rufnek: I believe I've seen you make mention before that you were a police officer or crime scene investigator of some kind yes?
No, I've never been or claimed to be a policeman or investigator of any type. I'm just an old-time newspaper reporter who got into this business more than 30 years when I was taught to dig up as many facts as possible from all available sources and let the reader decide what he thinks is right or wrong. In the process, I spent years covering the police beat--the cop shop--and criminal courts all the way from the justice of the peace to federal district courts. So I know a bit about how both work.
Don't you think its a lot more difficult to get cleanly away with murder now than ever before, what with how far most crime labs have come with DNA testing and Universal data bases for fingerprints ands other tools that police have today? I certainly do.
A very good example is right here in my back yard. The Green River Killer was just recently caught because they were finally able to use the DNA evidence that they'd kept on ice for 20 plus years. It was refreshing to see the main detective on the case after so many years still there working the case and finally getting his man. He worked as hard as anyone could work a case where there were very few witnesses and most of the killings were completely random (except for the main connection of course that most of the victims were prostitutes) which is from what I've read the best way to kill someone if you're so inclined. But, he always believed he knew his man he just couldn't prove it.
The thing was back then that during the 80's (like this movie) they just didn't have the technology to back themselves up. I know we around here have never seen anything quite like this guy except maybe Bundy but he didn't spend all of his time here either. So in a rather long winded way my point is that although there may have been good detectives back in those days it was much easier to get away with totally random and insane acts of violence than it is today. So I know you've been doing a bit of harping about realism but to me that whole part of it is quite real. What do you think?
What I think is that there have been so many TV programs about Crime Scene Investigators that the general public now thinks that's a magic bullet and probably will convict almost anybody based on what the CSI testifies to. But there are investigators and there are investigators. Some are capable. Some are concientious. Some are truthful. But some are not. Even TV recognizes this: Law and Order had one program about a lab worker who lied about evidence to help police officers build a better case against their prime suspect. On CSI Miami, the head of the investigation team in one episode spots a fingerprint he hadn't noticed before on an article of evidence in a current trial and has to re-open the whole case. Here in Houston as in several other cities, incompetence, shoddy standards, and outright falsification of evidence have been uncovered that threw many convictions into question.
So yeah, we have better technology now. But the same caliber of people gathering and processing the evidence. Plus in real life, CSI doesn't come to every crime scene. Police don't always take finger-prints because they know that in a public place like a bank or cafe there are going to be too many fingerprints to process. Also municipal and county police have a strong dislike--hate, even--for the FBI and will not involve them in an investigation if there is any way to avoid it. Look at the interaction between police and federal agents in
Die Hard--it's really not too far off the mark. I once knew a police chief in a small Texas town who was an ex-FBI agent, and
even he didn't like or trust the FeeBees, who want all the information and data from local officers but won't share the knowledge that the FBI has uncovered. To the average cop or deputy or state trooper on the beat, FBI means Fumbling, Bumbling Idiots.
As for DNA wrapping up old cases,
nobody has kept evidence for 20 years waiting for DNA or other technology to come along primarily because no one knew back then it was coming. What happened was DNA came along and somebody thought of some old case, and was lucky enough to find the old evidence that fortunately had not yet been thrown out.
The thing about serial killers is that some get caught after their first murder so no one knows that he meant to kill others. Or someone goes on killing for years because he looks and acts so normal otherwise that he raises no suspicions, not even from his victim until too late (which couldn't be said about the crazy killer in
No Country who acts weird and creepy in roadside service station). But there probably are serial killers who never get caught or authorities never recognize that the killings were not natural or even connected in someway.
Yeah, the authorities have more technology for catching serial killers, but they also have smaller staff, stricter training requirements, bigger cities to police, larger populations to comb through, bigger case loads, and then have to go to court as witnesses. Meanwhile, outlaws and killers can circulate easier via interstates and airlines, foreign and domestic. They have more ways to contact potential victims via telephone and internet. They may even be better armed than the police, like those two bank robbers in California with bullet-proof vests, automatic weapons, armor-piercing ammo who shot up a whole squad of officers in their escape attempt.
What police always have going for them both today, 20 years ago, or 100 years ago, is that they have almost an unlimited amount of time to eventually solve a crime. There have been cases where the original investigator retires or dies, but someone else takes over. Especially in murder cases, since there is no time limitations on the eventual prosecution of murder.
Second thing is that some officers, not all, really are as dedicated as the detective in the Green River cases and some others I've known who just keep picking away at a case.
The biggest advantage that I've seen, however, is not that cops are so smart but most criminals are really stupid and do dumb things that attract suspicion and capture. They keep doing the same kind of crimes in the same fashion that worked before, and eventually their luck runs out and there's a policeman in the right place at the right time.
But there have been cases that the police and district attorneys have fouled up so badly they'll never be solved. The murder of the little Benet beauty queen, for example. They've used all the technology available and still have no clue to the killer.
As to your last point--Harping??? I'm sure I don't know what you mean!