Who Gets Cold Cases?

DavidZahir · Jan 1, 2010

I presume this would vary a bit from police department to police department, but in general let me know if this scenario makes any sense? Or what about it sets off alarms?

A body is found (and identified) twenty years after the victim was murdered. Up until now it had been assumed this person had simply abandoned his family. Now, we learn that was not at all true.

First--who would be assigned this cold case?

Second--an odd but telling detail shows up regarding the murder. Something that could be a coincidence but some Detective (an older person, approaching retirement) notices said detail, thinking just maybe it is part of a pattern. Can this Detective volunteer to investigate this specific case?

Third--this small detail seems to be part of a (slightly) larger pattern. It is frankly debatable, but if the Detective is right, a serial killer had at least two victims a generation ago. No recent victims, though. None that anyone can tell. How is a police department likely to respond to this possibility, keeping in mind the Detective's theory is not obviously valid (specifically, the two victims were adult males of the same ethnicity and near the same age, each with an identical--but ordinary--item left on their persons after having been garroted)?

Fourth (and last)--what if the Detective keeps digging and discovers similar murders at wildly irregular intervals all over the world going back many decades? What are the Detective's options upon learning this?

Thanks in advance!

frimble3 · Jan 2, 2010

I would think that a small police department would not have the resources for this kind of wild goose chase. The 20-years-dead victim's family would be notified, and life would carry on. Maybe if the state police? was interested in the cold case, or it was somebody prominent, there might be a bit of an effort made. Keeping in mind that the whole concept of going back over 'cold cases' is relatively recent, driven by advances in science and lab work.
I would also think that a big department would have more current cases to handle, and plenty to do without looking for trouble. Unless, again, the victim was prominent, or there was a big, obvious link to a current crime.
If they gave the case to an older, soon to retire detective, it would only be if he wasn't able to do anything else, (disability, maybe, or wanting to give him an excuse to put in his time without too much trouble) or they wanted to look as if they were doing something about the case.
I would think that no department is going to waste resources on tracking a tiny detail that may or may not be relevant to crimes that may have occurred in the past. And the geezer who suggests it might be sent on retirement a little bit early. Giant neon flashing warning signs would be 'wildly irregular intervals all over the world going back many decades'. On that basis, anyone could make a 'pattern' out of anything. And, no, the department is not going to spend money tracking this international nonsense. What taxpayers would go along with that?
I would think the detective's options are to retire, and take up the quest as a private citizen, or retire and use his contacts with international law enforcement to continue his investigation, but I don't think the police department is going to give him computer time for goose-chasing. It sounds like a private investigation of some sort.

Who Gets Cold Cases?

DavidZahir

Malkavian Primogen

frimble3

Heckuva good sport