Usually, when we UM fanatics discuss police detectives and investigators appearing in segments, we tend to focus on the possible miscarriages of justice, various mistakes, or the possibility of corruption or a cover-up. However, from time to time, some police inspectors interviewed on a UM segment sometimes got it right in hindsight.

For instance, in the segment on the Sacramento "Thrill Killer", who killed six people execution-style in a convenience store and a pizza parlor, the inspector mentions that the fact that the gun used is small, unusual caliber, that he got the sense that the culprit was "maybe a younger person, borrowing the gun from daddy's shelf or something like that." In fact, Eric Leonard was doing exactly that: borrowing the gun from his father when he was away to commit the murders. The policeman's hypothesis was uncannily spot on. :eek:

Are there other comments from policepersons in UM segments that turned right in retrospect? Please discuss. :)

I think the police got it right in the Tony Lombardi suicide and I think the police officer being interviewed summed it up perfectly when he said (something to the effect of) "...we have to deal with the facts. And the facts point towards suicide."

Oh Corky, how did I know you were going to bring up Tony Lombardi (again) lol. I disagree with you on Lombardi but we wont get into that. Well, as hard as it is to believe the cops did get it right. Sometimes. The cops got it right in the Sacramento thrill killing as you mentioned. The cops also got it right with David Chase's killer although the prosecutors dropped the ball by refusing to press charges even though that case was pretty open and shut.

The cops got it right on Stephen Marfeo. The cops got it right on Mark Nichols although he has never been charged. The cops got it right on Clarence Roberts the 2nd time around. The cops got it right on numerous cases. Of course some of these cases even to this day havent been resolved.

It is mainly because of prosecutors dropping the ball or not indicting. I just find that strange how sometimes prosecutors go after people they have zero evidence on yet wont go after people where there is actually some evidence. Mind boggling.

Oh Corky, how did I know you were going to bring up Tony Lombardi (again) lol.

It is mainly because of prosecutors dropping the ball or not indicting. I just find that strange how sometimes prosecutors go after people they have zero evidence on yet wont go after people where there is actually some evidence. Mind boggling.

**chuckle**

I like to give the police departments of America the benefit of the doubt that if some investigating official is negligent, lazy, or even corrupt; then there will be some others on the force who will take up the slack and correctly pursue a case to the finish. Then again I think that the majority of police men and women in this country are overworked and underpaid, so maybe there's justification for incompetence.

Its interesting that you bring up the prosecutors. I agree with what you say and would even expand that to include that sometimes it absolutely boggles my mind at how much evidence they'll have before them and still insist they need more before they can go to trial.

I agree that the cops seem to get it right in MOST cases. They just collect the evidence.

Can they be biased? Sure, just like anyone. But they mostly deal with facts.

It is the sometimes over-zealous DA's that indict when they perhaps shouldn't. That's not a shot at all DA's, but that is the nature of the game. Cops investigate and DA's charge and prosecute. Even if the cops suspect and/or arrest someone, they can't do a thing without a DA to file charges.