This was one of your descriptions of the suspect:
Cortez said the man was about 5 feet 10 inches to maybe 6 feet tall, in his early 20s, and medium build.
Is
that sufficient? No. It's too vague to be very useful to readers.
Either that, or I'd be looking very carefully at some of you guys. And
backing away verrry slooooowly.
Think about it. How
many people in the world fit that description? It's so many that you are
not narrowing down suspect possibilities in the mind of the public; you
actually are making a whole lot of innocent people look guilty!
It's best to use suspect descriptions when you are so specific that it can narrow down the suspect pool, like here:
The
robber was between 5 foot 10 inches and 6 feet tall, in his early 20s,
medium build, wearing a floral scarf over his face, blue jeans, a blue
plaid button-up shirt and blue tennis shoes, and may have had an
accomplice, according to Cortez.
This ID is far
more useful. Besides telling readers the killer doesn't know how to dress, it's a
distinctive description that -- combined with the time and place --
helps readers zero in on a single suspect, or a limited suspect pool.
No comments:
Post a Comment