Cold Cases

They say “justice delayed is justice denied,” leaving some cold cases to languish for decades before being adequately scrutinized. We believe that with modern technologies at our disposal and enough manpower, most cold cases sitting in dusty filing rooms today could be solved within a few days—some even within hours.

We, at the FormerFedsGroup Freedom Foundation, believe strongly in the concept of American justice. We are ready to offer our assistance to departments around the country and the world to help clear out the anachronistic backlog of cold cases. It is our goal to bring justice to the victims, the families of the victims, and the perpetrators of violent crimes, especially those that have harmed children.

The FormerFedsGroup will independently review and analyze the original case files and other materials, while conducting a preliminary investigation to determine case solvability. Some of the investigative services include:

1) Assess current efforts to aggregate forensics information and identify high value innovations we can inject into the process.  Play a leadership role in proposing new programs to make better use of current forensics information.

2) Devise a methodology for identifying unsolved crimes with ritualistic features that have been overlooked, or have not been thoroughly investigated by law enforcement. Determine whether those files contain any evidence that might contain forensic evidence.

3) Develop relationships with government and private testing facilities who administer testing of what we deem to be high value forensic test kits.

4) Identify the criteria for evidence present in rape and homicide cases that suggest recidivism by the unidentified perpetrator.  Devise a methodology for scoring unsolved case files or solved cases where DNA was never tested.  Prioritize these files and schedule the cases for review and processing.

Articles From The FormerFedsGroup Blog

Whistleblower: NHS ordered EUTHANASIA to Inflate COVID-19 Deaths in Hospitals


The article claims that officials at the U.K. National Health Service (NHS) ordered medical staff to euthanize patients in order to artificially inflate the number of COVID-19 deaths. The information is based on the testimony of an anonymous whistleblower referred to as Dr. John. The whistleblower alleges that NHS executives falsified data by directing medical staff to provide minimal treatment to patients and by instructing them on how to put patients to sleep using the drug midazolam and the End of Life Care program.

The article suggests that the COVID-19 pandemic did not overwhelm NHS hospitals, contrary to what authorities and the mainstream media reported. It highlights the negative impact of changes in care policies, leading to patients not receiving proper follow-up care, and alleges that the British government authorized the “mass murder” of the elderly and vulnerable by midazolam injection, blaming COVID-19 instead.

The article cites a report from the U.K. Care Quality Commission (CQC) that allegedly supports the whistleblower’s claims. The report states that 34% of NHS employees were forced to give Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) orders to COVID-19 patients with disabilities and learning difficulties. It emphasizes that DNR decisions should be made on an individual basis and not dictated by blanket policies.

The whistleblower, Dr. John, points out neglectful policies in hospitals, resulting in worse outcomes for patients. He shares personal experiences of patients delaying hospital visits due to fear of COVID-19, leading to increased pain and suffering. He also mentions instances of patients removing casts themselves and lack of proper follow-up care, causing distress to patients and their families.

The article attempts to manipulate readers by using strong language, such as “mass murder” and “blanket policies,” to create a sense of outrage. It relies heavily on the anonymous testimony of Dr. John without providing additional evidence or corroboration. The article also emphasizes the negative aspects of the NHS and British government while downplaying any potential challenges faced during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Overall, the article presents a one-sided and sensationalized narrative, making strong claims without sufficient evidence. It is important to approach such articles with caution and seek additional credible sources to verify the information presented.

Read More