I write up a whole casefile for a man who’s listed as missing on NamUs and on his police department’s website, only to discover this individual is wanted for NINETEEN sex crime charges and is, in all probability, running from the law. No Sir, I will not have you defiling my website.
-
Follow
Following
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
The Charley Project Blog 
Do you ever profile fugitives?
Like … Let’s say a man named Bob is wanted on several charges and there’s a warrant for his arrest. We know he was running away at first, but now there’s evidence suggesting he may have met with foul play at some point while evading the police. Now investigators think the case should be treated less as a fugitive case and more as a missing person/potential homicide.
Would you profile the case on Charley, or do you have a strict ‘no fugitives’ policy?
Also – Do you know when that interview you did a few weeks ago is going to be uploaded? I’d love to listen to it!
No, I don’t know. They promised to tell me when it got used, but they might forget.
The FCC requires all TV and radio stations to air “public service” type content for X amount of time a week, and some stations don’t have the wherewithal to make their own. The people I interviewed with create this kind of content and sell it to other stations. So, the interview could potentially air on any radio station in the country.
I know there’s one case on here (I forget the name) about a guy who was running from the cops and jumped or fell off a bridge. That is not exactly what you were talking about, but it’s the closest I’ve seen. Also I believe I’ve seen a couple for people who had outstanding warrants, but not for anything serious.
I know you (Meaghan) have at least one person, Santana Ornelas, Jr., who originally was thought to have disappeared to escape property crimes charges. And of course you profile people who are not necessarily fugitives per se, but who have disappeared while facing charges or under warrant and are believed to be endangered.
I feel personally that if a likely fugitive meets NCIC standards for “missing” (i.e., is endangered in some way or may be involuntarily missing), they should be Charley-eligible regardless of whatever charges they’re facing. After that, you as sole administrator only have so many hours in the day and if you chose to prioritize non-fugitive cases, no one could possibly find that unreasonable.
In general I already very much admire the carefully neutral tone you maintain in the case files. Charley’s a treasure for that and many other reasons.
Thanks for the compliments. 🙂
See what I said to Mion. It seems a rule of thumb would be the more serious the charge, the more likely it is that the person is running from the law. Very few people would run from a shoplifting warrant, at least not forever. But for very serious crimes I would need actual evidence the person is at risk or met with foul play.
It’s a judgement call. Generally, if someone’s wanted for some petty thing that seems unlikely to motivate them to pack up and walk out of their life, I’ll list them. But if they’re wanted for, say, murder, or loads of sex crimes like the guy I’m talking about in this entry, it would take a lot to convince me to put them up.
Namus lists wanted criminals in the event that a body is found there’s a profile to check it against. I do wish they’d mention it in the case summary though.
That’s the biggest reason I favor believed-endangered fugitives’ being listed. I have no doubt that a relatively high percentage (compared to the general public) of unidentified remains listed on NamUs, the Doe Network, wherever, belong to wanted persons who were attempting to stay under the radar of law enforcement, if not necessarily of their associates. My other thinking is just that it seems like the right thing to do, same as how we extend medical care to people injured in the commission of a crime, no matter how horrific.
But, again, the Charley Project is basically the work of one private citizen, who does not have infinite time, and who has had her own experiences with terrible crime — I understand her reasoning.
You’ve got Cheryl Rucci, I think that’s her name, who was being investigated over underage sex charges.