Post by sultrycrockett on Feb 9, 2016 9:30:36 GMT
Any news, drdoogie?
Do not however "fall into false dispare" either, and despair over a lack of development, because the 'doctor' is on the case and there is "great potential" for an I.D. this year.
As Dr. Doogie stated, although there admittedly has not been a capture in 40 years, the statement will be "made false by the very LE who are now being castigated"...although many of those former investigators have passed on and/or retired. If Dr. Doogie is referring to current persons in law enforcement who are actively involved in this case (who have been castigated), who have offered him updates from inside the fold, who might they be? Why and how is it that you've gained such an inside track Dr. Doogie?
After having spent some time on various message boards reading posts over the years, it has always struck me how many people appear with first-hand knowledge in cases like these. Someone claims they personally knew a victim, or were nearby when something happened, or they have an inside edge on everyone and know every step of an investigation.
An indicator of deception is the tried and true tactic of vagueness. Psychic detectives use this methodology. This is why in a legal sense to avoid such trickery, a concept was created called the vagueness doctrine. Often, when someone is telling the truth, they'll give you a straight answer. If a law is not sufficiently clear, it is voided because criminal law has to be specific and clear to be ethical and just. The same thing goes for the general accuracy of information, and should go for claims on here.
When someone is giving you useful information, like a physician with an actual doctoral degree who has completed his residency, the doctor can answer specific questions with some detail. I do acknowledge in criminal investigations some information is withheld for purposes of confirming the validity of incoming information or potential evidence, but this is a 40-year old case. There's nothing detrimental about specifying who is investigating what, what development is coming out of what agency, and how a lead has unfolded over time, even if no POI is identified by name.
If people do not have updates and cannot give any specific information, then a thread like this shouldn't be updated with speculation and opinions, and certainly not with unverifiable proclamations. The speculation and opinions exist in other threads and are topic-specific. In the case of this thread, I don't think it needs to continue to grow without any substance. And by substance I am referring to something tangible, not made-up or unverifiable. If something has substance, a reporter can contact the appropriate agency and get a confirmation, or it is reported by a reputable source.
In the cases of charlatans and the odd people who come out of the woodwork on discussion boards like this, vying for attention through association, please put up or shut up. There's a big difference between a thread that is simply a discussion, versus one that demands the inflexible rigid factual truth needed for investigative utility. Speculative unsubstantiated posts create innuendo, rumor, fantasy, and mythology and have little usefulness in an investigation, unless the discussion is objective and sparks creative thinking that has application. But in a thread like this, where any and all information requires credibility for utility, I think the standards need to be raised.
I think we are powerless as investigators on this site if members show up in these types of threads to post attention-seeking smokescreens with no real investigative value and application. It reminds me of all the crazies who phone into tip lines claiming to be the killer, except here we have people claiming to be affiliated with the case in some odd way.