The Blue Wall of Silence: Why Police Withhold Information

 

It's been over eight years since Andrea Susan Forbes was murdered in Florence, but not only has no arrest been made, authorities have not informed the public of the manner in which Andrea met her death. This is not unusual; police often keep such facts from the general public.

Here's what one authority says:

In the age of information, the public’s desire for immediate and detailed news about criminal investigations is often at odds with the long-standing practice of law enforcement to keep case facts confidential. This withholding of information, often perceived as a "blue wall of silence," can be a source of public frustration and suspicion. However, the reasons behind this secrecy are complex and rooted in the fundamental principles of justice and investigative integrity. While transparency is a cornerstone of a democratic society, a careful examination of law enforcement's rationale reveals that withholding information is often a necessary measure to protect the investigation, ensure a fair trial, and safeguard the privacy of those involved.

One of the most critical reasons for police to maintain secrecy is to protect the integrity of an ongoing investigation. When a crime is committed, investigators are faced with a puzzle of evidence, witness statements, and potential suspects. The premature release of specific details can have a devastating impact on their ability to solve the case. For instance, if the media reports that a particular type of weapon was used, it could lead to a flood of false leads from individuals seeking attention or attempting to mislead the investigation. More importantly, revealing key details that only the perpetrator would know can compromise the ability to verify a genuine confession. As explained in a Slate article, detectives often withhold a "guilty knowledge" detail—a specific fact about the crime scene that only the true culprit would know. This allows them to differentiate between a legitimate confession and a false one from someone who has simply been following media reports.

Furthermore, the right to a fair trial, a bedrock of the American legal system, can be jeopardized by the unrestricted release of information. The constant and often sensationalized media coverage of a high-profile case can create a biased jury pool, making it difficult to find impartial individuals who have not already formed an opinion about the defendant's guilt or innocence. The U.S. government, through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), recognizes this danger by providing exemptions for information that could "deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication." By controlling the narrative and limiting the release of potentially prejudicial information, law enforcement agencies aim to ensure that the legal process is based on the evidence presented in court, not on public opinion shaped by media speculation.

Beyond the procedural aspects of an investigation, the protection of privacy for victims, witnesses, and even the accused is a paramount concern. Crime victims have already endured a traumatic experience, and the public disclosure of sensitive details can lead to further emotional distress and public scrutiny. Similarly, witnesses may be hesitant to come forward if they fear their identity will be revealed, potentially exposing them to retaliation or harassment. The FOIA also includes exemptions to protect personal privacy, underscoring the legal and ethical obligation to shield individuals from unwarranted public exposure. Even the accused, who are presumed innocent until proven guilty, have a right to privacy that must be respected.

However, the practice of withholding information is not without its drawbacks. A lack of transparency can breed mistrust between the police and the community they serve. When the public feels that information is being unreasonably withheld, it can lead to speculation, rumors, and the spread of misinformation, particularly in the age of social media. This can be especially damaging in cases involving police use of force or other sensitive issues, where public confidence in law enforcement is crucial. As a publication from the U.S. Department of Justice's COPS Office notes, building trust requires open communication and a willingness to be accountable to the public.

The decision by law enforcement to keep case facts a secret is a complex balancing act. On one side is the legitimate need to protect the integrity of investigations, ensure the right to a fair trial, and safeguard the privacy of individuals. On the other is the public's right to know and the importance of transparency in maintaining trust between the police and the community. While the "blue wall of silence" can be a source of frustration, it is often a necessary, and legally supported, tool for ensuring that justice is served effectively and fairly. The challenge for law enforcement is to strike the right balance, providing as much information as possible without compromising the fundamental principles of the justice system.

Now several individuals, including one Florence mayoral candidate, have criticized police for similarly withholding facts about the shooting that took Ryland Calvert's life. Let's hope the upcoming events of this week will set local minds to rest. We intend to publish any information that is made public after the upcoming grand jury.

*****

If you wish to learn more about the murder of Andrea Forbes: 

Who Killed Andrea Susan Forbes?