Thank you for the well written response. What you posted makes a lot of sense. I would never advocate nor do I see others on this board advocate the release of material evidence in a case. When they do it gets pointed out rather quickly.
The police work for us. It isnt about what they want. Its about whats best for society. The police are given a lot of power by society. Secrecy is the enemy of accountability. This case is an example how holding back information by the police can adversely affect a case as well as society as a whole. Up until yesterday we all believed PF was cooperating. Or at least thats how LE was describing their interactions with him. Then the white hot focus of the national media intensifies (websleuths is a form of media) and out comes the truth. Even though LE actually have yet to personally interview PF they have described him as cooperative. Yesterday they had to artfully walk that back. How many people who had information regarding PF decided not to get involved because LE represented PF's actions as cooperation? The counter argument by LE would be they intentionally misled the public to give PF a feeling he wasn't a suspect. Then they put him under surveillance with the hope he would lead them to KB or otherwise make a mistake. Only time will tell if they had him under surveillance. But without the media asking questions we'll never know.
With respect, no. Absolutely not. This case is not at all an example of how holding back info can adversely affect a case or society as a whole.
They have their reasons. Investigations are necessarily secret and must remain so for them to be effective, until the time of trial.
I don't think anyone with crucial information held it back because they thought PF was cooperating. And they didn't have to artfully walk back anything.
This is about strategy. They had their reasons for not screeching publicly about what PF was coooperaring with or what he wasn't. Same reasons why they've told her relations to not say anything negative.
They typically do that in the hopes that the perp will let down their guard and give more info. When it is apparent he or she will not, they sometimes change their tune.
There are occasions when LE isn't doing a great job. There are typically indications when that happens. I've seen none here. And we have multiple, extremely effective agencies on the case. The thought that random people in the public know better than these professional agencies is silly, IMO.
In every case I read these criticisms that LE doesn't really know what it's doing, that it needs to release sensitive info to a public that thinks it knows better, etc.
I find that to be quite illogical.
You know who solved the Natalie Bollinger case in less than two months? Not a true crime buff. LE did.
In fact, not one member of the curious public (including me), came anywhere close. That example proves the exact opposite of your point.
}
