Okay, as promised, here is what I learned from a local judge with whom I shared the case material, with names changed to protect the "innocent" (sarcasm inserted here)...
The chief of detectives/chief of police should have been investigated. His behavior is highly suspect given the nature of the crime which had occurred, and the fact that his department had never handled anything of this magnitude before. Further, he has several officers under his command that are involved in a drug task force that is under investigation for improprieties, yet he refuses State Police help, help which is experienced. At almost the same time, the investigation into the drug task force is called off? Especially telling is the refusal by a district attorney to prosecute the officers involved, one of whom became highly involved in the murder investigation. And the investigation itself was mistake compounded by mistake compounded by mistake. Notes were left undated; case number switched; record keeping was haphazard and poorly done; evidence was ignored and/or lost; scientific work was not performed accurately; officers under suspicion were allowed to work this case, which may have had ties to another investigation.
In my opinion, there was pressure brought to bear from somewhere higher up the chain of command. For instance, why did the State Police not insist upon helping in the investigation when they clearly had the resources, the experience, and the manpower to provide a complete and thorough investigation? Who was afraid of their involvement? Why was a "small-town" chief of police/detectives allowed to shut them down? Answer, he couldn't, but someone else could at his or another's request. How is it that an investigation which uncovers measurably proven incompetence and embezzlement is considered not prosecutable? Why did the DA drop the case? On whose authority, if not his own? And if it was on his own authority, how did he judge the evidence incapable of rendering a guilty verdict?
There are a great many other considerations as well. One of the step-fathers was well known to the local police, even to the point of hosting parties; yet he was a drug informant across the river. Could his information have started or been instrumental in the drug task force investigation, or is it coincidental? Why was a known pedophile left to his own devices without appreciable attention, especially after such a statement was given to the police? And why was one of the officers to whom he gave this statement involved in the homicide investigation, as well as being under investigation himself only months prior?
Also confusing is why would the chief of police/detectives seek the assistance of a juvenile parole officer in uncovering suspects? Why did this officer and his assistant just happen to come up with a similar list of names? Why was the assistant at the scene of the crime so conveniently? This is an aspect which troubles me; it seems as though there was a concerted effort to attribute this crime to previously picked suspects rather than an honest effort to investigate. Further, only one of the step-fathers was investigated, but the other conveniently "slipped through the cracks" for almost 14 years? This aspect bears further investigation; I would like to know who he knew, what he knew about them, and how he was able to evade suspicion for so long, without being investigated at all. And the discovery of evidence which leads to his doorstep, as it were, is troubling in and of itself.
Adding in the proximity of two major highways along which an unknown amount of drugs, stolen goods, money and who knows what else traveled, and there is the possibility that this crime was not one of convenience, but necessity. To the west is a virtual den of drugs, to the east is illegal monies; how much of this would have found traffic through this town. (I know, you changed names, but I know where this is. Thorough job, though. [That was a pop between my eyes. I thought I'd hidden everything, but forgot that I had left mention of the drug task force under investigation, and a triple homicide which almost effectively ended that investigation. If I'd known he knew about the whole deal, I'd have hidden more of the information.]) Human trafficking is not an issue, but the possibility of drugs, money, and perhaps other illegal activity, is a very big issue. Who better to have kept an eye on the movement of trucks through this area, but the head of a small police force, one who could easily be controlled? State Police forces are harder to control, but not a smaller, independent force.
Therefore, my personal feeling is that this man should have been investigated at the time, and possibly still, to uncover whatever role he actually played in this crime. Was he truly just an "out-of-his-league flatfoot", or was he deeply involved, so deeply that he had to protect those above him and below him in order to protect himself? It would also be worth a look to see just how far up the chain he could take an investigation in order to avoid prosecution. To prosecute others below him that he may have been protecting would not be worthwhile, as they would only likely to able to implicate him but no one higher. And this is where you want to take the investigation, to the individuals controlling the whole situation.
There, my friends, is how it was laid out to me. I was shocked, to say the least, as before I'd considered him to be incompetent, but not responsible for a major part in the crime. I also asked about drug activity a few years prior that saw the death of two young men who possibly were witnesses, as well as a prison scandal involving tainted products. He said he would still insist that this person be investigated, and see how far his connections to all of the illegal activity could be taken. What say you? Is this viable? Should my friend take a chill pill and undergo therapy to stop seeing conspiracies? Is it time for me to take my medications and go back to bed?
As is my usual wont, I will now return you to your regularly scheduled programming...
