|
|
Post by liferreilly on Nov 2, 2020 21:59:15 GMT
I've been recently looking at murders and cold cases from around fifty years ago. I'd read about the Rita Sawyer murder in 1970, a few years back, but just recently stumbled across it again. In a cold case review, the killer was identified in 1999. Almost thirty years after the murder. Yet the police have not revealed the name of the killer, who died in 1998. A quote from the below link: Detective Superintendent Steve Hussey said: "The man who murdered Rita Sawyer 29 years ago leaves behind him a partner, children who are now fully grown up, and siblings, who were not aware of his involvement in this crime. It would be unfair on these people to publicly denounce the man so many years later, particularly given the fact that we now know that they too suffered traumatic experiences at his hands." "I can also say the murderer was in no way connected to Rita Sawyer's family and to disclose his identity would serve no useful purpose" www.unsolved-murders.co.uk/murder-content.php?key=1364&termRef=Rita%20Sawyerwww.independent.co.uk/news/killer-is-identified-beyond-the-grave-1116183.htmlI was just wondering if anyone knows any more details about this case? (not asking for the killer's name!) I just find it strange, that it has been kept a secret. While I have a lot of sympathy for the killer's family - They too are victims in a lot of cases - I don't agree with his name not being revealed. "To disclose his identity would serve no useful purpose" I find that statement hard to believe. (Let's call the killer Joe Bloggs) If it was revealed JB was the killer. there is a possibility, people from his past could come forward with new information/leads/connections etc. Rita was found in a field, the police theory at the time was that she'd accepted a lift in a car. Looking at the unsolved murders list from 1970, there are another two cases of young women who accepted a lift and were found in fields. Not making any connections here. Just found the secrecy baffling. Is it common for the police to do this? (keeping identities secret?) Hardly transparent policing. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 2, 2020 22:21:07 GMT
They probably have a policy on such matters or guidance. I would imagine that they have onsidered the matter and really only have two choices, neither of which perfect.
I have not looked into it or ever read the other stuff, but whilst there might be a DNA connection, that is not 100% going to result in a convition, there could have been more than one person involved and other reasons.
Further, I am sure they have covered all the oprtions, for example, joining any obvious dots. Especially with modern computing power. and if there was benefit to reveal a name they would do so,
My only opinion really is that the police do have a tendency to put forward a solution based on DNA and consider the case closed. Thre was a child murdered decades ago, a boy I think and the police said they identified the murderer by DNA. Whilst they might have, I would not consider it 'closed' as there was no prosecution. They did however reveal the name.
Another thing I would say is that whilst I sort of agree that they dont reveal names, I dont agree tht they dont make 'case files' public, or 'reviews'. For example, a photo, a concise bullet list of poignent facts and notes, and other stuff that might help armchair detectives develop a greater picture of what happened (im not saying full files, just a bit more than vurtually nothing at all). THey never do that. THey could and in some cases it might help. especially when there are people that know what happened or have strong suspicions. Even phtos of the locatiosn can waken old memories and drive people to recollect things they forgot they knew.
Another point. I think that everyone has an interest in knowing that cases are never closed and that pressure is being brought to bear on seeking justice. Its a bit like when they rescue cats from chimneys and horses from ditches. everyone gets a sense of relief. It effects everyone really.
|
|
|
|
Post by liferreilly on Nov 2, 2020 22:48:55 GMT
I agree with more information being made public. I recently watched a youtube video, about cold cases that had been
recently solved by members of the public (in the USA) Would be great to hear similar stories from the UK.
I know police don't like to give out information (as it can hamper an ongoing inquiry) but is an investigation still really
'ongoing' if it hasn't been solved in decades? Maybe they need a new approach.
With the advent of familial DNA, I was hopeful a few years back, that a lot of these decade old cold cases would
finally be solved. With all that's going on at the moment, I would imagine solving cold cases, will sadly be way
down the list of policing priorities.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 2, 2020 23:06:14 GMT
Yes, but its not even that they have to give out critical or even important information. Just common knowledge background. I dont agree that social media is fixed, everything changes, BUT people are more connected than ever and with places like Facebook in particular, you could readily have a group spring up that could shed light on something. I see the traffic to the sites and can see at the moment that theres a significant blip of traffic for the Eliza Warton case. www.unsolved-murders.co.uk/murder-content.php?key=958&termRef=Eliza+Jane+Worton&fbclid=xxxxAlthough its 1936, it still begs the question WHY? Are they old people 'remembering it'? or people trying to solved it? Same thing happens for much more recent stuff. In actual fact, I have read a UK guide to cold case murder investigations and it clearly states that the police should communicate with 'assets' on the internet, like this site etc, as a viable avenues. Its quite clear that theres a ton of opportunity to expand public awareness of many cases. Just take 2001 for example www.unsolved-murders.co.uk/search.php?year=2002&subpage=year&time=1604358094Consider that, and then consider other years. Then ask 'whats missing'. All those cases lost in time as the newspaper reference is no longer there or was never there in the first place. Also, these programs that cover one case, like crimestopper shows. All that money, when it could be spent on many cases just getting the basics. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 2, 2020 23:13:19 GMT
i disagree that armchair detectives are key as 99.999999% of peopel will never shed light on any case. But what is key is the 0.00000001% of people that do know something already. if somrthing happened 20-30 years earlier, all they need to do is be triggered and realise they remember something.
someone should write a book on the psychology of people that know who killed smeone and say nothing for years etc and then spill the beans. I am sure it would be as fascinating as anything else.
|
|
|
|
Post by liferreilly on Nov 2, 2020 23:32:27 GMT
I would imagine there are a whole host of reasons why people say nothing. They're involved somehow; they're in fear of reprisal; they're involved themselves in "lesser crimes" and don't want the attention of the police; the "snitches get stitches" mentality. Unless the silence is duress related; I would guess they were self absorbed people with little-to-no empathy whatsoever. I think that would be a really interesting idea for a book though. I'd read it. We read a lot about the "who and how" around murder cases. Less so the "why?" That's usually the main question people want answered. I wouldn't mind that book for Christmas. A perfect Boxing Day read!  |
|
|
|
Post by liferreilly on Nov 2, 2020 23:45:25 GMT
John Duffy kept silent about his partner in crime, for over a decade. www.blackkalendar.nl/c/1510/John%20DuffyWhat made Duffy open his mouth years later? Contrition? Wanting to open up and get things off his chest? The subhuman lived his life full of hate. In his case, that's what I think the factor was. I'm in here and he's out there a free man. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 3, 2020 0:13:56 GMT
yes
and if you search for 'cold case' in the BK you get a few more. I thik there are more to.
|
|
|
|
Post by matthewspicer on Nov 3, 2020 15:39:55 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by liferreilly on Nov 3, 2020 16:52:18 GMT
Thanks Matthew:)
Yeah I jumped the gun a bit with that post! My usual inquisitiveness (nosiness) eluded me there.
I suppose I was less interested in the killer's name, but more interested in the police's reasoning for
not naming the suspect/killer. Seems it was revealed anyway.
"it would be unfair on these people (the killer's family) to publicly denounce the man so many years later"
That obviously didn't work out as planned then!
LR
|
|
|
|
Post by matthewspicer on Nov 3, 2020 17:16:33 GMT
.... indeed - presumably it was the suspect's family who went to the media!!
m:)
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 3, 2020 18:10:19 GMT
I think my point is validated here. They in theory matched DNA from the man via chewing gum, presumably from his sperm. He was her boyfriend. So they say, 'We are not confirming the identity of the killer and as far as we are concerned the case is now solved and closed'. Really? What if they had sex and she went off and got murdered? Or any other variant on that? What if they had sex the night before? what if there was him and a pal and he was not the person that murdered her? I can't see the DNA finding being absolute. Maybe a Coroner's jury might decide that, but then again, maybe not. Whilst I don't doubt the most obvious answer might be the right one, I think they could make statements essentially saying that the chances are miore likely than not that he was the murderer and leave it at that.
This is the conclusion they pas in many cases, including Timothy Evans report where the govt body that reviewed things concluded that Timothy Evans was more likely that not complicit in the murder of his wife and child or something like that.
Maybe thats why they didn't release his name. Maybe a narrative verdict would be better. Bear in mind, the article is 1999, thats the equivelent of a 1989 case, so it wasn't so remote. They should have said something along the lines of 'until other evidence comes to light' the case is closed. etc etc.
Again, we dont have all the facts, only what the article gives us, which conveniently allows us to agree that he did it because he was a violent boxer.
Then again, I have not researched ot given this any thought until now. 1970 is as far off my immediate horizon as it could possibly be.
|
|
|
|
Post by matthewspicer on Nov 3, 2020 18:22:46 GMT
Yes it is rather like the ‘good old days’ and policing – the ‘copper’s nose’ - ‘we know he did it’ and ‘we aren’t looking for anyone else’ …. he was a violent boxer .... that’s it case closed .... m:)
|
|
|
|
Post by liferreilly on Nov 3, 2020 18:34:45 GMT
"I can't see the DNA finding being absolute" I completely agree with that. If we look at the cold case of Dorothy Leyden, from 1971. DNA was found "near" Dorothy's body. She was found in the grounds of a public house, after walking home. Trevor Hardy was a long time suspect. But the police a decade or so ago claimed it wasn't him, as the DNA didn't match. What if the dna finds a match almost 50 years later? It could have been an innocent couple having sex behind the pub, earlier that night. The man leaves his dna at the scene. Not beyond the realms of possibility. www.unsolved-murders.co.uk/murder-content.php?key=1703&termRef=Dorothy%20Leydenwww.blackkalendar.nl/c/1516/Trevor%20Hardy |
|
|
|
Post by matthewspicer on Nov 3, 2020 18:46:06 GMT
.... oh indeed DNA (especially now when fresh etc) is an invaluable tool; but it is not the complete answer ....
m:)
|
|
