I’ll spell it out for you: First, they tend to keep certain specifics under wraps because it helps them solve their case(s), believe it or not.
For instance, should someone come forward saying that he heard someone bragging that they had killed the family by stabbing them through the eyeballs, they’d know it’s a load of BS and they wouldn’t have to bother investigating it because they know they weren’t stabbed through the eyeballs.
Now – when you have someone leaking details, you don’t know who is giving “good” information because everything has been disclosed to the general public.
Also, should you actually have a witness that points you to a suspect (someone overheard “bragging” about it, for instance) that suspects defense team can claim your witness set them up because the details of the case were publicly disclosed. Your witness just has an axe to grind with their client and he didn’t do it – that’ll be their first claim.
In short – running around and disclosing information that they don’t want out makes their job much harder in terms of actually solving it – and may make it IMPOSSIBLE to prosecute.
Where do you get *that* idea? To me, giving all these details of the crimes basically helps the criminals. It's a bad idea & IMO shows a poor law enforcement practice. I think it's consistent with the possibility of a cover-up, because somebody somewhere is scared of the Muslim perps.
Well folks, we're either going to fight the War on Terror or we're not. Which is it?