I wonder why it's taking so long to release pictures of Boston's "persons of interest"?

[skip fox]

Something going on?

Releasing them will, of course, spook those in the pictures, but if they are guilty and aren't spooked already, then . . .

1. Is it a fear of a mistake? (Since they are only persons of intrest, then no one need worry about a mistake, it seems.)

2. Is something going on which makes them think public knowledge is either not necessary or will hinder their work?

I'm guessing #2.

Do you see other possibilities???

[graham4anything]

1. Maybe so the ACLU doesn't later get the person off like they did to Oliver North with a technic.

[former9thward]

7. Yes those pesky technicalities in the Constitution.

Don't you just hate them!

[HappyMe]

2. It's an ongoing investigation.

There isn't any need for them to release photos until they feel it necessary.

[aquart]

5. Yup. Their mission does not include feeding news cycles.

[liberal N proud]

3. They don't want to emulate the media!

maybe they want to get it right!

[freshwest]

4. I'm guessing #1. RWNJs have already proclaimed they'll start shooting Mooslims if it's a POC.

Gohmert has claimed terrorists are disgusing themselves as Mexicans - brown-skinned people made into the enemy again. After a few POC were viciously attacked by racist wackjobs after 9/11, the authorities must keep 'persons of interest' out of the news since they are often witnesses like the injured Saudi was, and yet FR published his address and the name of every person in his apartment building for WJs to focus on. That's why Obama said to 'not jump to conclusions.' Now who knows how many people are at risk because of 'news' wanting to get the scoop for ratings only.

[kenny blankenship]

6. Releasing the pics could generate a quick accurate tipoff as to the perp's identity

but it would also generate hundreds or maybe thousands of inaccurate and misleading tips at the same time. Since they have no way of knowing which tips are hoaxes, or merely well-intentioned but wrong, they will first attempt to id and locate the suspect(s) with the combined data resources of law enforcement, like driver's license bureaus, and (probably) private sector identity aggregators as well. If they get a good lead on the identity they will see how much they can collect on the subject(s). The more they already know when they make the arrest the better their chances of squeezing out a quick confession. The subject John Doe didn't use a bank credit or debit card to purchase any pressure cookers, but maybe he paid cash at a big box store or supermarket that uses cameras and facial recognition to keep track of purchases made by their customers in the checkout aisle? Cross checking all available databases takes time. Perhaps they already know where John Doe & Co. is, but they won't take anyone in until they have more evidence. If it's a conspiracy they may have one suspect under surveillance, but they won't take him in until they can locate the other(s). Arresting one but not the other could cause the other to burrow more deeply or run for the border or commit suicide or trigger something else that would spoil a neatly prepared criminal case. Who knows? There could be many reasons to delay action.

[librechik]

8. both 1 and 2

and also, they want more control over how info is released--I watch a lot of "Criminal Minds," (lol, so I'm an expert now) and they are always talking about the various strategies on releasing info and not.

It seems to depend on the nature of the criminal they're profiling as to whether it's a good idea, and there is a lot of nuance. Which they have now lost the advantage of, since all the stupid leaks yesterday.

Now they are just trying to keep the lid on the pressure cooker, as it were, to keep any edge they can get. That won't be easy since the public has their own image sources, and is free to speculate online.

[markiv]

9. it's both

i think they got custody of who they suspect, and they dont want to completely destroy an innocent person's life, if they're wrong

i read them as doing their job responsibly

[skip fox]

10. Probably. I wasn't criticizing, just wondering.

[dballance]

11. Maybe They Decided that Being Featured on the Cover of the NY Post Isn't Evidence?

I'll be sorely disappointed if they further besmirch those poor guys on the front of the NY Post. Apparently they happen to be runners with exercise clothes in their bags - not bombs. But hey, they Muslim-looking and have a black backpack. Now they're probably in hiding.

Aren't probably 9 out of 10 men's backpacks black? I know both my laptop backpack, my camera backpack and my gym backpack are all black. It's just what guys buy.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

12. Here are the first pictures - one white man, other ?

deleted images.

Easy to find on internet if you look.

[dballance]

15. Thanks for deleting the images. Those were the same people the NY Post put on their cover

They have been cleared - they are not the bomber(s).

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

17. Thank you, db!

[Gothmog]

13. Releasing the pictures might taint the jury pool

If the authorities can find the perps without releasing the pictures, then there is less chance that a future jury pool would be tainted.

[kestrel91316]

14. LE is under no obligation whatsoever to inform the public of who they consider a suspect.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

16. Just let the police do their job.

I know it's fun to speculate, but they need to do their job.