This may sound like an odd thread, but I am curious with all of the theories and ideas that are discussed on here, if you had access to information on a case profile on UM, would you attempt to go through the motions of trying to solve it on your own? Let's say you had access to some previously unknown info, and formed a hunch, but nothing concrete enough to just turn over to the police, would you investigate on your own? Obviously with many cases there would be some element of risk here. That's why I am asking. Just curious what the response will be.

I very well would. Not that I would take any cases personally but to do service to society, I would. As a justice studies major who hopes to go into the field of investigations such as forensic science, investigative journalism, or detective work I would use the evidence unrevealed to public to find the truth.

I am sure that with many of the UM cases, the police withheld some information or evidence to possibly keep the perpetrators at bay and not make them panic, which could make it harder to find them in case they flee the country or something.

The Tara Calico case for example. The sheriff says he knows what happened, but doesn't have the right kind of evidence to file charges. If the evidence he already had was revealed, I would investigate the case further with that evidence to find the right kind of information needed to find the truth.

I am sure that with many of the UM cases, the police withheld some information or evidence to possibly keep the perpetrators at bay and not make them panic, which could make it harder to find them in case they flee the country or something.

That is a common practice. Although it is generally done as a precatuion - especially in the hope that a suspect will slip up and reveal a knowledge of a certain detail that wasn't released to the press (which would help determine if he is a legitimate suspect) - some people can still be quick on the trigger to accuse the authorities of "hiding something."

As for the possibility of withholding information making it hard to find someone in case they flee, that might depend on what kind of information it is. I don't think they would withhold any physical details about the person if it was something that was easily visible, such as a facial scar. But if it were a detail that was only known to those close to the suspect (such as a surgical scar on a body part that isn't easily exposed), then it's probably okay for a detective to withhold that piece of info.

In fact, in John Walsh's book No Mercy, Walsh acknowledged that when profiling wanted fugitives on America's Most Wanted, they would often omit certain details about a fugitive. That way, if the show received a viewer tip that mentioned such information, it would help determine the legitimacy of the tip. That way, it helps reduce the possibility of the wrong person being caught.

Maybe one looks like a fool for not disclosing certain details to the press. But I guess it's preferrable to disclosing certain information and proving he or she is a fool.

Maybe one looks like a fool for not disclosing certain details to the press. But I guess it's preferrable to disclosing certain information and proving he or she is a fool.

Which reminds me of the Night Stalker case. Mayor, at that time, Diane Feinstein went on TV and gave away all the police's good info.

She revealed information about the shoes the killer was wearing (which was kind of his "calling card") and the type of weapon he was using. He saw the broadcast, knew what the cops had on him, and tossed those evidenciary items.

Wow, that's interesting about the Night Stalker, I've seen documentaries on that case and don't even remember that.

Yeah, police departments always withhold certain information, not just because they don't want to scare the suspects into hiding, but because if they get any new leads where someone may know something they're withholding that only the killer could know.

As far as the OT - Yes I definitely would, as long as it didn't endanger my own safety or anything. Especially if it's one of the still-unsolved cases that I'm personally passionate about, like Christi Nichols, pre-2009 Baskin kids, Kristi Krebs or (as many would agree) Angie Hammond.

Yeah, police departments always withhold certain information, not just because they don't want to scare the suspects into hiding, but because if they get any new leads where someone may know something they're withholding that only the killer could know.

True. It can sometimes be a matter of not wanting to alert a potential suspect, especially if it is someone who is not even aware that that he or she is under investigation.

I remember seeing a story or two on the Green River killer in the years before the case was solved, and I learned from one of those stories that a news media outlet got hold of the names of some suspects and disclosed them. As a result, the lives of those men were disrupted for a time, with one of those men's wives being called "the wife of the Green River killer" or something to that effect.

This may sound like an odd thread, but I am curious with all of the theories and ideas that are discussed on here, if you had access to information on a case profile on UM, would you attempt to go through the motions of trying to solve it on your own? Let's say you had access to some previously unknown info, and formed a hunch, but nothing concrete enough to just turn over to the police, would you investigate on your own? Obviously with many cases there would be some element of risk here. That's why I am asking. Just curious what the response will be.

I personally, would not.

Here's why: If in the course of attempting to solve a case, I might inadvertently create a situation where reasonable doubt could be introduced and the guilty party might go free.
This would be of greater concern to me than any "threat" that might come from a suspect.

To my mind, if you find any evidence you should consult an attorney and THEN take it to the authorities if your lawyer suggests that it the wisest course of action. It would be unfortunate (to say the least) if you discovered a solid clue (or clues) that you then find yourself being questioned (read:interrogated) about how you found it.