Why Osage PD Was 'Playing' With BTK Evidence On TV

In a recent episode of the podcast "Hidden Killers," host Tony Brueski was joined by former FBI Special Agent and regular contributor Jennifer Coffindaffer. Their discussion raised some provocative questions about the display of evidence on national television, specifically in the ongoing investigation of the notorious serial killer BTK (Bind, Torture, Kill).
Brueski opened the conversation by discussing a rather controversial moment where evidence, specifically a pantyhose, was showcased on the Banfield show. “I’ve talked to like 10 FBI agents since this happened and everyone I’ve talked to has said they just utterly cringed when they saw him playing with the pantyhose on Banfield,” Brueski revealed. The aim, as he mentioned, was to garner national attention, hoping that it would spur the investigation forward.
 
Jennifer Coffindaffer responded emphatically, calling out the action as a definitive no-no. "You don't do that to gain the attention," she said, shedding light on the ethical concerns surrounding such an act. She elaborated on how the media circus surrounding the case can often derail from its primary objective: truth and justice for the victims and their families.
 
Coffindaffer shared her reservations about the manner in which certain cases are being investigated and discussed in the media. "When I say looked hard into it in terms of what the investigative authorities [are saying], KBI says that the woman in Hayes is absolutely not connected to BTK," she mentioned. Her emphasis was on the emotional toll these media speculations can take on families, who have to wrestle with the horrifying possibilities their loved ones might have faced.
 
The conversation further delved into the formation of task forces to handle such high-profile cases. Coffindaffer, drawing from her extensive FBI background, shared her confusion regarding the inclusion of media personnel in these task forces. "I would never ever [consider] informing these task forces nor would my bosses... want the media involved," she explained. Her primary concern being that media professionals lack the authority and tools required for effective investigative work.
 
The duo raised valid concerns about the implications such liberties in evidence handling and media involvement could have on the outcome of cases. As Brueski pointed out, mishandling investigations, especially outside of a jurisdiction, can jeopardize the case's standing in court. Coffindaffer shared this sentiment, stating, "from the media standpoint, there's absolutely no purpose, zero purpose."
 
A poignant moment in the conversation emerged when Coffindaffer emphasized the personal nature of these investigations for law enforcement professionals. She painted a vivid picture of investigators who pour their heart and soul into their cases, seeking justice and truth, often setting aside the glamour of media limelight.
 
In conclusion, the "Hidden Killers" podcast shed light on the complexities surrounding high-profile criminal investigations. While media attention can indeed propel investigations forward, there's a thin line between informative reporting and turning investigations into a spectacle. The core question that emerged was: In our quest for justice, are we sometimes blurring the boundaries of ethics and sensationalism?
So, as one continues to ponder the discussions of the episode, the lingering question remains: Are our current investigative methods prioritizing spectacle over substance?
Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj
Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com