When A Detective Has A Hunch…

“Mysteries” are a frequent subject for novels, movies, TV series and more. Many of them center on police investigations and their popularity is undeniable. Imagine what a challenge it must be for detectives to examine crime scenes, interview witnesses, and collect evidence that will lead them to the perpetrator. Sometimes investigators must rely on their instincts, meaning they will act on hunches. There is a line of thinking among some in the law enforcement community that their investigative instincts are superior to those in the general community. Social science studies have indicated that if there is an advantage among police officers regarding hunches, it is negligible. (“Duped”; Kassin)

Absent other leads, a hunch is an intuitive approach that takes police down a certain path. Pursuit of a hunch is positively reinforced when further investigation supports the hunch. Often, however, the opposite occurs and the hunch will not pan out. In that case other avenues must be explored. To some extent, following hunches can be considered a legitimate approach to crime investigation.

But when investigators lock on to a hunch and insist that their hunch is correct, problems result. They will continue “looking” for evidence to support their hypothesis and ignore clues that don’t support their theory. This is what is known in academic circles as “confirmation bias”. An investigation can even come to a halt in order to preserve the status quo even though the supporting evidence might be meager. Such was the case with the murder of Edna Franklin.

Detectives questioned the other two occupants of Franklin’s house, her grandsons Eric Benge and Lee Rose, to develop a list of suspects, which included a long list of men who had been in the house recently. When asked who he thought might have committed the murder, Eric gave them two names: Charles Raby and Edward Bangs. Bangs had recently worked painting Franklin’s house. During the course of his employment he was accused of stealing a shotgun and a check from the residence. Before his eventual death Bangs acquired a lengthy history of violent crime. If he was ever interviewed by police, no record of it exists. Detectives were following a hunch and the focus was on Charles Raby.

Investigators, for all intents and purposes, halted their investigation after Charles signed a confession. Confessions are the ultimate prosecutorial weapon in a court of law and investigators work hard to convince suspects to confess. In some ways it is hard to fault detectives; in their heart of hearts they believe the suspect they are interviewing is guilty. But they can become blinded by that belief and they can cross a line. There was no physical evidence tying Raby to the crime, and in fact there was evidence that eliminated him as a suspect. There were no witnesses. Conventional wisdom holds that no innocent person would ever confess to a crime. But history reveals a long list of cases wherein innocent people confess to crimes they did not commit and they do so for many reasons.

Previous
Previous

Exculpatory Evidence: The Pieces Don’t Fit

Next
Next

Goat Horns: Charles Raby’s False Confession