Some Thoughts on Cold Case Investigations
Remember in cartoons when the Road Runner would be on the edge of a cliff in one of those desert landscapes? The Coyote would chip away the last remaining connection to Terra Firma, but instead of the Road Runner falling, it was the Coyote that would zip out of sight?
This is a well known principal in animation, something Walt Disney termed The Probable Impossible; it doesn't seem to make sense, but somehow it has its own intuitive logic. The Probable Impossible is what allows Mickey Mouse to walk on the ceiling, it's why Bugs Bunny always narrowly avoids destruction, and what leads Daffy Duck to so many ignoble endings.
I suggest that the Probable Impossible is what keeps so many cold cases alive, and what leads - in some cases - to their ultimate resolution. And by that I mean ultimately it takes a little douse of creativity to solve these crimes.
If you know anything about criminal investigation you have heard of the importance of the First 48. The initial 48 hours after a crime is committed is critical to the investigation, statistically it is within this time frame that most cases are solved. Beyond the First 48, the laws of diminishing returns suggest you have an increasingly limited chance of solving the crime as the hours stack up to oblivion.
The statistical significance embedded in the First 48, has lead to a reliance, if not a dependence, on the investigator being ultra-methodical and regimented in his or her investigative practices. We all know this from television; someone is murdered and the immediate response is to interview the family (statistics suggest that in roughly 80% of cases, a family member was responsible), rookie officers are sent to comb the streets, go house-to-house interviewing everyone in the neighborhood. All this is a low-lying fruit approach to investigation, and it makes good intuitive sense; work out from the center and cover all the logical bases.
Statistics would be against me, but I might also argue that this is the lazy approach to investigation. It is always good to be thorough, but at a certain point a good shot of creative thinking just might be the remedy to an investigation that is going nowhere. And here is the nut of my argument concerning crime solving and crime policy.
Public policy making goes like this: You have an academic hypothesis, let's say you think low-income Americans are more prone to eating exotic fruits and vegetables during the good times, and apples and oranges during hard times. You get a data set. You test your theory in good and bad times. You add a control variable (say high earning Americans, or Canadians). You get your answer. Indeed, with a 95% confidence level (meaning 5% of your test sample may be dead wrong, or prone to random error) low-income Americans eat apples and oranges when times are hard. You present your research, if you're lucky some Senator takes interest and introduces a bill subsidizing exotic fruits and vegetables, or giving exotic fruit food stamps to low-income Americans.
My point is it is always very broad, obvious, indefatigable research that gets the interest of policy makers. How could it be otherwise? They are elected officials and there's too much at stake for them to waste their reputations on half-baked ideas.
But the problem is, as time passes, cold cases and their potential resolutions are counting on an idea from left field. Cold cases lie on the margins, the fringes of reason, they are the dominion of the half-baked.
Remember that 5% that resided in the land of error or improbable? That's the kingdom of Gary Ridgway, Robert Pickton and Lee Boyd Malvo. It appeared statistically improbable that Ridgway could kill so many in such a small space over so many years, Green River must be several killers. How could Pickton go unnoticed for so long? Black snipers driving around DC, one of them a kid with a rifle in the trunk? Impossible. Today's outliers are tomorrow's trends.
When Theresa Allore disappeared, the conventional wisdom of the time suggested she was anywhere but the village of Compton where she lived. Check the border because she's made a run for the States. Interview students in the town of Lennoxville where she studied, research the city of Montreal where she came from. So where did she turn up? Dead in a ditch in Compton. At that point what was required was a radical re-adjustment of conventional wisdom and a reassessment of core assumptions. That never happened. And everyone associated with the investigation has suffered the worse for it in the ensuing 30 years.
Don't throw out logical crime-solving techniques. Statistics, confidence intervals, standard deviation; these all suggest that a methodical approach, in most cases, will lead to a successful resolution. But don't become a slave to them either. At a certain point in an investigation, the scales tip, you enter an alternate world where different rules apply. Increasingly you are at the mercy of the Probable Impossible, and you would be wise to re-evaluate everything you've done and reinvestigate under a fresh set of assumptions. You may ultimately find that what you were looking for was right under your nose, but how you will find it might require a spark of creative thinking.
posted by John Allore @ 6/12/2008 05:12:00 AM
7 comments
7 Comments:
Hey John
I think you're on to something here.
Today I've talked to a reporter with Star-News in Wilmington. He's found an interesting parallel between Debbie Key and Allison Jackson-Foy. Both were last seen leaving a bar where people played pool. We talked about possible connections.
Half baked ideas are starting to make sense. I'm gonna be running with some of these. Who knows where they might lead?
Thanks for pointing that out.
Fabulous post John. As you know, I'm all for creative thinking... those little flickers of light in the back of your brain that crave some oxygen and the light of day.
Creativity for procedure-prone investigators isn't the norm--it's the exception. When cold cases are resolved, it's usually by someone who looks at the facts in a completely different light. Someone who picks up on a minor incongruency in a witness statement or a crime scene photo and explores all the angles.
If investigators can combine their methodical approach with persistence and a creative spark...miracles happen. Leave no stone unturned. And when that's done...start looking at the pebbles and the leaves.
EVERY homicide NEEDS to be solved. As a citizen, I do not want to share my community with murderers because somebody got lazy or afraid.
One more thing...you said that policy makers want statistics and research before making a decision. That's true. But what they really react to is a loud bunch of angry constituents with research and statistics. 500 potential lost votes and bad publicity get the politician's attention.
That's why the people of the Eastern Townships should tell their MPs and MLAs they want these cold cases solved. Murderers do not deserve a "pass" because law enforcement is understaffed, undertrained and underfunded. forget. Give our law enforcement agencies the resources they need to do their job. Give our communities peace of mind. Give the families of murdered citizens resolution.
Yeah, great post, John, but MM, you must also be commended for the many great posts you have blogged over the last year...you have asked some very good questions and you have certainly presented some very creative ideas and some very interesting cases to look at...as parallels and examples of what can be done when someone cares or makes an effort. In cases, such as Theresa's, where there is apparently no DNA evidence to test using new technology, unless there is a confession, cases like these will only be solved by leaving no stone, pebble, leaf or out-there theory unturned.
While we're handing out kudos Anon...take some for yourself. Your interest, support and regular comments make blogging worthwhile. (It's no fun blogging if nobody reads the posts or joins the discussion.) You've inspired a few of my posts yourself.
In fact, John has managed to assemble quite an eclectic and dedicated team. I know there are a lot of people working in the background on this case...there are lots of people who share our points of view and provide advice and support and I KNOW there are people out there who have something to share...but haven't found the courage or the words to do so yet. I highly recommend passing on your information to John. You'll get a good night's sleep knowing you did the right thing. :-)
I'm sorry, but I just can't walk away from this without handing out some kudos too.
John, Missy, Anon, you all make me feel like I'm in good company.
BTW - The reporter I've talked to today, who's name is Jim Ware, mentioned 'Bad Dream House' in the conversation.
I SWEAR, I did NOT bring it up!
This man is writing on the case of Allison Jackson-Foy, and the skeletons found in Wilmington, for the Star-News of Wilmington. Jim saw fit to compare the stories of Allison and Debbie, and I am pleased he wanted to discuss with me the possible connections between these two cases.
And yet, somehow, John's name comes up in the conversation. I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
What I think is really cool is that, after I got off the phone with Jim, I go to WKT? and find this post. I have just experienced an example of what John was writing about.
Now how cool is that?
Thank you, MM. Thank you, Bill. I do what I can...I wish I could do more.
Anon
Post a Comment
<< Home