Tell me your thoughts on cold case reviews of murders that are more than 1/2 a century old

[collectingcpd]

There have been 2 reports in the last 48hrs on BBC news about cold case reviews on child murders carried out 60 and 50 years ago. I’m prepared to be told I’m wrong, but I think this is a bit of a waste of scarce police money. If they haven’t found the killer in 50 years, they are unlikely to find him now (although I appreciate there are rare exceptions).The killer is probably dead. If he or she isn’t dead they obviously haven’t turned into a serial killer, so aren’t a significant risk to the public and we’ve already missed the opportunity to serve justice as they will have lived almost their whole lives as a free person. The parents of the child are dead, so they won’t see justice served or get closure, and I simply don’t believe one quote that says ‘a shadow will hang over this valley until justice is served’, how? As I said, I’m happy to be told why my views are wrong, with some explanation, but I think that police money would be better spent on crime prevention now, than trying to solve a case that in all likelihood is never going to be solved, and is going to be if no benefit to anyone living.

The killer could be a serial offender. There could be other victims that could be linked. Mainly it's because it's the right thing to do. Just because their children are dead doesn't mean they don't have family who want justice for them.

I have to assume the police aren’t picking random cold cases and throwing loads of money at them. Presumably it’s cold cases where there is value add to looking afresh - either DNA advances or crimes committed in the years since that overlap with the original case so now they wonder if it was an early crime of a now known murderer etc.
I think in most lines of business there is something to be added to re-looking at an old problem, often things seem clearer in the years after.

I read a book about a cold case murder that was solved. The detective was given a load of cold cases and he looked through them all and picked out ones that looked like they could still be solved. He had criteria like possible forensic evidence, or a clear suspect with possible witnesses still alive who might now tell the truth.

there are rare exceptions).The killer is probably dead. If he or she isn’t dead they obviously haven’t turned into a serial killer, so aren’t a significant risk to the public
Cold cases that are solved,often solve other cases.You dont know the person killed was the result of a serial killer.You wouldnt find that out unless tbey solved that killung.

Closure is important,people need to know.And you saying if it was your relative,it wouldnt bother you.I find that very hard to believe.

Many cold cases are being investigated that you are not aware of. The bbc is having a slow news day so pops them in.

If you decide that murder doesn’t count after a certain time frame, what would that time frame be? How would you feel if a cold case let a killer escape and they killed again after the designated time frame?

I agree OP. Unless it's a simple checking of Dna evidence i can't see how it's a reasonable use of resources. Witnesses will forget important evidence, move away, or have died.

Far better to spend money on cases that can be solved and where the perpetrator is still a threat.

They seem to prioritise cases for strabge reasons. Like Madeline McCann. So much money thrown at finding her meanwhile so many people have nothing like that used to help their children.

Closure is important,people need toknow.Andyou saying if it was your relative,it wouldnt bother you.I find that very hard to believe.

Of course I'd want my family member's case solved. And Id probably be fine with them spending McCann levels of money on it because im human and we're naturally selfish but society shouldn't work that way. It needs to be practical. I don't believe in the death penalty but I wouldn't fight being used against someone wbo killed my child because I'd want the bastard to suffer. But thats why don't leave it up the individual and expect the goverment to be practical.

abcnews-go-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/abcnews.go.com/amp/US/california-cold-case-solved-50-years-11-year/story?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&id=61181451&usqp=mq331AQCCAE%3D#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fabcnews.go.com%2FUS%2Fcalifornia-cold-case-solved-50-years-11-year%2Fstory%3Fid%3D61181451

This case was solved after 46 years. Ok not quite 50 but near enough.
Should they have not bothered?

there is a BBC podcast called Who Killed Elsie Frost? which you might find enlightening OP. Her brother remained desperate for answers 50 years on

But police resources aren’t equal. We know high profile cases that have been criticised for the amount of money put into them without result. Therefore I don’t think you can criticise this decision without criticising many more.
Personally I think if the police reopen cold cases with the belief that justice is achievable then I’m definitely for it.

I think people don’t really understand just how much money the government pisses away on a daily basis. (£33M for a failed ferry contract to a company that didn’t even own any ferries ring a bell?)

Examining cold cases doesn’t take money away from active investigations or front line policing - budgets don’t work like that. In all likelihood if they shut down funding cold cases then they wouldn’t reallocate the money elsewhere - they just wouldn’t spend it.

Even if they did - given the amount of money that is spend policing things like football matches, and even sending officers to Magaluf, because people are twats and can’t behave sensibly... well, I know where I’d rather cut funding!

If spending money on the missing child Madeleine McCann is justified, then a police appeal after many years certainly is for those cold cases.

This.

I wouldn't want to speculate on how I'd feel if I went through a tragedy of this magnitude and lost a child OP. I'm sure the Police aren't gratuitously flinging money about and if a cold case is being looked at again it will be for a reason or the fact DNA can be traced/ there already is a strong suspect, like the Babes in the wood case

I'm > 50yo. I'm with OP. It's a waste of money. I also hate historical navel gazing & pretending we can change the past.

What I despair of more are reviews for other types of very dated crimes. Set up to placate those baying for blood b/c they insist that "the establishment" deliberately suppressed the truth about what happened. There's a pretence of searching for truth or learning lessons, even though procedures people institutions rules laws ... basically, EVERYTHING has changed in the decades since. And the demanders won't be satisfied with anything less than their pet conspiracy theory being proven, so the outcome is always pre-decided or can never satisfy. Truth is the LAST thing that most historical reviews can reveal.

It costs an eye watering amount of money to investigate a murder mainly because dotting every single I and crossing every single T takes an awful lot of time, thus a lot of money, plus forensics are outsourced to businesses. And rightly so that this money is spent, it is murder that is being investigated afterall.
Cold case reviews are only going to happen due to a significant development e.g. forensic advancement or someone coming forward with a significant piece of information. The amount of money spent on the cold case review will be miniscule in comparison to what was spent on the original investigation.
They also shouldn't be confused with anniversary appeals, where police appeal for information on the anniversary of the murder. In these instances they will act on any new information, but if it's nothing significant it won't go any further.

I completely agree @YeOldeTrout

Yes, what happened to all those people on the MN threads who went on and on about Establishment Paedophile cover ups? They went very quiet after inquiries seemed to debunk the prime alleged victim?

What if your mother had been murdered when you were a toddler?