I saw this article
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york...mount-expert-etan-patz-case-article-1.3367894 and then started noticing a number of similarities with the Hser Ner Moo "investigation" and other cases. I was living in nys when Etan Patz was in the news and remember the case.
It seems to be the norm now for low quality investigations in murders that are extremely high profile. Are these cases considered good to build a person's career on? Are these prosecuted in the hopes of a promotion or some other perk by the prosecutor?
Here is what I could quickly find on the Etan Patz case. If something is missing, say so.
1) Pedro Hernandez confessed.
a) His confession came after an enthusiastic interview by police
A detective from the NYPD missing person’s squad then set down the photo of Patz and said something to the effect of, “You know why you’re here.”
Hernandez, the source says, looked away and replied, in essence, “I’ve never seen that before.”
The detective is said to have responded, “You know you’ve seen that before.”
http://www.thedailybeast.com/why-pedro-hernandez-confessed-to-killing-etan-patz
b) He does not appear to be telling the truth in the confession. Looking at him, as he speaks, the way he speaks and gives facts is problematic.
c) The actual substance of the confession is worse. He has the look of a bullied kid who was forced to say something to avoid a beating. [video=youtube;2DmysyADXXc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DmysyADXXc[/video] Among other things 1) He says "I don't even know if it happened". 2) He says he put the body in a banana box which seems unlikely, but more unlikely is that he set the box down outside somewhere and nobody noticed it had a body in it, it just disappeared. 3) He says he strangled Etan who did not resist being strangled, but that he seemed to be alive in the box as he was carrying it, both implausible. He is doing the best his imagination can do but he has not watched enough tv shows to concoct a good confession.
One thing that stands out about his confession is the 'tentative' way he gives facts. It is clear that he is willing to negotiate any of the things he says. Even his hand gestures are asking if something needs to be changed. In other words he is saying 'These are the facts as long as you support me on them.' A person could easily adapt the confession in his mind so that he is killing Lincoln in the Ford theater. He would produce a confession of the same quality, just with a different victim and different era. Should he also be convicted of killing Lincoln, since he could easily be made to confess to that killing?
2) There is another suspect, somebody who the people who have studied the case most considered to be a likely suspect.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...ry-named-etan-patz-coverage-article-1.1549072
3) Is there any evidence against the other suspect? There was never considered enough evidence to make a court case but there was some evidence gathered.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-etan-patz-case-boxes-evidence-20150224-story.html
39 pages of documents in the boxes that were records from a police officer involved in the investigation, who lived in the same apartment building where a man once considered a possible suspect lived at the time Etan vanished.According to the officer's notes, "many residents positively identified Etan Patz as having been in that building with
Jose Ramos," Fontier said. Ramos never was charged in the boy's death, but he is in prison in Pennsylvania for convictions in unrelated child sexual abuse cases.
In a case like this the parents are so shellshocked by the crime that they cannot be asked to analytically examine the evidence. When the police had the first suspect the victim's family thanked the police profusely and considred it solved. When police moved on to prosecute another person the family again was very grateful. The public also is hesitant to hold the police to any standards in a case like this. People don't want to be in the position of appearing to defend a criminal of that sort.
What benefit do police provide when they 'solve' a case in this way? Who are they working for when they do that?
As with all such cases it seems strange that there is no supervisor on duty when police and prosecutors do something like this. Is there not an adult in the office?
