Why won't LE name a POI or suspect in some cases?

[Kimster]

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/lazarus/20050526.html

In the body of this article, the writer states it is only necessary when the public might be in danger.

Thoughts?

 

[Todd Picuyane]

First thought is change it from "Person of Interest" to "Witness." My first thought of "Person of Interest" is that if one of my employees were designated as such, I would immediately have to terminate him due to the sensitive nature of my business. Yes, it's not fair at times, but my bottom line, as well as my commitment to my innocent employees paychecks, are more important to me than an employee's involvement in a major crime.

Using "Witness," however, would be more fair...UNLESS it then morphed into the POI/Suspect/Convict level. But done judiciously, it can help.

 

[Silkprint]

I have always wondered why in some cases they do and others they don't until they make an actual arrest .

 

[Irish_Eyes]

Thanks for the info, Kimster! We've been pondering this some over on the Gail Palmgren thread.

 

[cinman1802000]

Often times when working a case there are definite "persons of interest"
If that person is named in the media or to the public, that person of interest will likely "lawyer up", stop lines of communication, or even disappear altogether.
We try to keep this information close to the vest until all pieces of the puzzle are put in place.

 

[Yoda]

I'm glad I found this thread because with the Ayla Reynolds case I was wondering why they didn't label a few people POIs.
But I have a million other questions.
Would LE ever hold off charging someone of homicide if they had enough evidence to charge that person if there was the strong possibility of solving another crime (not homicide) that could round up several other people? Not petty larceny but say drug ring, organized crime, something bigger.

 

[Yoda]

Does LE really follow all the Internet stuff looking for clues? Dont laugh, but when watching 48hours they never look online for info- or they don't show us that. Does it vary according to department or manpower?

 

[Yoda]

I understand keeping a few things under wraps so LE can determine if the real perpetrator is caught, but why does LE seem to be keeping everything they find hush hush nowadays?

 

[Fishee]

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/lazarus/20050526.html

In the body of this article, the writer states it is only necessary when the public might be in danger.

Thoughts?

I'm not seeing where he says that and I don't think LE is ever required to name a POI/Suspect.

BTW: Wasn't the term "POI" invented by a reporter?

 

[LaLaw2000]

Often times when working a case there are definite "persons of interest"
If that person is named in the media or to the public, that person of interest will likely "lawyer up", stop lines of communication, or even disappear altogether.
We try to keep this information close to the vest until all pieces of the puzzle are put in place.

I agree with what you stated here 100%, cinman. That is so true.

 

[kline]

In the case of a serial killer here in Idaho from a series of murders in the 1980's the POI lawyered up immediatly early in the investigation threatening 'harassment' lawsuits.
Even as late as 2009 with retrospectives about the crime appearing in local media with LE quoted as saying they knew who the killer was they still wouldnt name him as a primary suspect so he lived his life in the community with most around him unsuspecting(myself included) he was the person whom LE was certain was responsible for five murders.
It wasnt until several on the internet named him and a Documentary appeared about the crimes with one detective finnally saying who their POI was did it become public.
One of the other lead detectives interviewed for the Documentary a full 30 years after the murders STILL wouldnt say his name.

 

[cinman1802000]

Would LE ever hold off charging someone of homicide if they had enough evidence to charge that person if there was the strong possibility of solving another crime (not homicide) that could round up several other people? Not petty larceny but say drug ring, organized crime, something bigger.


Absolutely.... a few key things I'd like to mention

Even though homicide is "king" of the crime classifications, sometimes even a person's death can be considered "a small fish in a big pond." Law enforcement (regardless of the agency-- state/local/federal) are constantly looking at the "big picture" in regard to solving crime. They will try to clear up as many cases/investigations as possible before charging someone with a single, particular crime.

The statement "It's not what we know, but what we can prove" is paramount. I have seen multiple cases over the years where there is no doubt in the investigator/prosecutors mind that someone committed the crime, but they fail to proceed with charges due to concern that the incident may not be "proven beyond a reasonable doubt" Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is a huge standard to overcome. I know in our particular part of the United States, jury trials are damn near unheard of anymore due to this fact. Plea deals & dropped charges are the norm, due to what is referred to the CSI effect. Jurors expect to see what they witness on television night after night. If they see a crime solved within a one hour TV program, utilizing the latest in science fiction, they expect to see the same thing in their local ccourtroom. If they dont see it, they often become skeptical of police/investigators & don't believe they've conducted a thorough investigation...leading to reasonable doubt.

Finally, don't ever forget the influence politics has on deciding what goes to court, who gets charged, etc., etc. etc... I have seen several folks have their charges completely dismissed, simply based upon who they are or who/what they know. This is not fiction. This happens every single day.

Kinda wordy, but hope this casts a bit of light on your question.

 

[cinman1802000]

Does LE really follow all the Internet stuff looking for clues? Dont laugh, but when watching 48hours they never look online for info- or they don't show us that. Does it vary according to department or manpower?

The internet is used more than ever before in crime solving.

Not so much for specific clues, but for witness/suspect information. Particularly nowadays social media such as Facebook and Twitter. Example...I worked a police action shooting this weekend. Within minutes of the incident an eyewitness was documenting what he saw on his facebook page. Within one hour of the post, he had over 40 comments posted to his wall. This led to identification of additional witnesses. One of which was a local business owner, who happened to mention she had exterior cameras on her building that may have captured the incident. These folks were easily identified, located & thir statements obtained for evidential purposes.

Another that comes to mind is a local man accused of Arson. While out of town with his wife, his residence caught fire & was a total loss. Investigation led to the discovery that he was essentially "tweeting" the entire night of the incident, detailing what he & his wife were doing at the time of the incident. "Eating dinner at John Doe's Restaurant...Just arriving to Cinema....Gassing Up, can't believe the price of fuel....stopping for a cocktail." His prior posting history was researched & it was shown that he had never, ever posted such as this. It was determined that he was offering an online play by play as an alibi, as he had set the home ablaze before he left.Investigation into his past revealed two additional, questionable house fires within the last 15 years or so.

There is a particular internet database that we use that is ridiculously scary. I can enter my own name (or the name of a suspect), & this site will offer an entire background, including financial history, addresses recorded in history for that person, phone numbers, email addresses issued to that person, vehicles registered (past & present), relatives, neighbors and likely associates, including their own entire history as well. Its an invaluable tool.

 

[cinman1802000]

I understand keeping a few things under wraps so LE can determine if the real perpetrator is caught, but why does LE seem to be keeping everything they find hush hush nowadays?

See my 12-15-2011 post...

 

[Tiger09]

Thanks because I was wondering this myself. My boyfriend has a friend that he grew up with- he lost contact with him due to the friend making bad choices and such- but the kid was recently murdered brutally, along with his girlfriend in the home they shared and left for dead. At the wake and funeral, everyone was whispering and claiming that they knew who did it. However, this week an article came out on the city paper's website saying that there are no leads and no POI. I brought this up to my boyfriend because there's some controversy about the way the website handled the reporting of the murder- they'd posted the victim's mugshots and things like that- but now I can kind of see maybe why. My boyfriend tried to explain that the police don't name POIs for a reason, but I just thought about the psychological impact on the victim's family. This clarifies it a bit.