As promised just before the eighth anniversary of the death of Stacey Burns, this blog has addressed other subjects but I wanted to share this information which I received. No source is quoted because I do not have an official source but  the email made sense to me. It may be a difficult test of patience and trust but here it is. (in quotes since this is exactly how I received it)

“How real criminal investigations work.  For example, if we are provided with information about a person who might be involved in a crime, the average person probably thinks that we would immediately go out and interview that person.  However, that is not necessarily how we would do it.   Depending on the person, their role in the case, and what they might know, we could wait quite some time before we directly interviewed them.  Instead, we might gather information about that person through other means and sources before speaking to the person directly.  That is why the fact that we have not spoken to a person within someone else’s set timeframe does not mean that we are ignoring that person.”

This came as an answer (I think) to my “hot tip” of a month ago.

Good information? Seems like it to me . . .The only issue may the time frame thing. Who would have guessed in May, 2009 that we’d be looking at an eight year time frame without an arrest in this case.

Duke