 |
| The four ID victims (ABC) |
We wonder how they develop such refined knowledge. Well, it is most certainly a gift.
So, this thought is prompted on this foggy December Saturday as I observe the news about law enforcement in Moscow, Idaho, "warning" the online sleuthing community.
My immediate instinct was to be reminded how law enforcement entities are so cotton pickin' "turf conscious." Law enforcement has its way of doing things, and in some ways it seems primitive next to the very refined tools of so-called "online sleuthing."
The turf-conscious problem was an element leading to the very belated nature of the Wetterling resolution. The guilty party ended up being an early suspect. Once the case was resolved with the sudden sensational headlines, we got the sense from various quotes that many people within LE (law enforcement) had sensed for a long time who the guilty party was.
"We just couldn't nab him," in effect they seemed to be saying.
So right now I think the jealousy monster is looming. LE with its limited resources has begun to resent the independent online "sleuths" who are able to really get into rarefied air with their insights. The insights can lead to plausible theories. We have to use the word plausible because we have no resolution of the case yet.
The in-depth analysis by some does not prevent a "flailing round" feeling, where theories go in highly-contrasting directions. Well, we just don't know, so that is the whole problem.
While I'm not surprised at the jealousy oozing from the LE folks, I resent it instantly. Because I know exactly what is going on. It is naked human nature. LE people are just as self-interested as anybody.
On this Saturday morning with Christmas spirits building (or should be), we learn that LE has issued a "warning" to those in the online "true crime" community. LE even warns of criminal consequences! Well, f--k you.
I should think that any remedies on this front would be civil, not criminal. In other words, a "person of interest" who turns out to be innocent could go after people who unreasonably analyzed him. I say "unreasonably," I mean with unfounded factual claims. To simply have a theory about the case that involves certain possible individuals should not be out of bounds.
If LE gets its way, we are all going to be hamstrung. But maybe that wouldn't even bother LE. Though LE certainly wouldn't want to admit it - maybe this is subconscious - they want to maintain the primacy of their position. "They are in charge."
But with what limitations? What about the obligation to follow up on every tip? My God, this would be suffocating. Weren't there tens of thousands of tips in the Wetterling case? And so to follow up, I suppose taxpayers had to continue ponying up a fortune to pay all the LE folks. And maybe that was part of what the LE folks liked.
Meanwhile the online folks with their passion can hone in on any angle they want, to micro-analyze it with their savvy of harnessing electronic communications. To search through the "weeds" for info. How many standard "cops" even have the ability to do this? We might consider their methods to be old-fashioned, particularly when it comes to such a confounding case.
What kind of proclamation is LE making to the public this morning? Well, from UPI, Dec. 10: "Police in Moscow, Idaho, are warning amateur detectives and Internet sleuths against harassing or threatening people surrounding the unsolved slayings of four college students in the city."
Police report they are "monitoring online activity."
Shouldn't police have their "eye on the ball" of simply trying to solve the case, instead of worrying about being "shown up" by unattached investigators with their incredible zeal and knowledge for combing through the web?
I have had YouTube algorithms pushing all kinds of "amateur" stuff toward me, and I'm convinced that such efforts are the most effective for actually finding answers. I mean, if "finding answers" is what you're actually interested in? As opposed to the self-interest of the pro LE that wants to keep its sense of, well, monopoly? When you boil it down, that's what it is.
The various layers of LE broke down when it came to the Wetterling case. And it was LE itself that ended up harassing and potentially ruining the life of a "person of interest" who ended up as innocent as the day is long. I actually once knew that person a little: Dan Rassier, a premier trumpet player. He might have succeeded with his lawsuit were it not for "statute of limitations." Statute of limitations only came into the picture because the case was cold for so long.
Was it cold because of law enforcement incompetence? I suppose I don't dare say yes because of how LE could come after me. Let's leave it hanging as a quote. So we have to wonder: Will the Idaho mystery just hang out there like Wetterling?
Consistent with the online sleuths, I am not going to be inhibited in my theorizing. Why should anyone feel constrained? I have gone from thinking the murders were a classic "drug hit," to thinking of a potential person of interest, to drifting back to my original theory. We have gotten drowned in talk about interpersonal relationships, college student psychology, male psychology, when in fact all of that could be moot.
We have all learned the term "incel," standing for "involuntary celibate." BTW I am one myself.
Pity everyone who showed up outside the "food truck" on the fateful night. Think of how they are having to try to cover themselves. A legitimate person of interest happens to be in the food truck video. Of course we don't know all the facts and that's the friggin' problem. So I wish LE would shut up with its self-interested ominous words toward the "online sleuthing community."
The online sleuthing community is in fact the best hope we have. The cops are still busy driving around looking for people not wearing their seat belts, you pilgrims.
Addendum: Look at the famous photo of the four ill-fated young people. It's at the top of this post. Someone should do a painting of this. These kids were always smiling like they had the world by the tail. The photos could begin to grate on some of us who were in the non-popular crowd. Know what I mean? Based on all the talk, I wonder if these smiles are "druggy" smiles. In a daze perhaps?
- Brian Williams - morris mn minnesota - bwilly73@yahoo.com
No comments:
Post a Comment