For years I have absorbed crime and its history. For a long time I had direct involvement in the justice system. I was brought up in a tradition that had crime discussed and dealt with daily for over a century.

The law and its application are almost two separate things. The law is reasoned and logical most of the time where as its application can be chaotic, corrupt and illogical. Recently I started to notice a frightening shift in the way crime is reported and commentated on. Many commentators on all levels, from YouTube bedroom journalists to supposedly reputable big media faces have let elements creep in and then dominate.

The first is emotion, how people should feel about what is crime? Is it when offences are committed against people and property or is it that and offences against how people feel about themselves as well?
For example on the 6th January 2021 in Washington DC did the world witness an attempt to overthrow a governmental system or was it a crowd that when faced with weak security took liberties and, as crowds do, went way beyond any reasonable demonstration.

In the UK I have seen huge fines handed out for publishing things that offend people yet did no physical damage while at the same time I have seen crimes that injured people treated with minor community service.

The second element that has crept in is a suspension of logic when discussing crime. If you are there and see all of say an assault take place from several moments before and then several minutes after. If your view is unobstructed and you keep your attention fixed on the people involved throughout. If you are sober and in good health and the lighting is good and the distance short. THEN you could argue that you can draw some conclusions about the event. Even then, experience tells me those conclusions can still be wrong but I would value that person’s conclusions to a good degree.

That is not the sort of thinking we see demonstrated these days however. In the McCann case, comment online is a wealth of conviction about certain theories. People post conclusions using terms like ‘ It is obvious,’ It must be that’ and ‘It stands to reason.’ Then they go on to abuse the family or the Portuguese police or of course anyone who disagrees with them. It happens all over with all manner of crime reporting.

Recently Netflix ran a multi episode look at the mysterious case of Elisa Lam. This was a young woman who stayed in a hotel and then was found floating naked and dead in a roof top water tank.
They interviewed cops of the time, the staff who worked there and journalists. Then they did segments with the online sleuth community. It was fascinating. None of them had been there, none gave any indication of training or hardcore experience but my word they had not only theories but conclusions. These conclusions ranged from logical to a degree right up to giant leaps of frankly moronic proportions.

You won’t find that here. You will find an attempt to present mysteries and crime with logic and respect for the victim. That respect extends to the cops and family involved. Only if there is evidence of wrong doing by people would I mention it and only if they have been convicted in a court of law will I assert it as true. I may give an opinion but never will I accuse anyone or inject my ideas as fact. In addition I look at fiction too and admit a real love of the genre and the thinking that goes into the good stuff that settles your mind from the daily grind.

You judge if my approach is different from much of the crazy stuff out there and if I cross the line feel free to challenge me.

If you are more about the facts than the feelings. If you can tell an instinct from evidence. Then I think you and I will get along fine.