Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 15:01:44 -0700 (PDT)
From: "keith sargent"
Subject: Re: Apology accepted.
To: "Larry Hanna"

> I, quite frankly, find my responding a waste of my time.

I often feel the same way when I write you, because you ignore almost all the questions I ask. (You won't even tell me why you won't answer them --I'm not singling you out, since I get the same lack of response from Sgt. Thompson, and Lt. Roberts). However, we are a bit alike in that we feel the need to get something off our chests, and so we feel better after writing.

In fact, the last letter you wrote was one of the best I've ever received from you. You were specific about everything you'd done in looking for clues in the backyard. You've never told me that before. (You answered every one of the questions I had about the backyard search, except for the occupants of the apartment overlooking my mother's yard, so you can guess the conclusion I've drawn about that part of your investigation). You told me things I didn't know. For example, you did talk to the next door neighbor, but he didn't tell you about the attempted break-in. (That shocks me!) And I didn't know about the suspects that had broken into the cars, that you tracked down. Thank you!

> I know we will never be able to meet your expectations regarding the
> investigation we continue to conduct into your mother's death...

Actually, your letter made me feel better about what you've done. It's the first time you've given me so much information. And certainly, if you find the guilty party, and he, she, or they is/are convicted, I would be satisfied. Short of that, you're probably correct. But isn't that true for all murder victim's families? If the guilty person is never caught or convicted, they'll always think you could have done more.

However, the more I know you've done, the more satisfied I feel. But if you don't tell me you've done something, or ignore my questions about it, I assume you haven't done it, and that ticks me off. Are you satisfied if someone doesn't answer your questions?

> We canvassed the neighborhood as we told you;...Believe us or believe
> the neighbors, the choice is yours.

It's not a question of belief. I simply don't know what you mean by "canvassed the neighborhood." Since you won't tell me how you define it, how Metro defines it, or how many people you've talked to, it's clear that you don't want to talk about it. Either you are embarrassed and have something to hide because you talked to so few people, or Metro has a policy of not revealing that information, because if it was known, it would embarrass Metro, or lead to lawsuits in cases where different standards of "canvass the neighborhood" were used.

I didn't expect anyone would confess to you or Det. Rogers. Instead, my desire was for everyone on Isabelle and Sunrise to have a person-to-person contact with a Metro officer so that they would know that a murder had been committed, that there was a reward, and the police were investigating.

Flyers don't reach everyone and are often thrown out with other "junk mail," but person-to-person contacts are more memorable and can't be ignored. By not trying to contact 100% of the residents on Sunrise and Isabelle, I feel Metro failed it's responsibilities, and you lost your best chance of finding suspects. The flyer should have been the follow-up not, not the method of choice.

> And no, we never assumed it was someone she knew.

I believe you, Sgt. Thompson, and Lt. Roberts, all told me that it was probably someone she knew because there was no sign of forced entry. And since you refused to tell me how many people you talked to (and I found out you'd talked to less than 1/2 of the people on Isabelle, according to my non-random survey), the conclusion I've drawn is that you haven't worked very hard at investigating apartment residents, and were relying on a hopeful match of fingerprints and DNA to do the work for you. As you know, there's a lot more crime on the South side of Isabelle than the North side.

> your mother did not know anyone except Mr. McDaniel. We could not
> identify any other "friends."

That's correct, and that was one of the reasons I couldn't understand why she was so reluctant to move closer to her only son and granddaughter.

> we need to get a better copy of your prints ... and we need a sample
> of your DNA.

I intend to return to Las Vegas sometime next year to publicize my mother's murder and hold a block party memorial. I'm happy to help your investigation in any way I can. But since it appears the investigation has ended, I'm not sure how that would help you. If you need a clear copy of my prints, have you tried the federal government? They took my prints for a security clearance.

Thank you for all your hard work and your thorough investigation,

Keith Sargent