Re: I fear it could be terrorism... Is it possible? What happens if the shooter moves to another state to start shooting again? It's tough to capture someone like this unless they make a mistake or by chance someone sees them. God forbid more of them pop up around the country.
Do you know what evidence is? I doubt it... The evidence might never be in on this on.
Joe, there're only TWO ways US investigators can deal with the sniper attacks:
# The first, trial-and-error approach is to start from the bottom and go all the way up to the top, that is, the actual criminal(s). That's a sensible modus operandi if you haven't the foggiest idea of what's going on. That's the right method if you don't have the faintest clue about whether it's a former college professor turned psychopath (unabomber) or a disgruntled, jobless guy or a well identified fugitive you've been chasing unsuccessfully for years.
So, in that case, investigators must do their field work first --like lieutenant Columbo used to do in all his world-famous murder cases. A butt here, a fingerprint there, together with other clues, all add up to make a case against the suspect. Needless to say that it's a time-consuming and burdensome approach when you're dealing with hardcore, military-trained killers....
# The second approach is to tackle the situation upside down --from the top downwards. That means that you're not completely clueless about the likely identity of the killer(s). On the basis of a few premises, you've narrowed down the list of suspects to a particular composite group.... At that point, all you've got to do is to identify those in the targeted community who fit your composite criteria, using available data from government agencies (IRS, Social security, car registration,...) You don't need to sweat it in the field, you don't have to wait for yet another dubious eye-witness account, you don't have to sort out thousands of calls on your "tip line", you don't have to chase down that white-van-with-a-broken-light... No, all you've got to do is to interrogate people, those people you've identified as plausible suspects.
Unfortunately, I'm afraid the second approach is not favored by your law enforcement agencies and, more troublingly, neither by your Justice Department brass. Just like, twenty years ago, Belgium's Jewish Justice Minister Jean Gol ruled out the political/terrorist track in the so-called Brabant Wallon killings and ordered Belgian investigators to stick to the "regular gangsters" theory.... Indeed, the second approach would prove the shortest, surest way to nail the sniper(s). Of course, in the present case, it's very likely that US investigators are COVERTLY resorting to the top-down method. In the meantime, Attorney General Ashcroft and the bigshots want to show American opinion they're doing everything to catch the sniper(s) and, for that purpose, the first "bottom-up" approach is much more effective: thousands of investigators, the CIA, the Secret Service, even the military! Satellite pictures, airborne surveillance, forensic gimmickry, profiling mumbo-jumbo and the like... To be sure, the first approach is much more "entertaining" as far as public opinion is concerned.
Gus |
