Ghostmaster
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2009
- Messages
- 146
- Reaction score
- 0
I thought I would offer up something for each of you to consider given the announcement this week that Ms. Harrington was seen hitchhiking.
At the risk of sounding egotistical, which is not my intent; I can offer a little insight into what its like to be involved in a criminal investigation. If you read my initial first post (and thanks to truthsleuth for making me feel so welcome) you will see I had a brief career in law enforcement but left to pursue opportunities in the corporate world. Ive had some real life experience working active investigations, but nothing on a scale such as this. Let me just tell you that in no way makes me an expert. I am impressed by so many of you who exhibit through your posts, the same logic that any good investigator needs to bring a case to a close.
A lot of you have met the most recent repot of Ms. Harrington hitchhiking with a healthy dose of skepticism. Good for you. A criminal investigation is very much like a living, breathing entity. It is always changing, growing and evolving in different directions until solved. A trained investigator goes through many different steps to achieve the end result. Some of them are from text books, some are from experience and some come from something thats very important in police work, instinct. A lot of times a case is solved with what started as a hunch. This holds true for all cases, from the most mundane to the high profile one such as this. It is very important to consider what is being said in an investigation but even more so to consider whats not being said. For example, the FBI joined the case early on but weve not heard much about them since. You can rule out (for now) that Ms. Harrington has been transported across state lines because no one is referring to kidnapping, even though some early reports had her being seen in another state. Often times during investigation information is released not to see what happens, but what doesnt happen. Mis-information is a viable tool to help LE reach their conclusion in an investigation. It is used more than people could ever imagine.
This week in Virginia the Beltway Sniper, John Muhammad, was put to death. For those of you that arent familiar with this case I urge to research it on the web. For three weeks in October 2002 the suburbs of Washington D.C. and northern Virginia were terrified by this shooter and his partner. Montgomery County Chief of Police Charles Moose headed a three week investigation before apprehending the shooters. People were frustrated and very scared. It looked as nothing was being done. But behind the scene, Chief Moose and a task force of Federal Agents and local officers were working around the clock. Chief Moose and John Muhammad played out a mental game of chess in the public spotlight because of clues Muhammad would leave. This was a classic case of little information being released along with some released that was intentional wrong, to help catch the shooters.
You may just find some similarities in the handling of that case and Ms. Harringtons.
At the risk of sounding egotistical, which is not my intent; I can offer a little insight into what its like to be involved in a criminal investigation. If you read my initial first post (and thanks to truthsleuth for making me feel so welcome) you will see I had a brief career in law enforcement but left to pursue opportunities in the corporate world. Ive had some real life experience working active investigations, but nothing on a scale such as this. Let me just tell you that in no way makes me an expert. I am impressed by so many of you who exhibit through your posts, the same logic that any good investigator needs to bring a case to a close.
A lot of you have met the most recent repot of Ms. Harrington hitchhiking with a healthy dose of skepticism. Good for you. A criminal investigation is very much like a living, breathing entity. It is always changing, growing and evolving in different directions until solved. A trained investigator goes through many different steps to achieve the end result. Some of them are from text books, some are from experience and some come from something thats very important in police work, instinct. A lot of times a case is solved with what started as a hunch. This holds true for all cases, from the most mundane to the high profile one such as this. It is very important to consider what is being said in an investigation but even more so to consider whats not being said. For example, the FBI joined the case early on but weve not heard much about them since. You can rule out (for now) that Ms. Harrington has been transported across state lines because no one is referring to kidnapping, even though some early reports had her being seen in another state. Often times during investigation information is released not to see what happens, but what doesnt happen. Mis-information is a viable tool to help LE reach their conclusion in an investigation. It is used more than people could ever imagine.
This week in Virginia the Beltway Sniper, John Muhammad, was put to death. For those of you that arent familiar with this case I urge to research it on the web. For three weeks in October 2002 the suburbs of Washington D.C. and northern Virginia were terrified by this shooter and his partner. Montgomery County Chief of Police Charles Moose headed a three week investigation before apprehending the shooters. People were frustrated and very scared. It looked as nothing was being done. But behind the scene, Chief Moose and a task force of Federal Agents and local officers were working around the clock. Chief Moose and John Muhammad played out a mental game of chess in the public spotlight because of clues Muhammad would leave. This was a classic case of little information being released along with some released that was intentional wrong, to help catch the shooters.
You may just find some similarities in the handling of that case and Ms. Harringtons.
