I'm not angling for anything. The bits I bolded from your statement are two different standards. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty ... not innocent until indicted. Which one is the one you want them named at?
1) "Until proven guilty" or
2) "until enough evidence to indict".
Then I laid out the reasons why IMO he met your second standard. You don't agree. That's fine. We'll have to agree to disagree that they've got enough of the goods to return that evidence to family, name him as an actual suspect and announce it to the press and public etc.
I see no other reason for them to do that; Just for the heck of it maybe?
I wasn't arguing Im sorry if it came off like that, I should've clarified, all are protected and presumed innocent until proven guilty, however what i meant was that theres no way to stop the name from being released to the public after they are indicted. I wasn't saying they're innocent until they are indicted. Sorry for the confusion.
From time to time, in cold cases, you'll see a random individual pop up from time to time, sometimes its due to a new look at the case, sometimes, its because someone "suddenly" remembered something , sometimes, its simply because someone decided to take a flier at someone they think could be responsible .
Theres an old dichotomy on the behavioral realm, that there are 2 points of view , the psychological, and the behavioral. (Ill show how this ties in later)
The Psychological looks at potential actions through a diagnoses, or group of diagnoses, and projects potential outward from there, for example if you have an individual who is schizophrenic, who has committed violent acts , you can surmise that this individual is certainly capable of commiting murder (for ex) but that individual may not have at all, but they could be capable of it.
The Behavioral looks at the actions themselves, of an individual and projects a personality "profile" from there. Though an individual may have a clinical diagnoses, we are looking at what was done at the crime scene, and inferring a personaily from there. For EX, If we see a crime scene where an individual was blugeoned about the face and neck beyond what was needed to kill the victim , we can infer rage etc..
Now that reason I mentioned that is because in some cases, in an investigation, and im sure we have all seen this , a potential suspect will pop up because LE or whomever feels, this individual "Could" be responsible, because they have a criminal past etc.. Even if the criminal acts themselves are similar, in many cases, it turns out not to be the individual responsible
In Mollys case, could a guy who held a held a young girl captive in his home, and raped here be responsible ?.... Absolutely , is it probable?, that depends on the evidence
Sometimes, a new suspect shakes up the case, new things come forward , new eyes look at it , perhaps someone decides, they have been sitting on info long enough, and they want to clear their conscience
And sadly, in some cases, I feel the agency is just anxious to close a case for the family, these cases, haunt people, the mystery surrounding them leads to fear and uncertainty, its the not knowing that is the worst, not only for the victims family, but for the general public as well
The Adam Walsh case, is a good example of that , many experts feel Otis Toole, (who falsely claimed to have committed hundreds or murders) was not responsible for the boys death. Even though he admitted to it, there was little to no physical evidence to suggest Toole was responsible, it seems like LE , and John Walsh rolled with it because its a form of closure .
It would be great if this was the guy and the case, could finally be closed
