Murder Arrest Made in Two Grisly Phoenix Cold Cases, but are There More Victims?

Melanie Bernas (Left) Angelia Brosso (Right)

Booking Photo of Bryan Patrick Miller

Phoenix, AZ—In 1992/1993 Melanie Bernas, 17 and Angela Brosso, 22 were savagely sliced up nearly a year apart in the same general Sunnyslope vicinity.

In November 1992 the Brosso girl went for a bicycle ride and never returned. Her live-in boyfriend reported her missing to police.

Brosso was soon found headless and her torso cut in half in a nearby park at 25th Avenue and Cactus. I saw raw and disturbing video of Brosso's naked and bloody body captured by a TV news photographer and it was indeed hideous. That video was heavily edited before it hit the airwaves.

Brosso’s severed head was subsequently located in or next to a canal some two miles away. Brosso’s bicycle has never been recovered and no viable suspect has ever been located.

Nearly one year later in September of 1993 the Bernas girl’s severed head was found near the Arizona canal and the Black Canyon freeway. Nearby floating in the canal the rest of her cut up remains were recovered.  Like the Brosso girl, Bernas was believed to be riding a bicycle that’s never been located.

Police claimed to have a DNA material believed left by the killer but until now they’ve not found a suspect for a match yet.

These two crimes have left an impression on me for two decades.  I can’t believe that this savage predator has not killed more young women. This killer is right out of a frightening horror movie.

Now Phoenix veteran police detective, Clark Schwartzkoph was able to locate a potential suspect and surreptitiously obtain DNA material from 42 year-old Bryan Patrick Miller.  Analysis of the DNA material matched Miller’s positively.

It turned out that as a juvenile Miller was arrested in 1989 and convicted of stabbing a woman at the Paradise Valley Mall.

Miller is now in custody charged with two counts of murder, two counts of kidnapping and one count of sexual assault. He is being held without bond until a Jauary 21st court status conference.  

Reportedly Miller has denied involvement and police have spent the night serving search warrants on the property where it’s believed Miller lived at 844 E. Mountain View Rd. in Phoenix.  

Based upon the current evidence Miller appears to be a serial killer and there may well be more victims.

Since Miller moved to Everette, WA for a awhile after the Brosso/Bernas killings and police there will be looking into similar murder cases there.  

Brandi Lynn Myers

One case I suspect police are now re-examining is the May 1992 missing persons case of 13 year-old Brandy Lynn Myers who disappeared while walking through her Sunnyslope neighborhood to raise money for a school Read-a-Thon fundraiser.

No trace of the Myers girl has ever been found.



Miller called himself the Zombie Hunter and here's video of Miller's personal vehicle: 

Maniac With A Knife Stopped By Unidentified Good Guy With A Gun In A Walgreens Drug Store!

Phoenix, AZ—Last week Christopher Scott Gale approached a woman shopping at the Central Ave and Osborn Road Walgreens from behind.  Without provocation or a known motive he used a kitchen knife with an 8” blade to stab the woman at the base of her skull.

The woman screamed and an off duty but armed federal officer in a checkout line quickly intervened.   The offender was standing over the wounded woman when the G-Man ordered the man to drop his knife and lie face down on the ground.  Responding Phoenix Police took the offender into custody.

Gale told police that he purchased the knife at the WalMart located in the Christown Spectrum Mall because he wanted to,c “stab and kill someone.”

Police reported in court documents that after stabbing the woman, Gale was face to face with her while the knife was protruding from her neck.  Allegedly Gale told her, “I’m killing you to save the world.”

Rather than book Gale immediately in jail police removed him to the Desert Vista Behavioral Health Center in Mesa where he was arrested yesterday. 

Gale now faces charges of Attempted 1^st Degree Murder and Aggravated Assault.  His bail was set at $1 million.

According to the court documents police located video of Gayle purchasing the knife at the WalMart earlier.

We all know how much worse this would have been is there was nobody present armed with a gun to stop this monstrous act. 

Gale returns to court on October 2, 2014.

The City of Phoenix is Making War on Camera Drone Pilots!

Will they be able to jail drone pilot Paul Huebl now?  

Phoenix, AZ—Two members of the City Council here are proposing an anti-drone ordinance that will make a criminal out of anyone using a drone within the city.

Let me disclose that I own and operate two camera drones like the one above and plan to use them in pursuit if gathering images and video for news. 

The proposed law requires that “written permission” be obtained in advance from anyone that might be photographed by a drone.  That would for example include some gardener mowing grass who might be photographed whether he is readily identifiable or not.  They are not talking about just close up pictures but any picture.

There is plenty of existing law that protects people’s privacy where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy.  That is inside a home or structure of some type.  That’s why millions of ordinary surveillance cameras are everywhere in America today. 

Singer and entertainer Barbara Streisand sued a photographer that dared to publish a photograph of her Malibu, CA beachfront home he shot from a helicopter for $10 million.  Needless to say despite the best lawyers her case failed and the photographer actually collected from her instead. 

Then there is the U.S. Supreme Court case, Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445 (1989).  

Meaningless exemptions are made in the proposed law for artists and news people but that opens a Pandora’s Box to define what that might mean. 

Many would say I should not qualify for media exemption as a blogger!  Who or what is an artist? What if some cop decides your “art work” sucks and can get a jury to agree that you’re no artist? Sheriff Joe’s Tent City awaits your confinement!

In fairness to the two councilmen behind this mess somehow were under the mistaken impression that existing privacy laws did not cover aerial photography. 

They also need to recognize that any other criminal mischief involving a drone is already covered.  An aide gave me an example where she suggested that a drone could be used as a look out or to case property to be burglarized.  She was dead wrong.

In every state a drone put to such use would be considered a burglary tool bringing forth an additional felony charge in addition to the original burglary complaint.

There are also stalking laws that prevent criminals from using any means to victimize people.  The use of a drone by a stalker would surly bring maximum punishment in any court.

Obviously those doing the same thing with Google Earth, helicopters or fixed wing aircraft can take all the pictures of people they want in Phoenix.  After all these days we love double standard justice in America! 

The draft ordinance is subject to debate and public comment.  I suspect that anything that actually passes may be a lot different than the current proposal. 

Perhaps an E-Mail or phone call to the Mayor or members of the Phoenix City Council might get their needed attention https://www.phoenix.gov/mayorcouncil

Below is the proposed ordinance:

DRAFT Unmanned Aircraft Regulations

Definitions

1.  Unmanned Aircraft System (“UAS”) means an unmanned aircraft vehicle, drone, remotely piloted vehicles, or remotely piloted aircraft that does not carry a human operator.

Offenses:

1.  A person commits an offense if the person uses an unmanned aircraft to photograph, film, audiotape, or otherwise record an individual or individuals acting on private property without the expressed, written consent of the property owner and the individuals included in the recording.

a.  An offense under this section is a Class 1 misdemeanor

b.  It is a defense to prosecution under this section that the person destroyed all photographs, films, audiotapes, and other records:

                                            i.     As soon as the person had knowledge that the image was captured in violation of this section;

                                         ii.     Without disclosing, displaying, or distributing the image to a third party;

                                      iii.     The recordings did not include

1.  Children; or

2.  Sexual acts or nudity.

2.  A person commits an offense if the person makes a recording in violation of Section 1 and discloses, displays, distributes, sells, or otherwise uses that image

a.  An offense under this section is a Class 1 misdemeanor

b.  Each image a person discloses, displays, distributes, or sells under this section is a separate offense

3.  A person commits an offense if he outfits an unmanned aircraft system with a weapon and flies that unmanned aircraft over the private property of another individual or entity without expressed, written permission

a.  An offense under this section is a Class 1 misdemeanor

Nonapplicability

1. It is lawful to use an unmanned aircraft within the City of Phoenix to photograph, film, audiotape, or otherwise record an individual or individuals acting on private property

a. if the recording is captured for the purpose of mapping;

b. if the recording is captured by the City or Phoenix or an individual or entity under contract with the City of Phoenix for the purposes of resource management;

c. if the recording is made for the operation and maintenance of utilities or telecommunication facilities for the purpose of maintaining the reliability and integrity of the utility or telecommunication system or to determine if repairs to the system are necessary;

d. if law enforcement is using the unmanned aircraft system to execute a valid search warrant;

e. if law enforcement is acting under circumstances in which an exception to the warrant requirement is applicable;

f. if law enforcement is using the unmanned aircraft system to document a crime scene where a felony offense has been committed; or

g. if law enforcement is conducting a search for a missing or abducted person.

h. if the recording is made over several private residences for an artistic or journalistic purpose and no individuals captured on the recording are personally identifiable

Will I have to challenge this here?

Police, Media Relations and Disinformation

Phoenix, AZ—Politicians and their appointed police chiefs across this nation demand nearly total control of police related information.

It’s epidemic in the larger cities controlled by Democratic Party mayors.  They see the value of leaving their citizens with a false sense of security and public safety as they spin any and all information accordingly.

Police business was once considered just that.  Certain information was kept away from all but sworn police officers.  That’s not the case because the local politicians have demanded and unlawfully obtained access to sensitive police data nearly everywhere.

Politicians also demand the ability to influence arrests and prosecutions of friends, relatives and of course their campaign contributors.  Illicit influence is used to both free the guilty and even jail the innocent.  Cops and prosecutors have no choice but to look the other way.  Whistle blowing in law enforcement circles simply does not exist. 

Our cops are considered expendable so reality dictates that the bosses find a sacrificial lamb or two to frame, fire and destroy their reputations.  This creates the appearance of avoiding corruption by eating a few of their own.

If you think things are operating by the book anywhere, you’re dead wrong.  Of course the actual Obstruction of Justice must be subtle and well below media radar. 

Controlling the cops is somewhat easy for politicians because they control the lives of officers through their jobs, working assignments and pensions.

Because of political corruption the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports system is almost totally unreliable because of local politicians and their police chiefs. 

They have learned that they can skew statistics to get additional federal funding or to hide things like murders from the public.  They’ve found creative ways of making crime statistics appear almost anyway they want.  

I’ve been both a cop and an investigative TV news producer over the last four decades and have seen this all-first hand. 

The police agencies have learned that they can control information by the use of Public Information Officers.   These are the kind of people that know how to do exactly what they’re told by superiors. 

PIO’s are not there to disseminate information but to protect and hide it.  They provide not a single syllable beyond what the public record demands.  They do this with a broad smile and appearance of cooperation. 

PIO’s know how to arrange a live news conference on an important crime story.  They love the captive audience that live TV gives them.  The PIO’s dutifully subvert the news conference purpose and instead use it for face time of the local politicians that have absolutely nothing to do with the story. 

Then they all brag about the “great work” they are doing for the taxpayers until the mass nausea sets in.  Only after that they will say a few words about the story involved. 

Today’s local news is troubled in a big way.  Lost audience and revenue has eliminated any challenges to the PIO’s disinformation.  The PIO’s and their bosses love this and know the stories will spin they way they want them.

As an investigative TV news producer I’ve made it personal policy to purposely avoid the PIO’s and not waste my time with them.  

Instead I locate and contact the witnesses, victims and property owners for the real story.  Instead of waiting for the cops to tell me about the backgrounds I investigate the newsmakers myself. 

If news organizations like allowing the PIO’s to tell their audiences what the news is, reporters and producers are not necessary.  Let the PIO’s Skype in their sound! 

No police department, politician or other obstructionist is going to prevent me from digging and learning the truth about a story I’m working.  Getting a news director to authorize my time these days is the real challenge. 

I’ve always watched the lamest of reporters suck up to the PIO’s thinking they will somehow get something extra.  The PIO’s are enemies of the truth and exist only to demolish or derail anything that might show government ineffectiveness or questionable motivation. 

Reporters should simply refuse to deal with the PIO’s.  If the cop or a low level supervisor like a sergeant or detective handling the story you're working has been muzzled that all the more reason to skip wasting time with the PIO’s. 

At a minimum no sound bites, name recognition belongs in print or on video of any police PIO. 

Every journalist that covers crime and courts should know this. 

The truth is that many reporters these days only want to get their minute-thirty second package up or six-inch print story without any effort.  What a sad existence.  I say do it right or don’t do it at all.