In reading through what I’ve written on Murder in a Small Town: The Tragic Death of Stacey Burns, I came across the chapter on alibis. Here is the opening paragraph.
Chapter Thirteen (page 114)
“An earlier chapter of this book addressed the issue of “degrees of truth.” The concern raised in that section involved the fact that any human beings, whether eye-witness (primary) or hear-say witness (secondary), bring to an event a predetermined and unconscious mindset which colors their perception. Without any coaching on my part, friends of Stacey Burns indicated during their interviews that everyone had a different perspective on what was going on in the life of Stacey Burns, mostly based on what she was telling them. When they described their experience with her, they were telling the truth as they saw it. However, what happens when these true narratives of life with Stacey conflict with each other? People can be convinced that they know the truth, but it is only their truth, and it is not necessarily accurate. When a crime has been committed, only one truth is important. It doesn’t matter how complicated the case is; discovering the perpetrator is the only truth that counts.”
If the case is still active and open, as I’ve been told, we could safely assume that the alibis of each of the multiple people mentioned as potential “persons of interest” have been checked and rechecked for validity, right?
I have only been contacted once since 2009 by a “cold case” detective. We spoke on the phone, I think a year or two ago.
A guy named Jim Soucy, retired Maine policeman interviewed my son in the spring. He asked him if his buds had been doing Stacey. I also heard Lawry and the flight attendant’s siblings were interviewed. The colder this case gets the more I wonder if I knew Stacey at all. Anyway the cops told me “Ed Burns could not have done this”. I guess I owe him an apology.