outfielders

How far afield do we go?
by Fleastiff

Should we chase ever more remote "leads" in our desperation to solve a case? Or should we concentrate on the more likely areas even if it means re-visiting previously investigated leads.

A murderer often establishes an alibi for himself while the actual killing is left to be the work of friends, relatives, fellow gang members, drinking buddies or whomever they've been able to ensnare in the plot. So of course it is necessary for the police to consider the possible roles of those who may be somewhat remote from the crime scene. But just how remote should we let our attention wander?

A fingerprint found at the crime scene is surely evidence. It is clearly a just and proper field of focus for the sleuth. Yet how far afield can we go without it being an utterly absurd waste of time and effort. One woman drove from a midwest state to Miami and a Miami detective spent a day and night at each and every motel enroute at which the woman had stayed. This attempt to discover if there had been any unusual incidents at an enroute motel in any of several states has always struck me as a foolish waste of resources for a murder-by-drowning in Miami. And ofcourse it did turn out that the murder was a chance encounter in Florida and had nothing to do with the road trip the victim took to get to Florida. Do the actual results make that geographically remote investigation a waste of time and money? Was a roadside motel in Peoria such an infertile field that the expenditure of resources was unwise? Or is this solely a question for the bean counters employed at Miami-Dade?

Now consider for a moment the case character sometimes known as McSanta. Quite aside from the fact that his dna has been reported as not being a match to that found on the victim, is he still a proper subject for further investigation. How far can we go in leaving behind the world of "hard" evidence such as fingerprints or blood spatter in order to embrace the world of "soft" evidence such as profiling or the subjects activities in remote times and places. McReynolds has been a recurrent theme in the case for a variety of reasons, not the least of which he is a somewhat "strange" dude. Strange does not equate to guilt but it does arouse suspicions. It may irk civil libertarians when someone comes to the attention of the police simply because he marches to the beat of a distant drum but in reality we do know that we want law enforcement to focus on the unusual. A car that seems out of place or a business that seems strangely unmanned or any number of other anomalies are a fit subject for some sort of inquiry. The problem is how far afield do we want to go? And how much should our frustration drive us to even more remote inquiries?

Consider the various scholarly dissertations? They are remote in time and would not normally be a part of a homicide file for a 1996 murder that took place in Boulder, Colorado. Is it, however, a proper field of focus for a frustrated sleuth? If we look to the subject matter expertise of Bill McReynolds, we find that he was an expert on the American Realist movement. Was his graduate thesis a reflection of his interests or was it heavily influenced by his graduate advisor as many such theses are? To the extent we consider his choice of subject matter to indicate his views, how closely should we delve into a field of literature that is remote in time and place? Yes, the founder of that school of literature was violently opposed to the notion of a Christmas Spirit and became physically ill each December because it so enraged him to have people adopt a false notion of a Christmas spirit. Such an extreme reaction to Christmas-time fellowship and goodwill was not shared by all the members of the American Realist movement, but somewhat similar views of the matter were indeed shared by them. We can certainly conclude that no member of the American Realist movement would be likely to have played Santa Claus. Can we also conclude that a long-time student of the American Realist movement would share a similar disdain for becoming a Santa Claus? Should we consider it strange for McReynolds to have transitioned from Realist to one embracing a fantasy? Just how suspicious should a sleuth be when he confronts something that is strange but by no means criminal when the sleuth has already wandered far afield from the crime scene? We all know that Bill McReynolds was rather fond of the Quaker dance song: Tis The Gift. Should we be suspicious of someone who holds those views or suspicious of someone who espouses them? Simple Gifts? Simple Sleuths? Simple Rules of Investigation?

It is known that there was what has become termed as the "Charles Kuralt Party" at the Ramsey home prior to the murder. This party was a somewhat low-key gathering at which a film crew might show up to film material for a Charles Kuralt documentary. Well, further investigation has shown some discrepancies: a different documentarian than Kuralt, no reasonable expectation that any famous documentarian would ever have shown up, no expectation that the local videographer ever intended to do any nighttime filming of McReynolds. In Hollywood such name dropping would be perfectly acceptable at all times. In Boulder, Colorado is it suspicious? Should we just write this off as a boorish and selfish man who knowingly misrepresented important facts concerning the party but who deserves no further attention because his dna absolves him from having participated in the actual molestation?

Statistically there is a certain expectation that an under 24 male from the immediate neighborhood is a likely suspect. So when we learn of some nocturnal peeper living almost four miles away should we start thinking about telescopes and terrain? We all remember that San Diego child-killer who used his binoculars to engage in nocturnal birdwatching. Should an investigator feel constrained by time and place? Should an investigator confine his attentions to the most fertile fields or should he shift his focus simply because other investigators have already harvested and thoroughly gleaned those most fertile fields?