Note: Entertainment figure used as an example, but this is a GQ.
Peter Ivers hosted New Wave Theatre back in the early-'80s. He was bludgeoned to death in his apartment in 1983. I’ve read that detectives have since found a suspect, but the suspect is now dead. I haven’t turned up anything on the investigation, but I assume a book about Ivers has some details.
Here’s the thing: The suspect is dead. Once that was discovered, there seems little point in continuing the investigation. I presume that the evidence has been put in a box somewhere and that’s that.
So here’s the GQ: When are cold cases ‘closed’? That is, is there ever a point where police declare a case so old and there is so little point investigating it that they stamp it as ‘Unsolved’ and decide never to look at it again?
From articles I’ve read it seems that investigators usually just gradually stop worked on cases when all the leads grow cold. But sometimes some obsessive fellow just can’t get a case off his mind and keeps going back to the file when his workload permits. Or maybe the chief will assign an investigator to some old case if something happens to revive interest - like a book being published, or someone involved passing away. I don’t think murder cases are ever officially closed.
If more evidence is suddenly forthcoming, do they ever go entirely cold? It depends on your jurisdiction and practice as well. Some have a definite statute of limitations, some are just not going to follow a relatively minor crime up and some are still out there hunting geriatrics for what they did as young men brainwashed by the Hitler Youth. Old cases have been re-opened to overturn long-gone guilty verdicts as well. The most extreme was a recent British one exonerating men shot for cowardice during the First World War even though it relies on modern understanding of PTS that was then only just beginning to be recognised in extreme cases. A case of ‘higher justice’ in relation to the descendants.
We had a local murder case where a cop retired and still worked on the case. The suspect eventually pleaded guilty to 2nd degree murder for killing her husband and got 17 years.
A number of departments have a cold case homicide squad. The New York Times of Saturday, Sep 5, 2009 covered the murder of New York’s oldest cold case.
That was not reopening older cases. It was seeking a pardon of men shot for offences such as cowardice in the Great war (it also included sleeping at posts etc). Although specific cases were mentioned the cases were not examined individually. (It was the “Shot At Dawn” campaign).
I’ve read quite a few “cold case” books, and a lot of these are just limited manpower. Places like NYC and LA have so many cases that it makes sense to put the manpower where the iron is hot.
Even if you do find a suspect unless you can get him to confess, it’s unlikely after so many years he’ll get convicted, or if he does that conviction will hold. Witness move on, they die or the jury simply doesn’t believe they can remember things.
In a lot of these “cold case” books you find ridiculous statements how witnesses remember exactly how the guy was dressed, 25 years ago. I mean come on, I realize the event was traumatic but you really don’t remember such fine details, that long ago. You may think you do but it’s unlikely you would.
What amazes me is that they have DNA and the like often in these old cases. In NYC they have been taking samples since the mid 70s and these are still stored in places all over the city. In the NYC Cold Case books I’ve read, the trick seems to be finding the stuff as none of it was properly categorized and much of it has been moved. Each burough of NYC used to store it’s own, then they moved it to a central place, then it was brought back, so basically the stores of evidence could be anywhere and they have like one or two guys to look for it.
I would imagine things like murder have no statue of limitations, perhaps large robberies too would have no limit.
Also, keep in mind that although a case might not have resulted in an arrest and/or trial, that doesn’t mean the police don’t know who did it. I have many friends in law enforcement and sometimes they can’t get enough evidence to prove, in a court of law, to an untrained jury, the guilt of an individual, but that doesn’t mean they don’t know who did it.
In my jurisdiction, the homicide squad of the police is essentially a support and manpower group who get flown in when a major murder occurs (by major murder, I mean one where the suspect is not immediately obvious and there is some substantial investigation consuming lots of manpower to be done. The “major” refers to the scale of the investigation, not in any way the perceived importance of the life lost.)
Local police get to do the arrest, because the arresting officer is responsible for organising all the witnesses for trial etc and that is best done by locals.
But once the trail goes cold, the police don’t give up. Every time a new police officer is brought into the homicide squad, he is given a chunk of cold cases to look at, with the idea that a fresh set of eyes with renewed enthusiasm might see something that more jaded eyes might have missed. Not a bad system really, although cold cases are very hard to solve (in the sense of getting an arrest). It’s not like TV.
There are therefore still live investigations that are many decades old. I don’t know when they stop handing out the cold cases to the new homicide officers, but my guess is when the case is so old that all possible killers are likely to be dead - after 50 or 60 years or so. I know of cases still being looked at that are about 40 years old.