Month: March 2021

The Zodiac Killer – Part 2

~ Alexandria McKenna ~ 5 Comments
Who was the Zodiac Killer? Image Source

In the last blog post, The Zodiac Killer, we delved into the crimes of the infamous criminal. Despite the direct evidence, the letters, and the encrypted codes that manifested the existence of the Zodiac Killer, the case turned cold. During the investigation, however, the authorities identified several suspects that complicated the mystery of the Zodiac Killer. In this blog post, we will explore the clues that led authorities to the particular suspects.

A comparison between Earl Van Best Jr. and one of the sketches of the Zodiac Killer. Image Source

Earl Van Best Jr. is the first suspect identified by the authorities. The suspect’s son, Gary L. Stewart, engendered the suspicion after publishing a book that was intended to convince people that his father was the Zodiac Killer. According to Stewart, his father strongly resembled several of the sketches of the Zodiac Killer, which were based on the accounts of witnesses. Also, Stewart realized that the number of symbols in one of the encrypted codes was equal to the number of letters in his father’s name. Lastly, Stewart uncovered a marriage certificate that allegedly displayed his father’s handwriting, and claimed that the handwriting matched the penmanship of the Zodiac Killer. Despite the circumstantial clues that made Earl Van Best Jr. a suspect, the evidence is severely flawed. For example, the authorities discovered that Earl Van Best Jr.’s priest completed the certificate, so the handwriting was not Earl Van Best Jr.’s penmanship. Also, Earl Van Best Jr. matched some descriptions of the Zodiac Killer, but not all of them. To elaborate, several of the witnesses claimed that the Zodiac Killer was stocky, but Earl Van Best Jr. was not a heavy set man. Therefore, Earl Van Best Jr. is not likely the serial killer, but is an interesting suspect nonetheless.

A comparison between Arthur Leigh Allen and one of the sketches of the Zodiac Killer. Image Source

The second suspect was identified by Robert Graysmith, a political cartoonist for the San Francisco Chronicle. Graysmith claimed that Arthur Leigh Allen was the Zodiac Killer based on a plentitude of direct and circumstantial evidence. Before I go into detail about this next suspect, I will admit that the evidence is uncanny. On the day of the third Zodiac Killer attack, Allen told his family that he was going scuba diving at Lake Berryessa, the location of the specific crime. That night, Allen returned home with blood stains on his clothes and with a bloody knife, which is extremely odd because the victims of the Zodiac Killer were ruthlessly stabbed on the same day. On another note, Allen’s friend revealed to the authorities that Allen’s nickname was “The Zodiac” before the public referred to the mysterious serial killer as “The Zodiac.” In addition, the police discovered dissected animals in Allen’s freezer and an assortment of bloody knives. Interestingly, Allen was also arrested for child molestation in 1974 and was sentenced to prison for 3 years. The fact is interesting because during those 3 years, the authorities never received letters from the Zodiac Killer. Also, Allen confessed to killing Paul Stine, one of the Zodiac Killer’s victims, while serving his sentence in prison. One of the inmates told the police about Allen’s confession, which spurred them to perform a lineup. During the lineup, an individual who survived one of the Zodiac Killer’s attacks was asked to identify the man who had shot him. Surprisingly, the victim instantly recognized Allen. All of the evidence that implicated Arthur Leigh Allen is highly convincing; however, there are some inconsistencies that prevented the authorities from detaining Allen for the crimes of the Zodiac Killer. For example, Allen’s DNA did not match any of the DNA collected from the letters and Allen’s fingerprints did not match the fingerprints found at the crime scenes. Also, Allen does not resemble any of the sketches of the Zodiac Killer and his handwriting did not match the penmanship of the Zodiac Killer.

Lawrence “Kane” Kaye. Image Source

The final suspect is Lawrence Kaye or Kane. A police officer, Harvey Hines, engendered the suspicion because he may have witnessed the Zodiac Killer walking from his final crime and Hines believed that Kane most closely resembled the man that was seen near the vicinity of the crime. Kane is an intriguing suspect because he suffered from permanent brain damage due to a car accident. According to a psychologist, Kane was mentally unstable and struggled to feel self-gratification as a result of the car accident. In addition, a girl related to one of the Zodiac Killer’s victims claimed that Kane was the man stalking her sister before the night of her murder. Despite the chilling circumstantial evidence, Kane’s DNA or fingerprints were never compared with the DNA or the fingerprints of the Zodiac Killer. Also, Kane does not resemble most of the sketches of the Zodiac Killer.

So here’s the final lineup: Earl Van Best Jr., Arthur Leigh Allen, and Lawrence Kaye. Who do you think may have been the Zodiac Killer? Or… do you think more than one person was involved?

Implementing New Policy for a Level of Food Distribution Will Effectively Initiate the Mitigation of Food Waste

~ Alexandria McKenna ~ 4 Comments

Introduction

The United States wastes approximately 40% of the food supply on an annual basis.1 To put the matter into perspective, the nation nearly consumes half of the food that is generated and squanders the other half each year. Steadily wasting the bulk of food production is a major concern and deserves to be a prioritized issue due to the implications of food waste. Food waste is not only indicative of the concerning level of discarded food, but it also leads to greenhouse gas emissions that spur global climate change, splurges precious water, land, and labor resources, and engenders a missed opportunity to combat food insecurity across the entire country.2 As a result, the issue of food waste demands instant mitigation. The problem is indeed extensive since food waste is generated throughout all levels of consumption, yet it can be properly addressed by focusing on the sectors of consumption that are largely contributing to the issue. One of these sectors of consumption is restaurants. The food distributors produce about 22 to 33 billion pounds of food waste each year, which is a large portion of all the food wasted by the United States on an annual basis.3 Due to the food waste procured by restaurants, focusing on the particular level of food distribution from the perspective of policy will effectively initiate the mitigation of food waste and its resulting consequences. The implemented policy can take the form of capacity builders, system changes, and enhanced inducements.

References

1 U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Food Loss and Waste, https://www.fda.gov/food/consumers/food-loss-and-waste (Feb. 23, 2021).

2 Move for Hunger, About Food Waste, https://moveforhunger.org/food-waste (2021).

3 FoodPrint, The Problem of Food Waste, https://foodprint.org/issues/the-problem-of-food-waste/ (2021).

A Major Contributor to Food Waste

~ Alexandria McKenna ~ 3 Comments
Restaurants are significantly contributing to food waste. Image Source

After blogging about food waste and deliberating with students about food waste on college campuses, the next step is writing an issue brief about the problem as well. Due to personal experiences as an employee at a fast food chain, convincing policymakers that restaurants are wasting an excessive amount of food and proposing ways to limit food waste at this level of food distribution are the overarching goals of the issue brief. Research clearly shows that restaurants are collectively not avoiding food waste to an extent that will successfully reverse the negative implications of the issue, which leads to several questions that should be addressed before tackling an issue brief. How much food do restaurants waste? Why are restaurants avoiding ways to decrease the amount of wasted food? What can restaurants do to limit food waste?

According to FoodPrint, restaurants waste approximately “22 to 33 billion pounds of food each year.” As a result, food waste in restaurants is far from negligible. In addition, the statistic reveals that restaurants are significantly contributing to all of the food wasted in the United States, which is roughly 40% of the food supply on an annual basis. Therefore, addressing food waste in restaurants is extremely important because it will lead to other benefits besides less waste, such as less production of greenhouse gas emissions, less squandering of precious resources, and more support for those struggling with food insecurity.

Donating food will help decrease food waste. Image Source

Restaurants are major generators of wasted food, so devising ways to reduce food waste at this level of food distribution is extremely important. Donating leftover food from restaurants to local food banks is an instinctive way to limit the waste produced by restaurants, and most individuals support the idea. The proposal is naturally a win-win situation; however, the goal is difficult to accomplish for the majority of restaurants. In 1996, Congress addressed the difficulty of donating food to organizations by enacting the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Act. The purpose of the act is to ensure that donors, including restaurants, do not face any legal consequences for donating leftover food that may lead to unintentional foodborne illnesses. To elaborate, the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Act did not enact new liabilities for food donors; instead, the act changed the type of claims that can be settled against donors. Unless the donors intentionally harm the well-being of others through the act of donating food, no claims “arising out of the nature, age, packaging, or condition of the donated food” can be settled. On another note, the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Act also suggests that donated food should be “wholesome food” or “an apparently fit grocery product,” the act of donating should be charitable, and food banks should disperse the food to individuals struggling with food insecurity. The Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Act properly enhances the ability to donate food from restaurants, leading to mitigated food waste; however, many other hurdles exist that prevent restaurants from donating leftover food.

The main reason as to why most restaurants refrain from donating leftover food is unawareness of the laws that protect acts of food donation. If you ask a restaurant owner about the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Act, chances are the restaurant owner will have no idea what you are talking about. Most restaurant owners do not understand that the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Act protects those that charitably donate food, which is an unfortunate issue because the lack of awareness is cultivating a missed opportunity, an opportunity to mitigate food waste. Educating restaurant owners about the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Act is a simple way to simultaneously increase food donations and decrease food waste, but the lack of awareness is not the only barrier preventing restaurants from donating food. Despite the approval of the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Act, each state has created different laws concerning food donations, which complicates the entire process of donating food. To complicate the process of donating food even further, most food banks have also implemented strict rules about food donations that are all different from on another. As a result of the confusion engendered by the state laws and the rules established by food banks in regard to donating leftover food, most restaurants prefer to avoid food donations altogether. Simplifying the process of donating food or helping restaurants understand the legal aspect of donating food will also simultaneously increase food donations and decrease food waste. The National Restaurant Association has also voiced this thought and suggests that educating restaurants about proper food management is the ‘”key to safe donation.”‘ Most of the laws enacted by the states or the rules implemented by the food banks focus on the storage of the food and the handling of the food. If food is not stored or handled properly, then food banks will not accept donated food. Therefore, educating more restaurants on proper food storage and handling will transform food that is always wasted, into food that is always eaten because donations will become a feasible option for those restaurants.

According to FoodPrint, 17% of consumers leave their meals uneaten on average. Image Source

Donating food is a great way to decrease the amount of food that restaurants throw away on a nightly basis; however, there are other ways to decrease food waste in restaurants. According to FoodPrint, consumers leave 17% of their meals uneaten on average, which is contributing to the accrual of wasted food in restaurants. To diminish the amount of food that consumers leave uneaten, restaurants can find ways to encourage consumers to abide by the cliché phrase, “take only what you can eat.” Did you know that restaurants have typically been serving portion sizes that are “two to eight times larger” than the standard serving sizes approved by the Federal Drug Administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture? Crazy! Not only can restaurants encourage consumers to “take only what you can eat,” but the restaurants can also decrease portion sizes. Both modes of action will effectively limit food waste, and will even promote healthier lifestyles.

Food waste is an issue, and restaurants are one of the biggest contributors to the problem. Restaurant owners should be more aware of food waste and should find ways to resolve the problem, which will be the focus of my next project. I am eager to create my issue brief and to help people become more aware of food waste!

Issue Brief – Part 2

~ Alexandria McKenna ~ Leave a comment

Hello everyone! Thank you for all of your feedback on my last post! I agree that the issue of food waste is a broad topic, so I thought intently about the audience that I would like to target. Since I currently work at a fast food restaurant and have directly witnessed food waste at my employment, I have decided to direct my issue brief at fast food chains and other restaurants. Such places lack regulations that strive to limit food waste and rarely encourage others to diminish personal food waste too, so this will hopefully be a good direction to steer my issue brief into.

As I develop my issue brief, I plan to establish exigence by focusing on my personal experiences while working at my place of employment. On more than one occasion, I have been asked to dump giant garbage bags full of fresh food into a humongous dumpster that overflows with trash in only a matter of days. Garbage is a normal part of life, but food waste appears to be extreme in the fast food industry, let alone all the other restaurants that discard food on a nightly basis across the entire nation. Therefore, I believe that my personal experiences, my drive to increase awareness of the issue, and my willingness to influence change when it comes to food waste will be a great source of exigence for my issue brief.

I also plan to concentrate on the rhetorical situation. A formal tone and a reliance on research will be the most effective way to communicate the issue of food waste and the changes that should be implemented to diminish the problem with those that oversee the restaurants. Most restaurants are also cautious about addressing the amount of food waste that takes place within their doors, so I also plan to respectfully approach the issue of food waste when speaking to my audience; however, I also have to make sure that I convince restaurant owners that food waste is an important issue to tackle.

My plan so far appears to be achievable and a topic that engenders policy discussion, so I am excited to see where this project goes. Once again, any feedback or constructive criticism is greatly appreciated!

The Zodiac Killer

~ Alexandria McKenna ~ Leave a comment
The Zodiac Killer. Image Source

On December 20, 1968, a suspicious crime marked the start of a serial killer’s chilling game. At the crime scene, 17-year-old David Faraday and his 16-year-old girlfriend, Betty Lou Jensen, were clearly shot while sitting in a car. The car was parked near Lake Herman Road, which is located on the outskirts of Vallejo, California. Betty Lou Jensen deceased at the crime scene and David Faraday passed away on his way to the hospital. The crime scene confused police officers because the killing had no detectable motive. Unfortunately, the tragic deaths of the teenagers was the first act of a dangerous serial killer who would baffle authorities even more.

Several months later on July 5, 1969, the disguised criminal targeted 22-year-old Darlene Ferrin and her 19-year-old boyfriend, Mike Mageau. Ferrin and Mageau were shot while sitting in a car that was parked in a parking lot. Coincidentally, the parking lot was also located on the outskirts of Vallejo. Ferrin passed away at the crime scene, but Mageau survived the brutal attack. Mageau described the killer as a young white male with light brown curly hair and a large face. Mageau also stated that the man was about 26-30 years old, stocky, and approximately 5′ 8″ tall. Despite the detailed description, authorities were not able to apprehend any suspects.

The signature of the Zodiac Killer. Image Source

On August 1, 1969, the San Francisco Examiner, the San Francisco Chronicle, and the Vallejo Times-Herald all received a strange letter with no return address. On a side note, the letters were identical. In the letters, the writer claimed to have killed the young couples and provided extremely specific details that only the killer and the authorities would have known about the crime scenes. Also, the letters were signed with strange symbol, a circle with a large cross in the the middle. The symbol inspired the famous name of the serial killer, which is the Zodiac Killer. Lastly, all the letters contained a unique code. The serial killer took advantage of the indecipherable letters by using them to threaten the newspaper companies. If the newspaper companies failed to print the codes, the killer vowed to strike again. As a result, the codes appeared in newspapers and the authorities frantically scrambled to catch the Zodiac Killer.

The sketch of the killer that attacked Shepard and Hartnell. Image Source

Unfortunately, the authorities had no luck and the Zodiac Killer indeed struck again. On September 27, 1969, another young couple was attacked. While picnicking on the shore of Lake Berryessa in Napa, California, a man wearing an executioner hood emblazoned with the Zodiac symbol approached the young couple. 22-year-old Cecelia Shepard and her 20-year-old boyfriend, Bryan Hartnell, were tied up with rope and brutally stabbed by the killer. Both teenagers were alive after the authorities arrived on the scene, but Shepard passed away. Hartnell survived the horrific event and was also able to describe the attacker. Hartnell claimed that the man was 5′ 8′ to 6′ tall, stocky, and had dark brown hair. Expectantly, the description corresponds to Mageau’s description; however, the Zodiac Killer was nowhere to be found.

On October 11, 1969, the Zodiac Killer attacked his last victim. During the evening, 29-year-old Paul Stine was shot and killed in his taxi. Authorities believed the attack was initially a robbery, but the Zodiac Killer confessed to killing Paul Stine several days after the shooting in another letter.

Only 5 victims have been linked to the Zodiac Killer, but the mysterious man claimed to have killed 37 people in one of his letters. To this day, the identity of the Zodiac Killer remains a mystery. The case may be unsolved; however, interesting clues have been uncovered that lead to chilling suspects, so stay tuned for Part 2 of the Zodiac Killer!

Here is the link to the video that inspired this blog post. The beginning is hilarious.

Blog Post #3

~ Alexandria McKenna ~ 2 Comments

Hello everyone! Unfortunately, my blog posts are not finished for today. I had a busy week and was not able to complete my posts. They will be on my site by tomorrow, so you will be able to check them out by then! I apologize for the inconvenience and I look forward to reading all of your new posts!

Issue Brief Idea

~ Alexandria McKenna ~ 3 Comments

Hello everyone! For the new project, I plan to develop an issue brief that focuses on food waste. After researching food waste for civic issues blogs and for the deliberation project, I would love to use my issue brief as another opportunity to reach out to local communities and state representatives about the implications of unrestricted food waste. As a result of my experiences with waste as an employee at a fast food restaurant, I am determined to bring more attention to the issue of food waste at the local and state levels. Food waste is an important reason for policy discussion due to its influence on the economy, the environment, and the public. The issue is leading to economical issues because businesses are currently offered incentives to donate leftover food, yet that extra sum of cash is only spent on more food that ends up in the trash. Businesses are ultimately wasting both food and money. Also, food waste is significantly contributing to greenhouse gas emissions, which is simply fueling global climate change. Lastly, limiting wasted food will drastically ease the severity of food insecurity in our society, which will lead to better health and success for thousands of people.

The implications of food waste are clear, but what exactly is causing the dilemma? Unfortunately, food waste is primarily the inadvertent result of both surplus and disposal. The abundance of food in stores and restaurants entices people to take more than what they need, leading to less consumption and more waste. Also, garbage cans, dumpsters, and landfills give people the impression that anything thrown away simply disappears; however, that is not the case. Waste has to be disposed, and the disposal sites are Earth’s precious land and water. No one originally thought that abundance and easy disposal would have a negative impact on our society, but time has revealed otherwise.

If food waste persists without restriction, our society will face severe consequences that may be irreversible. To prevent those consequences, our society can implement different types of policy instruments, including capacity builders, system changes, and better inducements. Capacity builders will be beneficial because they can educate the public about the issue, thus motivating people to limit personal food waste. Influencing the food habits of individuals is the simplest approach, yet has the potential to have the most collective impact on the dilemma. System changes can also be directed at restaurants and businesses. Today, regulations concerning food waste and donations are weak for most of those places, so updating guidelines can lead to an overall decrease in food waste. Inducements, such as tax breaks or other money incentives, are also encouraging food waste; changes to those inducements can limit the amount of annual food waste in our society too. Overall, various policy changes and additions can be implemented at the local and state level to resolve the issue of food waste and to ensure a brighter, healthier and more eco-friendly tomorrow.

Thanks for taking the time to look over this and I will greatly appreciate any feedback!