My last dossier on a person of interest for the case of EAR/ONS was about 13 pages long. In all that there was no circumstantial evidence against him. In the 3 dossiers or theses I have submitted there has been no circumstantial evidence. This may surprise the reader, but if it does it is only because the term “circumstantial evidence” is flippantly used in popular parlance.
Circumstantial evidence is evidence that links the person of interest, suspect, accused, to the commission of the crime. A fingerprint on a smoking gun, for instance, is circumstantial evidence. It is not direct evidence. If you saw the person point the gun at the victim and fire away it is direct evidence. But a fingerprint on the murder weapon is circumstantial. Most people get sent over on circumstantial evidence. It is very powerful. I have stressed that before.
But to help in the search for EAR/ONS– a 40 + year old case– I thought I’d accentuate that you must have rational and valuable suspicion. Unless you have stumbled upon the stash of things he had lifted from his victims, all you are going to have against your POI is suspicion. It is best to hone this so you understand why official investigators will or, very often, will not react with any zeal against your person of interest.
There is NO circumstantial evidence against any person of interest ever submitted.
DNA alone constitutes circumstantial evidence. Has anybody out there submitted DNA to the task force? No? Then you haven’t submitted circumstantial evidence. The reason for turning in a POI is to establish suspicion, to give the investigators probable cause to pursue this particular POI.
This is why I call those “reports” I submit dossiers or theses. This is what they are.
EAR’s height, hair color, and other particulars are in dispute, as is his age. His eye color is known along a spectrum, but like the definite size of his size 9 shoes tens of thousands of people have these features. They don’t go anywhere. They may help refine, but they don’t lead.
How and why then can anybody suspect a person? How can you then convince the official investigators to pursue him? Well, they’re really quite broadminded because they can verify location, etc., for your POI, then if necessary pursue DNA testing. So I am not discouraging anybody. I just want the reader to understand that there is no circumstantial evidence against any person of interest. You must present rational suspicion.
This is why I said in my last post the entire case hangs upon the thin strand of DNA.
If you think about it, EAR could probably not have been brought to trial 30 years ago. There was no DNA testing. He left no fingerprints. If he destroyed his masks, got rid of his guns and his shoes, he was basically just a little guy against whom the law had suspicion. Had he not raped some of his murder victims, there would have been no link even today to pursue.
So what can cause one to be suspicious of a person? For me, you all know what clues I pursue. “Clue” is basically the word. There are lots of clues– MO, patterns, repeated descriptions of size and proportion, houses for sale, schools and canals nearby, moving over the state, apparently at will, etc. Who could have fulfilled all the requirements?
* * *
Since 1990 Gian J. Quasar has investigated a broad range of mysterious subjects, from strange disappearances to serial murders, earning in that time the unique distinction of being likened to “the real life Kolchak.” However, he is much more at home with being called The Quester or Q Man. “He’s bloody eccentric, an historian with no qualifications who sticks his nose into affairs and gets results.” He is the author of several books, one of which inspired a Resolution in Congress.