Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

pegothejerk t1_j9k0jw1 wrote

> DeRoos died of a drug overdose in San Francisco in 1986, police said. The case is now closed.

For those who come to comments for closure because articles have let them down too often before

624

Outrageous_Garlic306 t1_j9k1vlg wrote

What are the consequences for the then-wife who lied? There really ought to be some.

75

palcatraz t1_j9kbiub wrote

Replying to Outrageous_Garlic306 (#1,919,781)

It happened fifty years ago. The statute of limitations would've run out on that a long time ago.

Plus, there is always the question of if DeRoos threatened her too (he was obviously a violent man) and if you want to start prosecuting people who have made false statements under duress as that might lead to other people in similar situations never coming forward.

A lot of crimes eventually get solved because someone (usually an abused spouse) eventually goes to the police (most often when they've finally managed to get out of the abusive situation) and tells them they lied when providing an alibi previously. Yes, obviously they did something illegal at the time, but what is more important? Prosecuting these people for a relatively minor crime or being able to actually nail the people they were protecting at the time (who have often committed far more heinous crimes)

84

dittybopper_05H t1_j9kcrb8 wrote

Replying to vulgarandmischevious (#1,920,951)

Because human memory is fallible and gets worse as the period of time increases. Witnesses die or move away. The ones that don't can misremember things. Forensic evidence degrades, goes missing, or simply was just based on crap science to begin with.

Having said that, there is no statute of limitations on murder.

58

pegothejerk t1_j9kd4he wrote

Replying to vulgarandmischevious (#1,920,951)

Many reasons, but particularly because the systems abhor open cases, because evidence and memory degrades, and to avoid using old events that weren’t considered worth pursuing at the time in someone’s mind as a new way to attack perceived enemies once power shifts.

5

dittybopper_05H t1_j9kdfog wrote

Replying to palcatraz (#1,920,888)

>The statute of limitations would've run out on that a long time ago.

There is no statute of limitations on murder.

https://legislature.vermont.gov/statutes/section/13/151/04501

§ 4501. Limitation of prosecutions for certain crimes

(a) Prosecutions for aggravated sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault of a child, sexual assault, sexual exploitation of a minor as defined in subsection 3258(c) of this title, human trafficking, aggravated human trafficking, murder, manslaughter*, arson causing death, and kidnapping* may be commenced at any time after the commission of the offense.

I believe that's true for every state, and also for federal murder charges.

−31

palcatraz t1_j9kedyg wrote

Replying to vulgarandmischevious (#1,920,951)

Because evidence gets lost and degrades over time. Witnesses forget things and die. The longer ago a crime was, the harder it becomes to prove who did it (and to provide an alibi, which, while you are technically presumed innocent, is still important to keeping the wrong people out of jail)

Plus there is the more philosophical question of how long someone should be held responsible and if, at any point, it becomes less about correcting behaviour and more about vindictiveness. If someone committed a minor crime at age 17, and they are now 65 and have never once committed another crime, is society served by holding them responsible now? If prison time is supposed to reform someone (which is what many believe), does holding someone responsible for a minor crime they committed 40 years ago help anyone? Obviously there are crimes that are so immoral we should always keep people responsible (like murder) but for a lot of minor things, there is many people who feel that at some point it becomes irrelevant to prosecute.

22

slippery_eagle t1_j9kiqkt wrote

I'm glad it wasn't bundy. It's bad enough he was born here.

3

dittybopper_05H t1_j9kqxo8 wrote

Replying to palcatraz (#1,921,264)

True. But in Vermont, it's a felony punishable by 7 years in prison:

Title 13: Crimes and Criminal Procedure

Chapter 1: General Provisions

§ 5. Accessory after the fact

A person not standing in the relation of husband, wife, parent, grandparent, child, grandchild, brother, or sister, by consanguinity or affinity, to an offender, who, after the commission of a felony, harbors, conceals, maintains, or assists such offender with intent that he or she shall avoid or escape arrest or punishment therefor, shall be imprisoned not more than seven years or fined not more than $1,000.00, or both.

​

However, she was his wife, so that doesn't apply either. If she wasn't otherwise related, the State would have 3 years to charge her before the statute of limitations ran out.

However, if they find out that she did anything to actually help him in any way prior or during the actual crime, they could charge her with the homicide:

§ 3. Accessory aiding commission of felony

A person who aids in the commission of a felony shall be punished as a principal.

Then there is no statute of limitations.

−12

dailyphoto t1_j9lmfmo wrote

For an increased chance of finding the perpetrators still alive, they should start by looking at cases from the '80s and '90s, if they have DNA available for them

40

Noisy_Toy t1_j9ltsxo wrote

Replying to Nanarcho_Cumianist (#1,920,406)

There was one 1970s case that was solved with genetic genealogy, and when the house was searched, the killer had a bunch of newspaper clippings about other cases solved via genetic genealogy. He’d clearly been sweating since the Golden State Killer was caught.

61

hsrCwnS t1_j9lz3ti wrote

Replying to Cobrastrikenana (#1,923,207)

I think it’s been about that for awhile. But some of the times they know who it is. They just have absolutely no fucking case. No evidence or witnesses gets you pretty much fucking nowhere. Shit. You have a witness who says he is about to testify that Jake from Statefarm murdered someone. Then that person ends up dead. Then you got no case.

8

palcatraz t1_j9m1iy7 wrote

Replying to zorbathegrate (#1,924,545)

They absolutely retire sometimes.

The problem is that the ones that are continuously compelled to keep killing are far more likely to get caught than the ones that are able to have some control and go dormant. All our data was based on the ones that got caught, so for a long time, that was our understanding.

Now with genetic genealogy helping up solve some long-time unsolved cases, we actually learned that serial killers do sometimes just stop killing. The Golden State Killer famously did. After '86, he didn't commit any more killings. At that point, he was in his forties, so it wasn't even that he stopped killing due to an advanced age. Dennis Radar (BTK) committed his last murder in '91, but wasn't caught until 2005

17

lallapalalable t1_j9mdbi7 wrote

I wonder about all the serial killers and other murderers who decided to retire when forensics started becoming a thing, thinking they just caught the last train to "never gonna catch me" town, only for them to start being discovered decades later

20

HeySlimIJustDrankA5 t1_j9na3oe wrote

I’ve been following this case for years. I’m glad that there’s closure, even if it is a half-century later.

What gets my goat is the circumstances. This was thought to be a Bundy murder for a very long time which made sense given his proven history. However this is almost weirder. It means a random guy viciously assaulted an innocent woman to death because he was mad at his wife and then continued to live his life like nothing happened and apparently committed no other significant crimes to anyone’s knowledge. That’s…fucked.

17

HeySlimIJustDrankA5 t1_j9naroq wrote

Replying to palcatraz (#1,928,333)

To be fair, Dennis played himself because he got egotistical. I have no doubt he would’ve been caught at a later date because of DNA, but him sending a floppy disk to the police after asking them if they couldn’t trace it is sheer stupidity on Rader’s part. That (unfortunately still living) jackass thinks he’s too smart for his own good.

9

ExpensiveSecond376 t1_j9nb80n wrote

23 and Me will get you busted because your cousin just had to confirm what the whole family already knew.

16