armed forces can be at risk in this broken world. But somebody knows what happened, and I’m calling on you to help me spread the word so justice can be done. Welcome to another episode of The Unlovely Truth. I’m your host, private investigator Lori Morrison. Join me for another captivating true crime story, where physical, spiritual, and emotional safety takeaways are waiting for us. If you are listening, I believe you have a unique calling—to become a different kind of PI, not a typical private investigator, but a person of impact! This is Season 4, Episode 27. This episode will drop on the Fourth of July, Independence Day, so we’re going to investigate the unsolved murder of Staff Sgt. Jessica Ann Mitchell. After ringing in the New Year with friends at the 4th Quarter Sports Bar on the northwest side of San Antonio, Texas, Staff Sgt. Mitchell was found shot to death in her car on Interstate 10 near the Vance Jackson Road exit. Let’s help get justice for someone who served our country to protect our freedom. I want to dig a little deeper into the crime of online stalking. According to a 2021 article from the Pew Research Center, 41% of American adults have experienced online harassment. They compared numbers from 2017, 2019, and 2021 and the numbers keep increasing. The vast majority of people who have experienced online abuse said it happened on social media. Here are some other findings from Pew that really stood out to me: the share of women who report being sexual harassed online has doubled since 2017adults under thirty are the age group most likely to be harassed onlineabout one-in-five Americans who have been harassed online say it was because of their religion Did being stalked online have anything to do with Jessica’s murder? We don’t know that for sure at this point, but it’s interesting to note that the UK based crimetraveller.org, “new research has found in a total of 358 murder cases with a male perpetrator and female victim, a staggering 94% showed stalking behavior involved in the period before the killing.” Here in the U.S., every state has laws against stalking in the physical world. But a handful of states still don’t! Be sure you check to see what laws your state has passed. There are also federal laws but those typically have to include an actual threat, and wouldn’t necessarily cover online behavior that is harassing absent a concrete threat. The Supreme Court dealt future victims of stalking a huge blow last week. I want to give you my understanding of what this means and my concerns, and I’d love for you to share yours! Email me or send me a message on social media. But we’ll use these platforms for good! The U.S. Supreme Court is, of course, the last stop for an appeal of a lower court decision. The appeal that the Court was hearing was a case where a Colorado man had been convicted of stalking a songwriter by sending her hundreds of direct messages on Facebook. She never responded to the messages she said were “creepy”. Her stalker seemed to show that he was watching her in real time, commenting on where she was and what vehicle she was driving. This went on for two years and ironically, he commented that he didn’t think their relationship was healthy because she wouldn’t talk to him. He didn’t want to acknowledge that they didn’t have a relationship at all! He also told her that “You’re not being good for human relations. Die. Don’t need you.” After being found guilty of stalking, he was sentenced to four and a half years in prison. In his appeals, his attorneys have argued that his conviction violated his right to free speech. We all know that first amendment protections are not absolute. That’s why we can sue people who slander or defame us. The issue here seems to be whether speech becomes a threat when the person hearing feels threatened, or the person saying it intended the words as a threat. It’s a fine line, isn’t it? A lot of these kinds of issues are decided on the reasonable person standard. In other words, how would a reasonable person interpret these words? I consider myself a reasonable person, and I would definitely have felt threatened. Why else would this man have said what he did so persistently over such an extended period of time. It’s like I say in my book, when someone tells you who they are, believe them. He was telling her over and over that he was a dangerous person. Something that you may not realize is that the Supreme Court does not have to hear every case that asks for review. One factor they consider is whether a ruling in a case could have broad influence over other similar cases. So the reasoning used to reach this decision could spill over and harm other cases where a victim’s rights are at stake. This story isn’t over yet. The Court said ...
