“Is that unusual?”
“No. With an open college campus and an adult student with a vehicle, no one would be suspicious unless she didn’t show up when expected.”
“That confirms what the community relations officer told me,” Lucas said. “People might leave campus for the weekend, not think to tell anyone, come back before classes on Monday.”
“Exactly.”
Lucas said, “I would ask the Concerned Sister who emailed me to consider Ms. Merritt’s questions. How can you be certain of the day? That this wasn’t another day before the party? That it was Sunday night? That it was in fact Candace?”
“Yes,” Regan said. “But let’s assume that she is confident in her memory. One reason I used the bank-robbery example was because fear creates certain stressors, and memories can be clearer—or completely off. If you’re scared, you may see a threat as worse than it is or a person as physically more imposing than they are. For example, I once helped investigate a string of bank robberies because a fugitive I was pursuing was involved. The fugitive was five feet ten inches tall and one hundred sixty pounds—not a large man. Virtually every witness identified him as over six feet, and one said he had to be two hundred pounds. But it was my fugitive, who has a distinctive tattoo on his neck, and that is what ultimately identified him. Yet, of the three witnesses I personally interviewed, no one had the tattoo accurate. One said it was an eagle, one a naked woman, and one a blob of blue ink. It was in fact Pegasus from Greek mythology. They all remembered, however, that it was on the left side of his neck.
“Fear can taint memories, but it can also solidify them. Interviewers need to be careful when drawing out details from a witness. We start with easy-to-confirm facts—time of day a crime occurred, day of the week, the purpose of the witness’s visit to that location, things like that. Make the witness comfortable with mundane, easy-to-remember details, and then start asking more specific questions about the event—in fact, asking the same question in different ways can help gain more accurate information. It’s also important to keep witnesses apart. There is a very real problem of confirmation bias, when a group of witnesses will agree to something that just isn’t accurate.”
Regan hoped she wasn’t overtalking, but Lucas seemed interested in her comments. He then said, “I am hoping that A Concerned Sister will call in—or email again—with the answers to these questions. Regan, what if someone didn’t come forward during the initial investigation, would they get in trouble now if they did speak up?”
“Most likely, no,” Regan said. “First, many people didn’t even know Candace had been missing, not until her body was found. Second, the police would have questioned those most likely to have answers—the people who last saw her at the party, her roommate who reported her missing, other sorority members, her boyfriends. They would have interviewed the staff at the golf course, and then after collecting and analyzing evidence, if that led them anywhere, they would have expanded the interviews.
“But no one is going to get in trouble because they might not have known they had information. If you’re a clerk in a store, and the police come in and ask if you saw someone, show you a picture, and you hadn’t see them, you’re not going to get in trouble even if they were there. Maybe they were hiding their face. Maybe they didn’t stand out in a long line of customers. But if you saw them and lied, and the police found out that you lied, they’re going to want to know why. Were you paid to lie? Did you lie because you didn’t like the cop asking the questions? Did you have something to do with her disappearance? But if the victim had been there but you were never questioned by the police, you might not even know you had information they needed.
“This is a roundabout way of saying that the evidence is only as good as the questions the police ask—and who they ask. I would suggest your listeners look at their calendars, schedules, social-media posts from the week of April 12 three years ago. It’s easy to check your memories, see what you posted, who you were with. What were you doing? Do you recall seeing Candace? If so, when and where? In the age of social media where people document their lives online, it’s likely someone saw Candace and just didn’t think anything of it.”
Lucas asked, “In your experience, knowing what you know about this case—that Candace didn’t go to classes, that no one in the sorority saw her, that she left her phone and her car behind—would she be able to avoid detection?”
“In the short term? Yes. Is eight days short-term? I would say probably yes. In the case of a private citizen, not wanted by law enforcement, it’s easier to disappear for a few days. Human beings are complex, but they are also predictable. Most people can’t go completely off the grid for longer than a week. People need people. They also need shelter, food. It’s possible to disappear, but it’s rare for both psychological and practical reasons.”
Lucas said, “Two people have come forward to say that they saw Candace after she left the party. Two people who were not interviewed by the police, so the police were unable to fully trace her steps and—maybe—find out what happened to her.”
Regan replied, “People lie to the police all the time for a variety of reasons. Sometimes lack of trust in authorities, sometimes because they’re hiding something. But unless someone lied to police, if they know something, they should come forward now with confidence that they won’t get in trouble. Someone killed Candace Swain. Her family deserves to know what happened.”
“Someone killed Candace,” Lucas repeated. “And someone also moved her body.”