Active investigation? (Again)
In August, while in Wolfeboro for a book signing, I interviewed two people about the Stacey Burns case. In both instances, a woman was mentioned as a possible suspect in Stacey’s murder. In one case, the actual name was given to me. In the other, the name was not used but all evidence points to it being the same woman. The N.H. State Police told one of my interviewees that they would follow-up on the information supplied. The other interviewee has already spoken to the police and provided the name.
I did hear from a member of Stacey’s family who was happy to hear that the NH State Police had actually driven to Wolfeboro to interview “someone new” for the case. The interviews were conducted the weekend of August 20. Since then, no one has been interviewed or reinterviewed about this case, or, if an interview has happened, it has not been with either of these two people.
So, just as I did years ago in this space, I raise the question of what exactly is an “active investigation” which we are told is the status of the Stacey Burns murder? How much time is spent on an active investigation? Is it considered active if the police interview someone, then do not establish credibility for the information provided by following up.
Just wondering since I thought something might be happening a month ago. I surely would like to know if the person named in my interviews was ever spoken to by the investigators, if for no other reason than to put yet another rumor to rest.
I guess we still at the mercy of the killer, who the NH State Police have said they know, and are just waiting for him to crack.
Does waiting from someone to crack constitute an active investigation?
Duke (who has not quit, as you can see!)