Let me start this thread off by saying that I fully understand that most people are not true crime buffs and don't know what to do in these situations.

Now that that is out of the way, I can't tell you how many times I've yelled at my tv as I've rewatched this series seeing so many people trapsing in and out of homes all willy nilly. All I can think is "What are you doing?! Other than contaminating the crime scene! GET OUT!! And quit touching everything!"

I feel that many Unsolved crimes happen in part because people don't understand that they are walking into crime scenes, or they do, and still don't follow proper protocol.

In the Springfield three case, I think it was a neighbor or family member that cleaned up the broken light bulb off the porch. In the JonBenet Ramsey case, family members came and went all through the house as they pleased. In the Amanda Knox case, she sees the house has clearly been broken into, and still not only goes inside, but takes a shower. Then there was the case I just saw of the husband and wife who went missing at different times (can't remember the name of them unfortunately, but the wife was rumored to try feeding her husband dog food casseroles.) the husbands truck is found abondoned, and instead of calling the police, his friends just go through his truck, they pick up his keys found a few feet away in the grass.

I wish more people would recognize that something is wrong with a scene more quickly before they start moving things all around and trying to "help." But again, I realize that that is most likely what the average person thinks they are doing, helping.

Let me start this thread off by saying that I fully understand that most people are not true crime buffs and don't know what to do in these situations.

Now that that is out of the way, I can't tell you how many times I've yelled at my tv as I've rewatched this series seeing so many people trapsing in and out of homes all willy nilly. All I can think is "What are you doing?! Other than contaminating the crime scene! GET OUT!! And quit touching everything!"

I feel that many Unsolved crimes happen in part because people don't understand that they are walking into crime scenes, or they do, and still don't follow proper protocol.

In the Springfield three case, I think it was a neighbor or family member that cleaned up the broken light bulb off the porch. In the JonBenet Ramsey case, family members came and went all through the house as they pleased. In the Amanda Knox case, she sees the house has clearly been broken into, and still not only goes inside, but takes a shower. Then there was the case I just saw of the husband and wife who went missing at different times (can't remember the name of them unfortunately, but the wife was rumored to try feeding her husband dog food casseroles.) the husbands truck is found abondoned, and instead of calling the police, his friends just go through his truck, they pick up his keys found a few feet away in the grass.

I wish more people would recognize that something is wrong with a scene more quickly before they start moving things all around and trying to "help." But again, I realize that that is most likely what the average person thinks they are doing, helping.

The husband/wife eating dog casserole is Hugh and Diane Harlon. I've always wondered why his friends touched everything when they could've potentially gotten fingerprints.

Thank you, Amanda. The name was on the tip of my tongue. I knew it started with an H, but I kept thinking Hans. I've binged watched season six in two days, and a lot of the cases are starting to blend together lol.

Thank you, Amanda. The name was on the tip of my tongue. I knew it started with an H, but I kept thinking Hans. I've binged watched season six in two days, and a lot of the cases are starting to blend together lol.


Thats what I did this past weekend:lol:

I vaguely recall Stack mentioning botched crime scenes...

Or maybe its law enforcement negligence?

I vaguely recall Stack mentioning botched crime scenes...

Or maybe its law enforcement negligence?

Law Enforcement has definitely screwed up crime scenes (and been way too embarrassed to admit it.) but many times, family members walk into homes or abandoned cars looking for evidence. While well intentioned, they will move things around, inadvertently wipe away fingerprints, or clean up messes that could have been tagged as evidence.

In worst case scenarios, it's a product of family contaminating crime scenes and LE botching things up as well.

:grineyes: Maybe they just like living in clean houses?

Can't forget when LE missed Danny Freeman's body

"Whoops, I didn do nuffin. Evidence? wuz dat?"

In the Springfield three case, I think it was a neighbor or family member that cleaned up the broken light bulb off the porch.

Janelle Kirby and her boyfriend cleaned up the broken light bulb pieces to be nice. They hadn't even knocked on the door yet. And with all three women's cars in the driveway, they had no reason to believe they weren't inside. I think that's kind of an unfair example.

Can't forget when LE missed Danny Freeman's body

Yeah, that whole case was a mess.

Janelle Kirby and her boyfriend cleaned up the broken light bulb pieces to be nice. They hadn't even knocked on the door yet. And with all three women's cars in the driveway, they had no reason to believe they weren't inside. I think that's kind of an unfair example.

Touché, I will retract that one from my list. It is hard when they don't yet know a crime has been committed.

But in the cases where it is obvious something isn't right or someone is missing, it just always boggles my mind that people don't stop and think before touching/moving things. Of course, hind sight is always 20/20.

"Whoops, I didn do nuffin. Evidence? wuz dat?"

Ha, nothing suspicious about that at all...he was just trying to "save the family pain" :rolleyes:

The vast majority of people were simply not acquainted with LE crime scene procedures at the time. Far less information, like documentaries, TV shows, and non-fiction, on true crimes at the time compared with today, made most people look a bit clueless in hindsight concerning how police investigators work. Plus, DNA was not yet a thing. Nowadays, there is so much common knowledge on how police procedures function when a major crime occurs, we know now how careful we must tread around a crime scene.

Perhaps a bit too much information, even - now it to the point that your Average Joe or Jane can decide to play the armchair detective when they feel a culprit is guilty or innocent. That is, I fear, a bit dangerous.

Ha, nothing suspicious about that at all...he was just trying to "save the family pain" :rolleyes:

I've never seriously suspected the sheriff but that bit never made sense to me.

While a bit unusual, his decision to save the family the indignity disposing of soiled bedding seemed plausible to me. But I think the next logical step would be to either burn it yourself or have a subordinate do it. Asking a civilian third party who is supposedly a "close friend" to do it makes about as much sense as a little boy directing you to speak to a masked man in a parked car. :confused:

I've never seriously suspected the sheriff but that bit never made sense to me.

While a bit unusual, his decision to save the family the indignity disposing of soiled bedding seemed plausible to me. But I think the next logical step would be to either burn it yourself or have a subordinate do it. Asking a civilian third party who is supposedly a "close friend" to do it makes about as much sense as a little boy directing you to speak to a masked man in a parked car. :confused:

I found it easy to suspect Don Dixon because of his overacting in the UM interview, but I can't reconcile it with that police chief's decision of burning the mattress. Did both of them have a vested interest? Did they even know each other before that? I haven't watched this one in awhile but I found it to be one of the more puzzling cases.

The vast majority of people were simply not acquainted with LE crime scene procedures at the time. Far less information, like documentaries, TV shows, and non-fiction, on true crimes at the time compared with today, made most people look a bit clueless in hindsight concerning how police investigators work. Plus, DNA was not yet a thing. Nowadays, there is so much common knowledge on how police procedures function when a major crime occurs, we know now how careful we must tread around a crime scene.

Perhaps a bit too much information, even - now it to the point that your Average Joe or Jane can decide to play the armchair detective when they feel a culprit is guilty or innocent. That is, I fear, a bit dangerous.

I completely agree. I know that most family and friends honestly were just trying to do what they could to help in a crisis. Many, in sure, honestly didn't think they were doing anything wrong. I know that most people destroyed evidence unknowingly and with the best of intentions. It just always saddens me when I hear that crime scenes were contaminated before law enforcement could arrive.

But in the cases where it is obvious something isn't right or someone is missing, it just always boggles my mind that people don't stop and think before touching/moving things. Of course, hind sight is always 20/20.

I understand your overall point. But there can also be good examples. Like Lisa Ziegert's coworker at the card shop, Sophia Maynard. All she did was go behind the counter and when she saw Lisa's purse and car keys, she immediately went across the street to a restaurant to call the police.

I understand your overall point. But there can also be good examples. Like Lisa Ziegert's coworker at the card shop, Sophia Maynard. All she did was go behind the counter and when she saw Lisa's purse and car keys, she immediately went across the street to a restaurant to call the police.

Yes! She is a perfect example of what to do. She recognized immediate that something wasn't right. But instead of waiting around to find something, she immediately ran and called for help. While that story of course hard a tragic outcome, she did all she could from the get go, and I applaud her for that. Unfortunately, even when all the right measures are taken, lack of witnesses or evidence have hurt a lot of cases.

I seem to recall a later season case where two women came across a dead guy in an elevator far as I know they didn't touch anything

I seem to recall a later season case where two women came across a dead guy in an elevator far as I know they didn't touch anything

David Merrifield

"Whoops, I didn do nuffin. Evidence? wuz dat?"

This was the very first case that sprang to mind when I saw this thread heading.

I remember one of the investigators in the Judith Hyams segment stating that since her vehicle had been sitting in the neighbourhood in Atlanta for days before it was found, a bunch of people had already touched it before they had an opportunity to process the car as a crime scene. That might have ruined their chance to collect any forensic evidence and possibly make a case against someone at that time.

There was another car that was trashed and evidence would have been lost. Chad Maurer? Tommy Burkett?

It's one of those cases.

In the Chad Maurer case, there was a key piece of evidence, a jacket, that disappeared sometime while the car was being transported between the crime scene and the police station for processing. IIRC, they had to break the window of the car to get inside, so there they had no way to effectively secure the car during transport.

Now its pretty obvious to me that given that fact, the police should have collected the jacket as a piece of evidence at the scene, and perhaps processed the entire car more thoroughly at the scene. But... that's speaking with hindsight. At the time, they thought the case was a simple suicide.

EDT:
Same goes with Tommy Burkett... the police apparently thought it was a simple suicide from the start. They apparently made no effort at all to secure or process the scene. No fingerprints or photos taken, etc.