Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2020 11:19:54 GMT -5
There have been apparently no arrests in the last two years, as this is the Case of the Week on the FBI website,
|
|
|
|
Post by Scumhunter on Oct 29, 2020 17:50:18 GMT -5
Just because a case is case of the week on the FBI's website doesn't mean we didn't already know there weren't any arrests- as if there were this thread would have been moved to the captures section and a case this big an arrest made would have made news. There's no need to mention a case is still unsolved just because it's "case of the week" unless we mentioned already we're not sure.
Regardless, glad to see Amy's case getting the spotlight this week.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maddog on Dec 5, 2020 0:14:09 GMT -5
I'm wondering if this case will even ever be solved. The impression I have from reading on the case over the years is they do not have one suspect they are exclusively focusing on, but rather, they have a "short list" of suspects. Additionally, the Police Chief when interviewed years ago on whether they have the killer's DNA just replied cryptically, "We might. We might be." I'm wondering if this is a case where the crime lab has told them to "keep waiting" because they expect advances in DNA evidence (kind of like what happened with Gary Ridgway).
|
|
|
|
Post by Scumhunter on Dec 5, 2020 0:31:52 GMT -5
That's interesting because on the ID channel the chief claimed that DNA unfortunately wouldn't be as helpful in Amy's case as it was in April Tinsley's- not every case is solvable the same way- but then again every year there are advancements we never thought possible.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maddog on Dec 7, 2020 22:38:17 GMT -5
Oh. So they do not have a DNA sample really to work with?
|
|
|
|
Post by Scumhunter on Dec 7, 2020 23:40:01 GMT -5
He just said DNA wouldn't be as conducive to solving the case or something like that. I'm having to work off long-term memory here. I don't know if meant they don't have a sample or if they have some sort of DNA evidence but this case wouldn't be as easy as April's to solve via familial DNA. (April Tinsley's DNA was brilliantly preserved as well as the "packages" John Miller taunted the neighborhood with so they had a great sample(s) to use).
One thing I think we can keep in mind though is I would never accuse anyone of lying- but if there is something that could solve the case- perhaps they don't want to tip their hat too much. If they have any suspect never previously in trouble, the only thing that could get them to leave town is if they think someone finally is on to them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Scumhunter on Jan 21, 2022 1:43:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Maddog on Jan 31, 2022 21:41:52 GMT -5
There is now a new person of interest in this case.
In 2019, a woman came forward and said her ex-boyfriend should be looked at as a suspect in the case. He is currently 64 years of age which would have meant he was 31-32 at the time of the abduction. The evidence against him so far is primarily circumstantial, but it is also very, very intriguing:
1) He worked in Bay Village, OH, and had a niece in the same grade as Amy;
2) He did not come home the night of the abduction (which, according to his ex-girlfriend, was very out of sorts for him), and additionally, he did call her at 10:00 and asked if she was aware of any news about the abduction;
3) The suspect's appearance in 1989 was very consistent with one of the composites;
4) Two of the witnesses to the abduction has picked this person of interest out of a photo lineup as the person they saw walking away with Amy;
5) There were gold fibers found on Amy's body. This person of interest had a Gold Oldsmobile with a tan interior. Additionally, an FBI Agent noted that he saw the person of interest's vehicle drive near an intersection close to where Amy's body was found;
6) The person of interest was interviewed by the Bay Village Police in November 2019 over the course of two days. This interview only aroused more suspicion. Things he revealed:
A) He believed he had met Amy's mother in a bar at some point; B) He did not deny necessarily contacting Amy, and when asked if he had ever called her on the phone he stated, “ I could have” and that “it could have been a wrong number.”
C) He was asked if Amy had been in his car, and he responded “I don’t believe so,” but when they asked again if it was possible, they said the man said “okay, but I don’t know what the situation would have been.” D) He acknowledged that his DNA could potentially be found on a curtain found near Amy's body.
7) He took a polygraph and reportedly flunked. Now, polygraphs are inadmissible in court, and that is rightfully the case since they can confuse jurors, but modern polygraphs tend to have a 93% accuracy rate.
Anyone else think this sounds like a promising lead?
www.news5cleveland.com/news/amy-mihaljevic-murder/exclusive-court-documents-reveal-startling-new-developments-in-amy-mihaljevic-murder-investigation
|
|
|
|
Post by Scumhunter on Feb 1, 2022 7:28:53 GMT -5
I'm cautiously optimistic. I've been burned so many times in the Abby Williams and Libby German case thinking "they finally have the guy", but I'm more cautiously optimistic than usual, letting my guard down a little bit more with this lead if that makes sense. Definitely a great suspect to look at.
|
|
