Alfonsina Storni
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2019
- Messages
- 121
- Reaction score
- 428
25 years after three women vanished, tips trickle in
I found this interview online (link attached above) while trying to find out if DNA had been found at Sherrill's house.
(...) The causes of cold cases breakthroughs can generally be divided into two categories. First, someone can talk, either in the form of a confession or just another tip, one that leads police to the perpetrator(s). Second, there can be a scientific breakthrough that makes existing evidence more valuable. Some cold cases, for instance, have been solved with DNA technology that didn't exist when the crime first occurred. (interviewer)
Moore said the first option is likely the only one here. He said he's unaware of "any evidence found at the scene that could ever implicate anybody."
(My comment) I had read somewhere that the PDS had found a footprint or that a DNA testing would be conducted on the rings found at the house. And what about the glass shards? How is that Moore is "unaware" of evidence that could have been found at the house (crime scene?). As a foreigner, I understand that Moore means that he doesn't know whether there is evidence or not. I may be wrong. Anyway, it all comes down to witnesses then (?), as they declared below.
"Somebody out there knows something and has not come forward, with a piece of information to put this thing together," Lt. Culley Wilson said.
They are expecting someone to bring a "piece of information". How a piece of information (a confession a witness statement?) is going to solve the case? What other substancial evidence do they have?
King said that a lot of information was shared in the case's early days. However, at some point, he said, telling the public everything "to a point can hinder an investigation, because when we do look at a potential person of interest or something of that nature, they have just as much information as everyone else on the street."
"So we don't have anything held back to judge whether or not they're being honest with us," King said.
These last two quotes are interesting, and could explain why more information about the case is not available (such as in other cases). If they believe that the crime will be solved if someone comes forward, this means that the answer is there. They are waiting for a person/persons that were interviewed in connection with this crime to tell the truth. It also caught my attention that King says "potential person of interest or something of that nature" when he talks about people they look at closely. Why they don´t mention the word suspect? I don´t know if you follow me. It could be me and my problems with language or maybe there is another legal term (other than suspect/person of interest) to identify the people who is, somehow, involved in a criminal investigation.
I found this interview online (link attached above) while trying to find out if DNA had been found at Sherrill's house.
(...) The causes of cold cases breakthroughs can generally be divided into two categories. First, someone can talk, either in the form of a confession or just another tip, one that leads police to the perpetrator(s). Second, there can be a scientific breakthrough that makes existing evidence more valuable. Some cold cases, for instance, have been solved with DNA technology that didn't exist when the crime first occurred. (interviewer)
Moore said the first option is likely the only one here. He said he's unaware of "any evidence found at the scene that could ever implicate anybody."
(My comment) I had read somewhere that the PDS had found a footprint or that a DNA testing would be conducted on the rings found at the house. And what about the glass shards? How is that Moore is "unaware" of evidence that could have been found at the house (crime scene?). As a foreigner, I understand that Moore means that he doesn't know whether there is evidence or not. I may be wrong. Anyway, it all comes down to witnesses then (?), as they declared below.
"Somebody out there knows something and has not come forward, with a piece of information to put this thing together," Lt. Culley Wilson said.
They are expecting someone to bring a "piece of information". How a piece of information (a confession a witness statement?) is going to solve the case? What other substancial evidence do they have?
King said that a lot of information was shared in the case's early days. However, at some point, he said, telling the public everything "to a point can hinder an investigation, because when we do look at a potential person of interest or something of that nature, they have just as much information as everyone else on the street."
"So we don't have anything held back to judge whether or not they're being honest with us," King said.
These last two quotes are interesting, and could explain why more information about the case is not available (such as in other cases). If they believe that the crime will be solved if someone comes forward, this means that the answer is there. They are waiting for a person/persons that were interviewed in connection with this crime to tell the truth. It also caught my attention that King says "potential person of interest or something of that nature" when he talks about people they look at closely. Why they don´t mention the word suspect? I don´t know if you follow me. It could be me and my problems with language or maybe there is another legal term (other than suspect/person of interest) to identify the people who is, somehow, involved in a criminal investigation.
