You bring up some very good points, Rose. I think one of the major reasons this case remains unsolved (haven't received that one tip), is because of the inconsistencies reported to the public. Having to correct statements (dates, times, vehicles, sketches, etc), leads folks to lose trust in the LE agencies involved in the investigation. Conflicting statements (2 perpetrators or one, planned or unplanned, chance encounter or he knew the girls would be there, etc), cause uncertainty for the public.
Just listening to or reading transcripts for the podcasts makes me realize how likely it is that investigators may differ on their opinions. If there is truly dissension amongst them, this case may never be solved (at least until some of them leave or retire). The biggest fail on their part was releasing the second sketch so long after the first. Why did they wait so long? Was the crime scene so horrific that investigators determined a younger person just couldn't be capable? Why not just release them both at the same time? Me thinks their investigation was focused on one (older) person early-on. Releasing the second sketch and changing the course of the investigation leads me to believe there may have been some shouting going on behind closed doors. I think they disagreed about which sketch should have been released first. And now they are backtracking and confusing the public as a result.
As a Canadian it’s totally bizarre to me how much blabbing individual members of LE have done on their own since the beginning of this case, from FB interviews to bloggers to media interviews. Where I live only official statements through press conferences or press releases are issued, very rarely are LE privately interviewed.
I agree with you, it’s really difficult to know if some of the information stated is personal opinion or the consensus of the Task Force. During the last press conference, Carter’s dramatic presentation is also an example of how mis-information can be provided due to somebody not following a scripted official release, vetted for accuracy. I have concerns about the effect of the high attention devoted to LE whenever they individually speak out. I’m reminded of the public yearning for inside information and details much the same way as interest is placed on the lives of rich and famous celebrities especially if scandal is involved.
IMO the Task Force should issue a Fact Sheet to clarify whatever information they choose to reveal, involving absolutely no speculation or innuendo. If they don’t know something they should just say so. If they choose not to address certain details to protect the integrity of the investigation, they can state that too.
For example,
- this blue eye thing. Are we to believe the killer does not have blue eyes or just the person depicted in sketch #1.
- What exactly does 18 to 40 years of age, may look younger mean? May look 18 to 40 but actual age is older? Or actual age is 18 to 40 but looks younger?
- Leazenby recently stated both men are considered POIs who police would like to talk to. Is this to say the killer might not resemble either sketch and what that’s about, that he might look like half way in-between?
- If more than one person was involved, is there reason to believe there’s any connection between the two different people in the sketches?
- The request abut the driver of the car parked at the abandoned welfare bldg lot from noon to 5pm. Was the suspect believed to be the driver of this vehicle or did LE just want to talk to somebody they had no other way of contacting.
- there’s more I’m sure......
But even these examples might convince somebody a tip on a possible suspect who they know just isn’t warranted - (whew,it can’t be him!) Especially if it’s a family member whom the tipster doesn’t want to believe could ever be responsible for the murder of two innocent teens. I’d imagine it’s easy to send in a tip on a stranger, much more difficult if it’s someone who’s involved in our day-to-day lives. JMO
