Buried Prey
Chapter 11
by Sandford, JohnIn Chapter 11, Lucas Davenport and his colleague Del discuss their progress in the investigation of the Jones girls’ murders and a potential suspect named Fell. Lucas is confident that Fell is responsible for both the attack on Kelly Barker and the Jones killings, emphasizing that DNA evidence could solidify their case. However, Del cautions that proving guilt becomes harder if the crimes are sporadic or occurred years ago. Despite this, Lucas remains optimistic, believing the case is solvable if they can identify the suspect and secure a DNA match.
The pair face a setback when they learn from Anoka County detective Dave Carson that the DNA evidence from the Jones case was mishandled and lost years ago. Without this critical piece, their case weakens, though Lucas considers bluffing the suspect into believing they still have the DNA. The frustration is palpable as they strategize their next steps, with Lucas glancing out the window at a police van, symbolizing the ongoing but elusive pursuit of justice. The chapter highlights the challenges of cold cases and the reliance on forensic evidence.
To reignite public and investigative interest, Lucas contacts reporter Ruffe Ignace, hoping to leverage media pressure. He suggests Ignace interview an FBI-trained officer, James Hayworth, who might sensationalize the case by implying the killer has more victims. Ignace is skeptical but intrigued, and Lucas assures him the story won’t backfire. The exchange underscores Lucas’s tactical use of the press to advance the investigation, though Del worries about backlash from their boss, Marcy Sherrill. The chapter reveals the delicate balance between law enforcement and media manipulation.
The chapter concludes with Lucas and Del pursuing leads at local schools, armed with subpoenas. They uncover two cases of teacher misconduct—one involving an affair and another with a student—but neither aligns with their suspect profile. The mundane yet methodical nature of their work contrasts with the high-stakes investigation, emphasizing the grind of police work. The chapter ends on a note of persistence, as they continue their search for a breakthrough in the sprawling case.
FAQs
1. What is the significance of the missing DNA evidence in the Jones case, and how does it impact Lucas’s investigation strategy?
Answer:
The missing DNA evidence is a critical setback for Lucas’s investigation because it eliminates a definitive way to link the suspect (likely Fell) to the Jones girls’ murders. Carson reveals that the tissue sample collected at the crime scene was destroyed after a failed analysis, leaving no biological evidence for modern testing. This forces Lucas to pivot his strategy—he plans to bluff by pressuring the suspect into believing the DNA evidence still exists. Without it, securing a conviction becomes harder, as they must rely on circumstantial evidence or a confession.2. How does Lucas manipulate media coverage to advance the investigation, and what risks does this approach entail?
Answer:
Lucas leverages his relationship with reporter Ruffe Ignace to plant a story about the killer’s potential additional victims, using FBI-trained officer James Hayworth as an unreliable but sensational source. The goal is to generate public pressure and possibly rattle the suspect. However, this tactic risks backlash: if the story is disproven, it could undermine credibility (for both Lucas and Ignace) or alert the suspect to their bluff. Del also warns that Marcy Sherrill might disapprove of this media interference in an active investigation.3. Analyze the ethical dilemma in Lucas’s decision to withhold the truth about the DNA evidence from potential suspects.
Answer:
Lucas’s choice to conceal the DNA’s destruction raises ethical questions about deception in law enforcement. While bluffing could coerce a confession or reveal new leads, it also borders on dishonesty, potentially jeopardizing the case if challenged in court. The chapter highlights the tension between pragmatism (using any means to catch a killer) and transparency (upholding procedural integrity). Del’s earlier comment about “knowing” being key for habitual criminals further complicates the issue—this suspect may not reoffend, making traditional tactics less effective.4. Compare the two cases of fired teachers uncovered by Lucas and Del. How do these discoveries shape their understanding of Fell’s profile?
Answer:
The first case (Hosfedder and Dubois) involves consensual adult misconduct, irrelevant to their search for a predator. The second (Lewis and a student) mirrors Fell’s alleged pattern but lacks the violence or escalation they suspect in the Jones/Barker cases. These dead ends reinforce that Fell’s behavior—if he is the killer—is distinct: not merely inappropriate but homicidal. The contrast helps narrow their focus to suspects with documented aggression, not just sexual misconduct.5. Why does Del express skepticism about solving cold cases like the Jones murders, and how does Lucas counter this argument?
Answer:
Del argues that cold cases involving sporadic offenders (e.g., “once a year” crimes) are harder to solve than those involving habitual criminals (e.g., drug dealers), as patterns and opportunities for capture are scarce. Lucas acknowledges the challenge but insists it’s “not insoluble”—his optimism reflects his determination to innovate, as seen in his media manipulation and school subpoenas. Their debate underscores the methodological divide in policing: Del prioritizes probability, while Lucas embraces unconventional tactics to overcome statistical odds.
Quotes
1. “People who are committing crimes five times a week. If you know, you’ll get them, sooner or later. But if they’re committing a crime once a year, and if they quit doing it ten years ago, that’s a whole different problem.”
Del highlights the challenge of catching intermittent criminals versus habitual offenders, framing the central investigative dilemma in the Jones case. This distinction explains why the team needs a different approach for this cold case.
2. “We think we have at least one more attack…So we think he kept doing it. And you won’t wind up looking like a fool anyway, because if it doesn’t pan out, nobody’ll remember it: just another piece of paper for the bottom of the birdcage.”
Lucas manipulates media coverage by feeding speculative information to reporter Ruffe Ignace. This reveals both his strategic use of the press and his confidence in their theory about the killer’s continued activity.
3. “You too often lie by reflex. You should consider your lies more carefully.”
Ignace’s sharp retort to Lucas underscores their adversarial yet cooperative relationship. The exchange demonstrates how both characters navigate truth and deception in their professional interactions.
4. “There was apparently some tissue collected at the time, but the DNA analysis got screwed up…by, uh, you guys. It was right after the lab opened, and there wasn’t much tissue, and the test failed. I don’t know why.”
Carson’s revelation about the lost DNA evidence represents a major setback in the investigation. This moment forces Lucas to reconsider his strategy, as a key piece of forensic evidence is no longer available.